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

2012 MarsdenLR 1246

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
TAN SRI G DARSHAN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
TETUAN AZAM LIM & PANG – Respondent


Table of Content
1. dismissal of the appellant's motion (Para 1 , 1)
2. errors claimed by the appellant in trial court decision (Para 2 , 3)
3. sequence of appeals to be considered (Para 4 , 5)
4. grounds for setting aside the ex parte order (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
5. legal safeguards in committal proceedings (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
6. misleading the court on the leave for committal (Para 16 , 17)

[1] The appellant Tan Sri Darshan Singh appealed to this court against the decision of the High court on 10 February 2012 where that court:

(a) Dismissed the appellant's Notice of Motion under O 52 r 3(1) of the Rules of the High court 1980 at encl 70 to commit the respondent/ garnishee (hereinafter the garnishee) for contempt of court; and

(b) Allowed the garnishee's application at encl 73 to set aside the ex parte order at encl 69 pursuant to O 52 r 2(2) made on 23 November 2011 granting leave to commence committal proceedings.

The Memorandum Of Appeal

[2] In his Memorandum of Appeal, the appellant asserted that the learned judge erred in law and in fact as follows:

(a) In setting aside encl 69 which is the ex parte application of the appellant for leave to commit the respondent.

(b) In ho

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