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

2017 MarsdenLR 2539

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
KALIAMMAH MUTHU – Appellant
Versus
VALEE KARUPPEN – Respondent


Table of Content
1. introduction of the appeal context. (Para 1)

[1] The appeal before us was against the decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner in the Pulau Pinang High Court given on 9 September 2016 allowing the plaintiff's claim against the 2nd defendant. We had, after perusing the records of appeal as well as considering the written and oral submissions of learned counsel unanimously allowed the appeal with no order as to costs. We set aside the High Court and ordered that the deposit to be refunded to the appellant. We now give our reasons for the decision.

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