Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
These cases support challenging reassessment notices u/s 148 where orders lack specific reasoning, rely on generic/cut-paste content, or ignore assessee objections—mirroring user's submission requesting reasons/sanction. Primary precedents: ["M/S JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD Vs ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS - Delhi"] ["Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Delhi"] ["Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd. VS Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax - Delhi"] (near-identical rulings quashing proceedings); extendable via ["Dolby International Ab VS Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs - Delhi"] ["GlobeOp Financial Services (India) Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Mumbai - Bombay"] for broader no application of mind principle. No other sources yield directly supportive cases.
In legal proceedings, especially in tribunals, judicial reviews, and company liquidations, applicants often seek precedents to bolster their submissions. A common query from litigants is: I will paste the crucial parts of my written submission below. Please find me cases in support of my application. This reflects the need for robust case law to demonstrate procedural rights, justify extensions, defend liquidator actions, or challenge erroneous decisions. This post explores key Malaysian precedents that support such applications, emphasizing courts' willingness to uphold fairness, grant relief where justified, and intervene on clear errors. While these insights draw from established cases, they are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation.
Malaysian courts and tribunals consistently affirm procedural entitlements, judicial discretion for extensions, liquidators' autonomy, and appellate oversight. These principles provide a solid foundation for applications showing merit, proper procedure, or absence of bad faith. For instance:
These cases illustrate courts' balanced approach, intervening only on substantial grounds.
Tribunal rules ensure parties receive full hearings, making them ideal for applications to adduce evidence or make submissions. Typically, At the hearing before the Tribunal, the claimant shall be entitled to adduce evidence, call any witness or produce any document, record or thing in support of his case. (2) After the claimant has presented his case, the respondent shall present his case and may adduce evidence... OXBRIDGE HEIGHT SDN BHD vs TEOW LEONG HONG - 2014 MarsdenLR 1791OXBRIDGE HEIGHT SDN BHD vs HAMIDI AHMAD & ANOR - 2013 MarsdenLR 2446HARTAPLUS REALTY SDN BHD vs SALBIAH LAUTO - 2014 MarsdenLR 2233OXBRIDGE HEIGHT SDN BHD vs ER KICK TIONG & ANOR - 2014 MarsdenLR 766HARTAPLUS REALTY SDN BHD vs BALA KRISHNAN & ANOR - 2014 MarsdenLR 693OXBRIDGE HEIGHT SDN BHD vs LOW FUI THONG - 2013 MarsdenLR 885. The claimant retains the last word: a brief oral or written submission may be made by the respondent and thereafter by the claimant. MADIN AL-SYARIF TRAVEL SDN BHD & ANOR vs TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PENGGUNA MALAYSIA KEMENTERIAN PERDAGANGAN.... - 2020 MarsdenLR 2184.
Moreover, The President may at any time assist the parties in conducting their cases, promoting fairness OXBRIDGE HEIGHT SDN BHD vs TEOW LEONG HONG - 2014 MarsdenLR 1791. Every party has the right to attend and be heard MADIN AL-SYARIF TRAVEL SDN BHD & ANOR vs TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PENGGUNA MALAYSIA KEMENTERIAN PERDAGANGAN.... - 2020 MarsdenLR 2184. These entitlements directly support applications for procedural accommodations.
In parallel contexts, such as Indian Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRT), procedural lapses like improper summons service (e.g., pasting on gates without court orders) highlight the need for strict adherence, reinforcing the value of cited Malaysian rules ANIL SINGLA vs Canara Bank - 2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 384.
Courts exercise discretion for time extensions in judicial reviews, filed within 40 days but extendable with justification. In one appeal, The Court determined the necessity of strict adherence to application time frames and ultimately, by a majority, decided to allow the appeal with stipulated costs as the delay was justifiably explained. SERUAN GEMILANG MAKMUR SDN BHD vs PEGAWAI KEWANGAN NEGERI PAHANG - 2016 MarsdenLR 542. This prioritizes substantive justice, supporting applications with excusable delays or rights violations.
Contrastingly, unexplained delays bar relief, as seen in consumer disputes where Correspondences, representations and legal notice do not extend time of limitation and cases were dismissed as time-barred Niloba Ghanshyam Naik VS Lodha Pranik Developers Pvt. Ltd.Niloba Ghanshyam Naik VS Lodha Pranik Developers Pvt. Ltd.. Policy decisions may be non-justiciable MYS000000104786, underscoring the need for strong grounds.
In liquidations, liquidators enjoy broad discretion absent misconduct. Appeals were allowed, restoring the lower court's decision to dismiss the majority contributories' Leave Application and directing liquidators to complete the sale with Can-One. Allegations against liquidators were found to have no merit... OOI WOON CHEE & ANOR vs SEE TEOW CHUAN & ORS & OTHER APPEALS - 2012 MarsdenLR 1339. Courts affirm: Liquidators must exercise discretion in accepting bids, conflict of interest must show actual impairment to independence. No conflict arises from mere affiliations OOI WOON CHEE & ANOR vs SEE TEOW CHUAN & ORS & OTHER APPEALS - 2012 MarsdenLR 1339.
This bolsters applications to approve sales or repel baseless challenges, benefiting all stakeholders via highest bids.
Appeals succeed against improper veil-lifting: The court held that the learned High Court Judge erred in allowing the respondent’s application for accounts, ruling that lifting the corporate veil without proper justification was erroneous... The corporate veil cannot be lifted without evidence of fraud or inequitable conduct, and a fiduciary relationship must be explicitly pleaded and established in contractual disputes. ALCATEL-LUCENT (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD vs SOLID INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER APPEAL - 2011 MarsdenLR 2194.
Appellate interference requires clear error: The standard for appellate interference requires substantial justification; mere differences in judgment do not suffice... 'For the reasons above stated we would allow the plaintiff's appeal with costs.' CONLAY CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD vs PEREMBUN (M) SDN BHD - 2013 MarsdenLR 1165. These support reversing unsubstantiated rulings or amending pleadings.
Relatedly, in criminal appeals, unreliable eyewitness evidence led to acquittals, emphasizing proof burdens: The crucial question... is whether the evidence of the two eye-witnesses... inspires confidence or not, with convictions overturned due to contradictions Ashraf Hussain Shah VS State of MaharashtraAshraf Hussain Shah VS State of Maharashtra - 1996 Supreme(Bom) 180.
Applications fail without special circumstances, such as meritless stays JAGDIS SINGH BANTA SINGH vs OUTLET RANK (M) SDN BHD - 2013 MarsdenLR 2473, unexplained delays SERUAN GEMILANG MAKMUR SDN BHD vs PEGAWAI KEWANGAN NEGERI PAHANG - 2016 MarsdenLR 542, or no appellate error in damages VOO NYUK FAH & ANOR vs LAM YAT KHEONG & ANOR - 2012 MarsdenLR 1139. Mere disagreement or policy discretion does not suffice MYS000000104786. In insurance claims, exclusions applied strictly despite disputes over materials like anthracite paste, setting aside lower awards New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager VS Eastern Electro Chemical Industries.
Tailor quotes to your grounds, stressing claimant priority and judicial support.
Malaysian law favors procedural fairness and meritorious claims, with precedents readily supporting tribunal evidence rights, justified extensions, liquidator discretion, and appellate corrections. However, success hinges on demonstrated justification, not speculation. While these cases offer general guidance, outcomes vary—always seek professional advice. For more on procedural strategies, explore our related posts on appeals and compliance.
References1. MADIN AL-SYARIF TRAVEL SDN BHD & ANOR vs TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PENGGUNA MALAYSIA KEMENTERIAN PERDAGANGAN.... - 2020 MarsdenLR 2184: Hearing entitlements.2. OXBRIDGE HEIGHT SDN BHD vs TEOW LEONG HONG - 2014 MarsdenLR 1791: Claimant sequence and assistance.3. SERUAN GEMILANG MAKMUR SDN BHD vs PEGAWAI KEWANGAN NEGERI PAHANG - 2016 MarsdenLR 542: Review extensions.4. OOI WOON CHEE & ANOR vs SEE TEOW CHUAN & ORS & OTHER APPEALS - 2012 MarsdenLR 1339: Liquidator discretion.5. ALCATEL-LUCENT (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD vs SOLID INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER APPEAL - 2011 MarsdenLR 2194: Veil-lifting appeals.6. CONLAY CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD vs PEREMBUN (M) SDN BHD - 2013 MarsdenLR 1165: Appellate standards.
#MalaysiaLaw, #TribunalCases, #JudicialReview
On going through the order dated 28.01.2013 we find that the same has been passed without any application of mind. To say the least, it is a cut-and-paste job. This is apparent from the fact that the paragraph 3 is merely a repetition of the provisions of section 147 and 148 of the said Act. ... However, we find that the words mentioned therein could apply to any case. It appears to be a generic paragraph which is perhaps applied by the respondent to several such cases. ... The assessee filed an objecti....
The assessee filed an objection against the issuance of notice under section 148 vide written submission." ... On going through the order dated 28.01.2013 we find that the same has been passed without any application of mind. To say the least, it is a cut-and-paste job. This is apparent from the fact that the paragraph 3 is merely a repetition of the provisions of section 147 and 148 of the said Act. ... However, we find that the words mentioned therein could apply to any case. It appe....
The assessee filed an objection against the issuance of notice under section 148 vide written submission.” ... On going through the order dated 28.01.2013 we find that the same has been passed without any application of mind. To say the least, it is a cut-and-paste job. This is apparent from the fact that the paragraph 3 is merely a repetition of the provisions of section 147 and 148 of the said Act. ... However, we find that the words mentioned therein could apply to any case. It appe....
But still I will come at your doorstep to deliver the DRT Samman and t will paste it at your gate. i. Now please provide me with a copy of any such order in which it is written that if we do not take summons from Mr. ... Also please provide me copy of any such "rule/circular of Bank or DRT" in which it is written that the concerned branch manager can paste the DRT summons on the gate of the opposing party without any order for pasting of Summan from the DRT Court, even if the branch ma....
of similar nature packing material parts not made of metal(except insulating material and non-metallic lining or coating of metal parts.” ... As regards the second point, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that there was difference in the repudiation letter relating to anthracite paste could not be substantiated. It may be mentioned that there are two letters on the record. ... ... You are requested to please return as the enclosed voucher duly stamped and signed to enable us to....
The crucial question in this appeal is whether the evidence of the two eye-witnesses viz. P.W.1 Surai Paste and P.W.2 Mahesh Tilekar inspires confidence or not. ... Briefly stated the prosecution cases as under: The informant Suraj Paste (P.W. 1), Mahesh Tilekat (P.W. 2) and the deceased Harishchandra Nachankar were friends. ... This is because we find that the evidence of Suraj Paste, P.W.1, militates against this claim of the prosecution. The incident is alleged to have taken place a....
The crucial question in this appeal is whether the evidence of the two eye-witnesses viz. P.W.1 Surai Paste and P.W.2 Mahesh Tilekar inspires confidence or not. ... Briefly stated the prosecution cases as under: ... The informant Suraj Paste (P.W. 1), Mahesh Tilekat (P.W. 2) and the deceased Harishchandra Nachankar were friends. ... This is because we find that the evidence of Suraj Paste, P.W.1, militates against this claim of the prosecution. The incident is alleged to have taken pla....
However, if the same material is used for raising structure to support the various machines parts of machine then they will be covered by the explanation to Rule 57Q. ... The above decision make it clear that credit cannot be denied on the ground that the inputs are construction materials unless it is held that inputs are used for civil construction and are not part of plant and machinery not used for raising structure to support various machine parts of the machine. ... Channels, Aluminium Sheets, Ceramic Blankets, Nuts....
What follows, however, is only the claim of the appellant in its application. Para 6, thereafter, starts with the reassuring comment that the "oral argument and written submission of the agent of the appellant have been carefully considered". ... Para 4 first reproduces the claim in the patent application and, thereafter, sets out the response of the appellant thereto. Para 5 initially records the observation of the Assistant Controller that he did not "find the submission persuasive" ....
In these cases, we find that items nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 12 are directly used in the process of manufacture of the finished product. Item nos. 6 and 10 are parts of the machinery which have been used in the process of manufacture of the product. ... parts. ... He said that most of the items involved in these cases are parts of the machinery and accordingly the modvat credit cannot be extended to the parts of the machinery. 5. We have carefully considered the matter. ....
Shri Ram Chandra Saroj, who was Casual Labour of B.P.C.L., came to my house on 21.12.1980 at 9 am and said my father "Sir, my family is starving now. Please get me reinstated in my job revoking my termination".
The my mother in law woke up but she did not enter in my room and she was outside of the room, then my father in law left the room. He touched my various parts of my body and attempted to commit rape upon me against my will. At that time to resist myself I gave a kick to him and cried out. In between 2-30 am. to 3 am of that intervening night my father in law Nirananda Sinha entered into my dwelling room and pressed my mouth.
After reading the above said letter, Smt. Jain returned it to you. “You gave a letter to Smt. Sunita Jain in September/October, 1984, writing therein - "I am very much disturbed due to you. I am unable to take sound sleep at night please accept my offer, will you like me?
Also please let me know if I cancel the deal then when I will get my money back so that it will help me to take the decision accordingly. Pl. treat this as urgent because every time getting you contacted on phone is also very difficult which you can see from my yesterday’s mail…. If this is how the beginning happens then I don’t know what will be the approach for remaining five years.
Pl. treat this as urgent because every time getting you contacted on phone is also very difficult which you can see from my yesterday’s mail…. If this is how the beginning happens then I don’t know what will be the approach for remaining five years. Also please let me know if I cancel the deal then when I will get my money back so that it will help me to take the decision accordingly.
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
