SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2010 MarsdenLR 517

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
ARUNAMARI PLANTATIONS SDN BHD & ORS – Appellant
Versus
LEMBAGA MINYAK SAWIT MALAYSIA & ORS – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:T Sudhar,Jeremy Lee ,Respondent Advocate: Abu Bakar Jais

Table of Content
1. plaintiff's challenge to the cess order 2007. (Para 2 , 3)
2. issues surrounding the constitutionality of the cess order. (Para 4)
3. defendants' arguments against the challenge. (Para 5)
4. court's interpretation of statutory provisions. (Para 6 , 8 , 14)
5. discussion on the legality of exemptions under the cess order. (Para 9 , 12)
6. possibility of a refund if cess collection deemed unconstitutional. (Para 15 , 16)
Prasad Sandosham Abraham JC:

[1] Enclosure 1 was heard on 4 February 2010 and continued on 1 March 2010, and after hearing extensive and interesting arguments on the points of law canvassed by respective counsel, I reserved my decision to 31 March 2010 wherein I granted an order in terms of prayers (h) only of encl 1, and I append below my reasons for so doing.

[2] From a gleaning of the various prayers of encl 1, it can be observed, that the plaintiff has mounted an attack on the Malaysian Palm Oil Board Act 1998 and the regulations made there under (the said Act) on the grounds it violates several provisions of the Federal Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional and/or ultra vires and are praying for certain provisions of the said Act and orders m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top