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

2011 MarsdenLR 681

COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
KIRBA DAISY JOHN DAS V.MAHINDER SINGH BACHITTAR SINGH


Table of Content
1. factual background of defamation suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. case management and court proceedings chronology. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. defendant's application for retrial and appeal. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. judgment and procedural rules regarding absence. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)

[1] The appellant (plaintiff) had filed a defamation suit against the respondent (defendant) on 2 January 2004 at the Shah Alam High Court for libel contained in an e-mail dated 27 September 2003. On 17 February 2004 the defendant's solicitors M/s Rajadevan & Associates filed the defendant's Statement of Defence.

[2] On 7 December 2005, M/s Rajadevan & Associates discharged themselves from representing the defendant. There was an interlocutory application by the plaintiff to strike out the defence. It was fixed for hearing before the High Court Judge (HCJ) (Alizatul Khair J) on 7 April 2006.

[3] On 7 April 2006, the defendant was present in Court. Counsel for defendant was not present. Counsel for plaintiff who was present informed the HCJ that the plaintiff 's solicitors have not been served with the fair copy of the order of discharge by the defendant's solicitors. O 64 r 5(1) Rules of the

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