TAMIE CHAN SUET YI vs PAVAN RAMESH KHEMANI & ANOR

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 MarsdenLR 3076

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
TAMIE CHAN SUET YI – Appellant
Versus
PAVAN RAMESH KHEMANI & ANOR – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Raspreet Kaur Sidhu,Simranjeet Kaur Sidhu ,Respondent Advocate: K Jeyaraj

Table of Content
1. preliminary objections for appeal defects addressed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. factual background of appeal and counterclaims. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. parties’ contentions regarding service of documents. (Para 11 , 12)
4. analysis of valid service requirements under court rules. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. lack of mutual agreement on email service. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 28)
6. procedural non-compliance consequences discussed. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)
7. failure to correct procedural defects emphasized. (Para 32 , 34)
8. strike out appeal due to service non-compliance. (Para 33 , 35)

Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh J:

Introduction

[1] In this judgment, the parties are referred to as they were before the trial court. This was an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Magistrate in dismissing her claim.

[2] The defendants raised a preliminary objection to strike out the appeal. The defendants argued that the plaintiff had failed to serve a physical copy of the record of appeal on the defendants within the prescribed time frame stipulated under O 55 r 4(8) of the Rules of court 2012. The defendants posited that this procedural non-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 MarsdenLR 3076

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPURTAMIE CHAN SUET YI – AppellantVersusPAVAN RAMESH KHEMANI & ANOR – Respondent

Cases Referred (2)

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
TAMIE CHAN SUET YI – Appellant
Versus
PAVAN RAMESH KHEMANI & ANOR – Respondent