Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for DR PREMANANTHAN VASUTHEVAN vs JUVY S TULIPAS...
DR PREMANANTHAN VASUTHEVAN vs JUVY S TULIPAS - 2011 MarsdenLR 15 : The appeal was struck out due to a defective record caused by the appellant''''s failure to include necessary documents and file a memorandum of appeal, even though the grounds of judgment were not ready. The court held that mandatory compliance with procedural rules is essential, and failure to include required documents or file a memorandum results in the striking out of the appeal. The appellant''''s argument that the omission was a tactical maneuver due to the respondent''''s lack of objections was rejected, as the court emphasized that procedural rules must be strictly followed and intentional disregard of them cannot be condoned. The defect in the appeal record could not be remedied, leading to the appeal being struck out with costs.Checking relevance for HH IDEAL SDN BHD vs TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERING CONCEPT SDN BHD (ENCL 7)...
HH IDEAL SDN BHD vs TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERING CONCEPT SDN BHD (ENCL 7) - 2018 MarsdenLR 1286 : The court held that the Appellant''''s failure to include the draft index of the Record of Appeal and relevant documents (such as the Agreed Bundle and Additional Plaintiff''''s Bundle) constituted a serious defect under Order 55 r 4(4) of the Rules of Court 2012, which is mandatory and not curable. The court emphasized that the failure to serve the draft Record of Appeal on the Respondent before filing was a fundamental defect undermining the reliability of the appeal record. This defect, combined with the absence of essential documents, justified the striking out of the appeal despite the grounds of judgment not being ready. The court cited Mazni Ibrahim v. Rosaidy Effendy [2013] 2 MLJ 499, which confirmed that such procedural non-compliance renders the appeal fundamentally defective and not salvageable under the Rules.Checking relevance for LIM KWEE FEN & ANOR vs KT HOME MART SDN BHD...
LIM KWEE FEN & ANOR vs KT HOME MART SDN BHD - 2022 MarsdenLR 296 : The court ruled that an appeal must be struck out if the record of appeal is defective due to failure to include necessary documents, even if the grounds of judgment are not ready. Under Order 55 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012, the record of appeal must include the memorandum of appeal, and its omission renders the appeal incompetent. The court emphasized that mandatory timelines and contents for filing and serving the record of appeal are jurisdictional and non-compliance results in an abuse of process, leading to the appeal being struck out. This applies regardless of whether the grounds of judgment are available or ready.Checking relevance for NAMACHIVAYAM SELVARAJA vs NARAYANASAMY KRISHNAN...
NAMACHIVAYAM SELVARAJA vs NARAYANASAMY KRISHNAN - 2021 MarsdenLR 2809 : An appeal may be struck out for failure to include necessary documents in the Record of Appeal, even if the grounds of judgment are not yet ready. The court held that filing an incomplete Record of Appeal—specifically, one that omits documents such as those in Ikatan Dokumen Bersama Bahagian A & B—is a fatal defect. Furthermore, failure to serve a draft index of the documents to the respondent within the required timeframe is also fatal. Non-compliance with procedural rules regarding the Record of Appeal renders the appeal incompetent, and such defects cannot be cured by the readiness of the grounds of judgment. The appeal was struck out due to both non-service of the Notice of Appeal and the incomplete, improperly indexed Record of Appeal.Checking relevance for MUDIN UMPONG vs PP...
MUDIN UMPONG vs PP - 2021 MarsdenLR 792 : The court held that the Records of Appeal were defective due to the absence of critical documents, specifically the Examination in Chief, Cross-Examination, and Re-Examination of PW 3 and the Cross-Examination and Re-Examination of PW 6. This incompleteness prejudiced the Appellant’s right to a fair trial and rendered the conviction unsafe. The court emphasized that the absence of complete records significantly impaired the appellate court''''s ability to ensure justice and fairness, leading to the acquittal of the Appellant. The court explicitly recognized that the failure to include necessary documents in the record of appeal, even when grounds of judgment were not ready, constituted a fundamental defect that warranted striking out the defective record and acquitting the appellant.
