SIVAKUMAR VARATHARAJU NAIDU vs GANESAN RETANAM

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 MarsdenLR 2973

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SIVAKUMAR VARATHARAJU NAIDU – Appellant
Versus
GANESAN RETANAM – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Chan Kok Keong,Cheong Sek Kwan ,Respondent Advocate: Firoz Hussein,Mohd Hafarizam Harun,Cheng Mai,Hj Badrul Hishak Abdul Wahab

Table of Content
1. initial filing and application details (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. plaintiff's claims for wrongful actions (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. high court's rationale for striking out (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. scope of court's jurisdiction over assembly proceedings (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. immunity of assembly resolutions (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
6. judicial precedents on assembly immunities (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
7. privileges of assembly members (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
8. contentions regarding defendant's immunity (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59)
9. distinctions in immunity applications (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63)
10. debate over the nature of immunities (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68)
11. final conclusions and dismissal of the appeal (Para 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92)

Abdul Malik Ishak JCA:

Introduction

[1] The parties will be referred to like what they were referred to at the High Court. Thus, Sivakumar a/l Varatharaju Naidu will be referred to as the plaintiff. While Ganesan a/l Retanam will be referred to as the defendant.

[2] On 15 May 2009, the plaintiff filed his writ of summons and his statement

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 MarsdenLR 2973

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYASIVAKUMAR VARATHARAJU NAIDU – AppellantVersusGANESAN RETANAM – Respondent

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SIVAKUMAR VARATHARAJU NAIDU – Appellant
Versus
GANESAN RETANAM – Respondent