Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Akta Kehakiman 1964 - Ringkasan dan Analisis
Seksyen 28 Akta Kehakiman 1964 - Menjelaskan hal berkaitan hak rayuan terhadap keputusan mahkamah, khususnya menyatakan bahawa perayu tidak boleh memfailkan rayuan terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen jika peruntukan di bawah s 28(1)(c) digunakan. Mahkamah Rayuan berpendapat bahawa tafsiran terhadap s 28 adalah tegas dan tidak boleh dipinda, dan peruntukan ini menghalang rayuan tertentu
LIM KIM CHIN LWN. RAUB DURIAN MANSION SDN BHD - Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Temerloh
;LIM KIM CHIN LWN. RAUB DURIAN MANSION SDN BHD - Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Temerloh
.Seksyen 3 dan 50 Akta Kehakiman 1964 - Seksyen 3 memperuntukkan bidang kuasa mahkamah dalam kes rayuan dan bantahan awal, termasuk definisi keputusan yang layak dirayu. Seksyen 50 berkaitan dengan bidang kuasa mahkamah dalam mendengar dan memutuskan rayuan jenayah, menegaskan bahawa hanya keputusan muktamad yang boleh dirayu. Mahkamah menegaskan bahawa keputusan yang tidak mempunyai kesan muktamad tidak memenuhi syarat untuk rayuan
PENDAKWA RAYA LWN. MOHD RAZIN RAZALI & SATU LAGI DAN LAIN-LAIN RAYUAN - Mahkamah Rayuan Putrajaya
;PENDAKWA RAYA LWN. MOHD RAZIN RAZALI & SATU LAGI DAN LAIN-LAIN RAYUAN - Mahkamah Rayuan Putrajaya
;PENDAKWA RAYA LWN. ZAHAR GERALD MEJOH - Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Ipoh
.Kepentingan Tafsiran Keputusan - Mahkamah menegaskan bahawa hanya keputusan yang mempunyai kesan muktamad dan berpengaruh secara hukum layak untuk dirayu, dan ini berkait rapat dengan definisi keputusan di bawah s 3 Akta Kehakiman 1964. Contohnya, keputusan mahkamah yang tidak muktamad atau bersifat interim tidak memenuhi kriteria ini
PENDAKWA RAYA LWN. ZAHAR GERALD MEJOH - Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Ipoh
.Peruntukan Berkaitan Kuasa Mahkamah dan Tugas Kehakiman - Seksyen 14 Akta 1964 memberi perlindungan kepada pegawai kehakiman daripada tindakan sivil berkaitan tugas mereka. Seksyen 4(2) dan peruntukan berkaitan forum of action menunjukkan bahawa mahkamah mempunyai bidang kuasa tertentu dalam kes-kes tertentu, termasuk berkaitan tindakan kehakiman dan bantahan awal
WONG CHEE WEI LWN. ASP ALI AHMAD & YANG LAIN - Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Johor Bahru
;TOP FOREST WOOD SDN BHD LWN. VIMIX CONCRETE SDN BHD - Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Klang
.Permohonan Semakan Kehakiman dan Tempoh Masa - Permohonan semakan kehakiman mesti difailkan dalam tempoh tiga bulan selepas keputusan, dan kelewatan melebihi tempoh ini menyebabkan permohonan ditolak. Mahkamah menegaskan bahawa permohonan yang difailkan lewat dan tidak mempunyai merit harus ditolak
THE KAMPONG KUANTAN RUBBER COMPANY BERHAD LWN. PEGAWAI KEWANGAN NEGERI KELANTAN & SATU LAGI - Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Kota Bharu
.Analisis dan Kesimpulan:
Akta Kehakiman 1964 secara tegas mengatur bidang kuasa mahkamah, termasuk syarat-syarat untuk memfailkan rayuan dan permohonan semakan kehakiman. Seksyen 28 menegaskan halangan tertentu terhadap rayuan berkaitan keputusan mahkamah sesyen, manakala definisi keputusan di bawah s 3 adalah kritikal dalam menentukan kelayakan rayuan. Mahkamah menekankan bahawa hanya keputusan muktamad dan berpengaruh secara hukum yang boleh dirayu, dan permohonan semakan mesti difailkan dalam tempoh masa yang ditetapkan. Seksyen 14 pula melindungi pegawai kehakiman daripada tindakan sivil berkaitan tugas mereka. Kes-kes yang dirujuk menunjukkan penegasan prinsip bahawa bidang kuasa mahkamah dan prosedur rayuan serta semakan kehakiman harus dipatuhi dengan ketat, dan sebarang kelewatan atau permohonan tanpa merit harus ditolak.
Referensi utama:- Seksyen 28, 3, 50, dan 14 Akta Kehakiman 1964- Kes berkaitan tafsiran keputusan dan bidang kuasa mahkamah
In the complex landscape of Malaysian law, the (), often referred to simply as Akta Kehakiman 1964, stands as a cornerstone. This legislation primarily governs the jurisdiction, powers, and immunities of courts and judicial officers across Malaysia. But what exactly does Akta Kehakiman 1964 entail? For litigants, lawyers, and anyone navigating the court system, understanding this Act is crucial. It outlines protections for judges, limits on appeals, , and the issuance of , ensuring judicial independence while upholding the .
This blog post breaks down the Act's key provisions, drawing from judicial interpretations and statutory details. Note that this is general information and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
The establishes the framework for judicial functions in Malaysia. It covers the scope of court liability, procedures for appeals, and mechanisms. Typically, it protects judicial officers from civil suits for acts performed in good faith within their jurisdiction
.
Key objectives include:- Safeguarding judicial independence.- Defining appellate and revisional jurisdictions.- Empowering courts to issue like , , , , and
.
Recent amendments and case law have refined these powers, emphasizing procedural correctness and constitutional alignment
.
One of the Act's foundational elements is . Section 14 provides that judicial officers, including magistrates, are immune from civil suits for acts done in the discharge of judicial duties, provided they act in good faith and within jurisdiction
. This extends to higher courts under Sections 2 and 14, aiming to shield judges from harassment and preserve independence.
For instance, interpretations confirm: judicial officers, including magistrates, are protected from civil suits for acts done in good faith during the discharge of their judicial functions
. Other provisions, like Section 14, reinforce duties related to judicial actions and preliminary objections
TOP FOREST WOOD SDN BHD LWN. VIMIX CONCRETE SDN BHD - Klang
.However, this immunity is not absolute—it requires good faith and jurisdictional compliance
.
The Act delineates the 's appellate role over subordinate courts in civil matters, with monetary thresholds. Appeals may not lie from decisions involving RM10,000 or less, except on questions of law
.
Section 28 clarifies appeal rights against decisions, stating that no appeal lies if provisions under s 28(1)(c) apply. Courts have ruled this interpretation is strict and unchangeable
LIM KIM CHIN LWN. RAUB DURIAN MANSION SDN BHD - Temerloh
LIM KIM CHIN LWN. RAUB DURIAN MANSION SDN BHD - Temerloh
.Sections 3 and 50 further define appealable decisions as final ones with binding legal effect. Interim or non-final rulings typically do not qualify
PENDAKWA RAYA LWN. MOHD RAZIN RAZALI & SATU LAGI DAN LAIN-LAIN RAYUAN - Putrajaya
PENDAKWA RAYA LWN. MOHD RAZIN RAZALI & SATU LAGI DAN LAIN-LAIN RAYUAN - Putrajaya
PENDAKWA RAYA LWN. ZAHAR GERALD MEJOH - Ipoh
. As noted: only decisions that have a final effect and legally influential qualify for appeal, closely tied to the definition under s 3PENDAKWA RAYA LWN. ZAHAR GERALD MEJOH - Ipoh
.Beyond appeals, the holds under Sections 31 and 60. Section 60 allows varying trial court decisions or making other just orders, including powers the lower court possessed
. This extraordinary jurisdiction intervenes where justice demands, especially in criminal matters
.
Revisions correct lower court errors in the interest of justice, but are exercised cautiously to respect lower court discretion
. Section 31 relates to these
.
The Act's Schedule empowers the to issue for rights enforcement or administrative oversight
. These include:- : For unlawful detention.- : Compelling public duties.- : Preventing excesses.- : Challenging office holders.- : Quashing unlawful decisions.
These are vital for and fundamental liberties
.
applications must generally be filed within three months of the decision. Delays beyond this typically lead to dismissal, especially without merit
THE KAMPONG KUANTAN RUBBER COMPANY BERHAD LWN. PEGAWAI KEWANGAN NEGERI KELANTAN & SATU LAGI - Kota Bharu
. Courts stress: applications filed late and without merit should be rejectedTHE KAMPONG KUANTAN RUBBER COMPANY BERHAD LWN. PEGAWAI KEWANGAN NEGERI KELANTAN & SATU LAGI - Kota Bharu
.Section 4(2) addresses court jurisdiction in certain actions, including forums
TOP FOREST WOOD SDN BHD LWN. VIMIX CONCRETE SDN BHD - Klang
.Powers under the Act have limits:- Immunity conditional on good faith
.- Appeals barred by thresholds or case types
.- Revisions avoid undue interference.
Amendments have restricted some appeal rights, facing constitutional scrutiny for potential effects
. Judicial decisions emphasize procedural adherence
.
To navigate this Act effectively:- Understand immunity scopes to avoid futile suits.- Verify appeal eligibility, focusing on final decisions under s 3 and s 50.- File judicial reviews promptly within timelines.- Adhere to s 28 restrictions on appeals.- Seek writs only for qualifying constitutional issues.
Parties should respect statutory requirements to prevent pitfalls.
The provides a robust framework for Malaysia's judiciary, balancing powers with protections. It ensures accountability through appeals and revisions while shielding officers via immunity. Core sections like 14 (immunity), 28 (appeal limits), 3/50 (final decisions), 60 (revisions), and the Schedule (writs) are pivotal
LIM KIM CHIN LWN. RAUB DURIAN MANSION SDN BHD - Temerloh
PENDAKWA RAYA LWN. MOHD RAZIN RAZALI & SATU LAGI DAN LAIN-LAIN RAYUAN - Putrajaya
.
In summary, this Act upholds judicial integrity and access to justice. Stay informed on interpretations, as case law evolves. For personalized guidance, consult a legal expert.
: under s 14.
: limits.
: .
: s 31.
: s 60 extraordinary jurisdiction.
LIM KIM CHIN LWN. RAUB DURIAN MANSION SDN BHD - Temerloh
LIM KIM CHIN LWN. RAUB DURIAN MANSION SDN BHD - Temerloh
: s 28 appeal bars.PENDAKWA RAYA LWN. MOHD RAZIN RAZALI & SATU LAGI DAN LAIN-LAIN RAYUAN - Putrajaya
PENDAKWA RAYA LWN. MOHD RAZIN RAZALI & SATU LAGI DAN LAIN-LAIN RAYUAN - Putrajaya
PENDAKWA RAYA LWN. ZAHAR GERALD MEJOH - Ipoh
: Final decisions for appeals.THE KAMPONG KUANTAN RUBBER COMPANY BERHAD LWN. PEGAWAI KEWANGAN NEGERI KELANTAN & SATU LAGI - Kota Bharu
: timelines.
Peguam Responden merujuk kepada s 28 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 yang memperuntukkan seperti yang berikut: [2024] 4 CLJ 353 ketika meneliti pandangan berkenaan dengan pemakaian s 68(1)(f) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 yang peruntukannya hampir sama dengan s 28(1)(c) Akta yang sama dan diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan seperti yang berikut: "[36] In our ... Mahkamah ber....
Peguam Responden merujuk kepada s 28 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 yang memperuntukkan seperti yang berikut: [2024] 4 CLJ 353 ketika meneliti pandangan berkenaan dengan pemakaian s 68(1)(f) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 yang peruntukannya hampir sama dengan s 28(1)(c) Akta yang sama dan diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan seperti yang berikut: " ... Mahkamah berpendapat ti....
Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 yang dibaca bersama s 3 Akta yang sama. ... R1 akan bergantung kepada peruntukkan di bawah s 3 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 dan s 50 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 bagi tujuan bantahan awal ini." ... R3, R4 dan R5 akan bergantung kepada peruntukkan di bawah s 3 Akta Mahkamah Ke....
Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 yang dibaca bersama s 3 Akta yang sama. ... R1 akan bergantung kepada peruntukkan di bawah s 3 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 dan s 50 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 bagi tujuan bantahan awal ini." ... R3, R4 dan R5 akan bergantung kepada peruntukkan di bawah s 3 Akta Mahkamah Ke....
PP (supra), tersebut secara khusus meneliti maksud "keputusan" di bawah s 3 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 dalam konteks rayuan. Mahkamah menegaskan bahawa hanya keputusan yang mempunyai kesan muktamad layak untuk dirayu. ... Kompetensi Rayuan [7] Responden berhujah bahawa rayuan ini tidak kompeten kerana keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen untuk memberikan jaminan adalah bukan "keputusan" seperti yang ditakrifkan di bawah s 3 Akta M....
s 3 Akta Kehakiman Mahkamah 1964 [Akta 91] seperti yang diperuntukkan dalam kes s 2 Akta Kehakiman Mahkamah 1964 [Akta A1661] bagi pindaan s 28 Akta Kehakiman Mahkamah 1964 [Akta 91] yang memperuntukkan seperti di bawah: "(1) No appeal shall lie to the High Court in any of the foll....
s 13 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964, Kod Etika Hakim 2009, a href="../ElawLegislationDisplay.aspx?
Mahkamah ini berpendapat s 14 Akta 1964 ia terpakai untuk Hakim sebagaimana takrifan di bawah s 2 Akta 1964 termasuk mana-mana orang yang menjalankan tugas kehakiman di Mahkamah Tinggi, Mahkamah Rayuan atau Mahkamah Persekutuan. ... [35] PP yang terpelajar turut membangkitkan isu Responden Kedua iaitu Majistret yang dijadikan pihak-pihak bercanggah dengan peruntukan s 14 Akta Mahkamah #....
[11] Isu ketiga iaitu JC tidak seharus tidak boleh memilih "forum of action" dan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen merujuk kepada perenggan 11 Jadual kepada Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964. ... [8] Mahkamah Tinggi dalam memberikan penghakiman kepada JC adalah menjalankan bidang kuasa rayuannya selaras dengan s 28 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 dan bukan menjalankan bidang kuasa asal atas tuntutan sivil....
k 2) (1) Suatu permohonan bagi apa-apa relief yang dinyatakan dalam perenggan 1 Jadual kepada Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964(selain permohonan bagi perintah habeas corpus) hendaklah dalam Borang 109. ... [Penekanan Ditambah] [15] Perenggan 1 kepada Jadual dalam Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 memperuntukkan tentang relief-relief yang boleh dipohon dalam permohonan semakan kehakiman....
3 and 5 and Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned AGP waives for respondents no. Ms. Akta Jadeja, learned advocate waives for respondents no. 3 and 5 and Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned AGP waives for respondents no. Ms. Akta Jadeja, learned advocate waives for respondents no.
(AKTA JAIN B) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle4(1)(2), Ahmedabad. 5. Mr. B.S. Soparkar, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicant, submitted that the impugned order is not tenable in law. According to the learned counsel, Section 179 of the Act, 1961, is with respect to the liability of the Directors of the private company in liquidation. 4. The aforesaid order under Section 179 of the Act, 1961 is the outcome of the show-cause notice dated 02.11.2017 (....
4. The aforesaid order under Section 179 of the Act, 1961 is the outcome of the show-cause notice dated 02.11.2017 (Annexure-A to this writ-application). (AKTA JAIN B) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle4-(1)(2), Ahmedabad. [AKTA JAIN B] Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Cirlce – 4(1)(2), Ahmedabad.” Name & address of the debtor and and also location of fixed assets owned by you. 8. Considering the above facts, Smt. Sonal Nimish Patel and Smt. Ashita....
2. The complainant has alleged that he had purchased Flat NO.D-09, SF, 2nd Floor, Plot No.D-09 in RPS Palms, Independent Floors Project at RPS City, Sector-88, Faridabad, Haryana from the original allottee Ms. Akta Ahuja wife of Shri Rajesh Ahuja. The complainant had paid Rs.45,92,973/- to the OP towards the flat in question till 26.11.2016. After execution of sale deed, complainant stepped into the shoes of Ms. Akta Ahuja. The original buyer’s Agreement was executed on 9.6.2....
Neither the Workers' Kamgar Akta Union, nor the EPFO, nor any aggrieved person had filed an appeal against the said order. This clearly shows the malafide intention of EPFO as well as the CBI because if the EPFO had come to the conclusion that the order under Section 7A was not proper, it would have filed an appeal. Apart from that, as rightly pointed out by Shri Mahesh Jethmalani, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that the statutory provisions ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
