|
Issue #4/2020
16 January 2020
|
To get the most out of this law bulletin and have full access to judgments and other materials, subscribe to CLJLaw today.
Feel free to forward this bulletin to your colleagues. Sign-up to receive this bulletin directly via email.
|
New This Week
|
PP v. ALI AHMAD [2020] 1 CLJ 548
HIGH COURT MALAYA, SHAH ALAM
MEOR HASHIMI ABDUL HAMID JC
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: BA-41H-90-03-2018]
07 APRIL 2019
Whilst it is true that the offence of using criminal force with intent to outrage modesty carries a maximum sentence of 10 years' jail, considerations such as the fact that the accused is a man of advanced age, that he has pleaded guilty at the earliest available opportunity, that he is suffering from chronic illness, that he has spent time under remand and that he is remorseful may collectively weigh heavily in his mitigation. Under such circumstance, a mere fine sentence imposed on him may be justified, proportionate and sustainable.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Sentence - Adequacy - Outraging modesty - Plea of guilt - Bus driver outraged modesty of passenger in bus - Sentenced to fine of RM5,000 in default six months' imprisonment - Whether manifestly and grossly inadequate - Penal Code, s. 354
ZAMRI IBRAHIM & ANOR v. KHOO KAH HOCK [2020] 1 CLJ 582
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KANGAR
ABU BAKAR KATAR J
[CIVIL SUIT NO: RA-22NCvC-6-11-2018]
30 OCTOBER 2019
A judgment or an order of court can be impeached if it is obtained by fraud and the impeachment must be made through a fresh action. Where a witness has given a fraudulent testimony at trial which has influenced the court in arriving at a decision, it is not open for him to plead 'witness immunity' to stifle an action to impeach the decision. This is because it is the judgment, and not the witness, that is being targeted by such action.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Action - Whether claim without foundation in law or in equity - Action against witness who had testified in earlier suit - Allegation of fraud - Whether requirements to nullify immunity of witness established - Whether issue totally different from earlier suit - Whether fraud an issue in earlier suit - Whether fraud only discovered after first suit heard - Whether plain and obvious case to be struck out summarily - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(a), (b), (d) & O. 92 r. 4
“I must say that it is difficult for me to appreciate the arguments canvassed by the 4th Respondent on the issue of justiciability. It seems to me what the 4th Respondent sought to impress upon me is that in actual fact the real target of this review proceeding is the decision made by His Highness the Yang Dipertuan Agong, to acquire the land by way of royal decree. Given the status of the decree as well as the personal status of the Yang Dipertuan Agong the decision is immune from judicial review or not justiciable.”
“That argument, to my mind seems to have been torn from the pages of medieval history and rooted in feudalistic concept of royal command and decree which to my mind has long been jettisoned and has no place in the current era. In the forward march of judicial review, which is rooted in the Constitution, the idea that certain class of persons, falling outside the reach of the overarching reach of judicial review is anathema to the rule of law.” – per Ahmad Nasfy Yasin J in Sime Darby Plantation Bhd v. Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Negeri Melaka & Ors [2020] 2 CLJ 409
Legal Network Series
|
TENGKU NOOR ASHIKIN TENGKU MANSHOR lwn. TENGKU NAWIAH TENGKU CHIK & YANG LAIN Dalam keadaan di mana kontrak Jual Beli tanah adalah sah dan plaintif sebagai pembeli dan pihak yang mempunyai kepentingan benefisial ke atas tanah tersebut, plaintif mempunyai hak untuk mendapatkan bantuan ekuiti iaitu melalui tuntutan pelaksanaan spesifik terhadap waris-waris dan penerima pesaka si mati penjual; Pelaksanaan spesifik adalah suatu 'equitable relief' yang diperuntukkan di bawah Seksyen 11 Akta Relif Spesifik dan diberikan oleh Mahkamah untuk mengarahkan waris-waris dan penerima pesaka si mati penjual melaksanakan tanggungjawab yang wujud di dalam kontrak Jual Beli tanah itu KONTRAK: Penjualan dan pembelian tanah - Pelaksanaan spesifik - Sama ada pembeli sebagai pembeli sah dan pihak yang mempunyai kepentingan benefisial ke atas tanah yang dijual mempunyai hak mendapatkan bantuan ekuiti melalui tuntutan pelaksanaan spesifik terhadap waris-waris dan penerima pesaka si mati penjual
|
|
|
PP v. MOHAMMAD ZOHAIB KHAN To prove possession in a drug trafficking case under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 the prosecution must prove not only that the accused had physical control or custody of the drugs at the relevant time but that the accused possessed the requisite knowledge as to the contents of what was in his custody; mere knowledge alone without exclusivity of physical custody or control or both is insufficient in law to constitute possession. CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Malaysia) - ss. 39B(1)(a), (2) - Trafficking in dangerous drugs - Ingredients of offence - Possession - Custody, control and knowledge - Drugs found in the boot of motorcar - Accused not owner or driver of motorcar - Whether accused's mere presence in the motorcar constituted ownership or custody of drugs carried in the boot of the motorcar - Whether actions of accused in opening and closing boot of motorcar constituted the accused's exclusive custody or control of the drugs in the boot of the motorcar
|
|
|
GAN BOON AUN v. PP In exercise of its revisionary powers, the High Court must be satisfied as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed in respect of criminal proceedings and matters in the Subordinate Courts. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Revision - Application for - Purpose of revisionary powers of High Court - Sessions Court Judge judiciously exercising discretion to dismiss applicant's application to refer constitutional questions to the High Court - Application dismissed by Sessions Court Judge on the ground that such constitutional questions previously dealt with by the Federal Court - Whether applicant's application had any merit
|
|
|
CHAI KOK LIM & YANG LAIN lwn. LOOI ENG MOOI @ LOOI TAI YANG Dalam permohonan plaintif untuk pelaksanaan spesifik secara penghakiman terus di bawah Aturan 81 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, jika pemfailan dan serahan Afidavit Jawapan Defendan melangkaui masa yang diperuntukkan, Mahkamah boleh merumuskan keseluruhan kandungan Afidavit Jawapan Defendan tidak boleh diterima pakai dan diambil kira untuk menentang Permohonan dan Afidavit Sokongan Plaintif; dalam keadaan begitu Defendan hanya boleh merujuk kepada Penyataan Pembelaan Defendan bagi menunjukkan sama ada terdapat apa-apa pembelaan dan isu-isu yang sah serta bermerit untuk membawa kes ke perbicaraan penuh ACARA SIVIL: Penghakiman terus - Perlaksanaan spesifik - Pemfailan dan serahan afidavit jawapan melangkaui masa - Samada Mahkamah boleh menolak dan tidak menerima pakai kandungan Afidavit Jawapan
|
|
|
YAKOB SALIM v. PEMBANGUNAN TANAH DAN PERUMAHAN SDN BHD Where a purchaser rightfully purchases a piece of land from the vendor without a sale and purchase agreement, but the land is not registered in the purchaser's name nor title transferred to him and the land becomes subject to a Court order for its auction, the purchaser may recover assessed damages in lieu of specific performance from the defendant; specific performance cannot be granted in such a situation. CONTRACT: Specific performance - Sale and purchase of land - Land subject to an order for its auction - Whether rightful purchaser entitled to decree of specific performance - Whether damages in lieu of specific performance appropriate
|
CLJ 2020 Volume 1 (Part 4)
Native customary right is confined to areas where the natives and their ancestors have settled and is not extended to rights to land in primary forest that they foraged for food and jungle produce but had not cultivated; native customs of 'pemakai menoa' and 'pulau' do not have the force of law as envisaged under art 160 of the Federal Constitution.
Jeli Anak Naga & Ors v. Tung Huat Pelita Niah Plantation Sdn Bhd & Ors [2020] 1 CLJ 449 [FC]
LAND LAW: Customary land - Native customary rights ('NCR') - Whether natives acquired or inherited NCR over land - Whether NCR restricted only to cultivated areas - Whether practice of 'pemakai menoa' and 'pulau' were NCR having recognition of law within art. 160(2) of Federal Constitution ('FC') - Phrase 'having the force of law' in art. 160(2) of FC - Whether not all customs and usages fell within definition of law - Whether recognition that custom or practice existed sufficient - Whether rights of native confined to area of their settlement and not where they foraged for food - Whether correct statement of law
AHMAD MAAROP PCA
ZAHARAH IBRAHIM CJ (MALAYA)
ALIZATUL KHAIR OSMAN FCJ
ABANG ISKANDAR FCJ
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
- For the appellants - Joshua Baru Bian & Clarice Chan; M/s Baru Bian Advocs
- For the 1st & 2nd respondents - Rajesh Jethi Singh; M/s Jethi & Assocs
- For the 3rd & 4th respondents - Mohd Adzrul Adzlan & Emma Yusri; SLO, Sarawak
An insurer who is found wanting in pursuing or safeguarding its own interest or obligation may not be entitled to seek a declaration to censure an insurance contract under s. 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987. This is evident by s. 129 of the Financial Services Act 2013 read with sch. 9 thereto.
Balamoney Asoriah v. MMIP Services Sdn Bhd [2020] 1 CLJ 476 [CA]
INSURANCE: Motor insurance - Policy - Validity - Failure of disclosure - Allegation of - Policy renewed in deceased's name after death of deceased - Whether insurance policy null and void - Whether there was fundamental breach of principle of uberrimae fidei - Whether there was mutual duty of utmost good faith owed by both insurer and consumer - Whether insurer entitled to void insurance contract - Failure of insurer to undertake exercise of posing questions when considering to assume risks and enter contract of insurance with consumer - Whether insurer deemed to have waived right to complain that there had been failure of disclosure - Whether insurer failed to safeguard own interest and obligations - Whether insurer allowed to approach court for declaration to void insurance under s. 96(3) of Road Transport Act 1987 - Whether insurer failed to discharge burden of proof under s. 129 read together with Schedule 9 of Financial Services Act 2013
UMI KALTHUM ABDUL MAJID JCA
MARY LIM JCA
YEW JEN KIE JCA
- For the appellant - Ramesh Namasivayam; M/s Sivaraja & Co
- For the respondent - Shanmugam Ramasamy & Sharmini Thiruchelvam; M/s Francis Pereira & Shan
A statement of fact made bona fide and on a matter of public interest would be a complete defence in a defamation action and such fact would so remain notwithstanding a subsequent event nullifying it.
Mohd Rafizi Ramli v. Dato’ Sri Dr Mohamad Salleh Ismail & Anor [2020] 1 CLJ 498 [CA]
TORT: Defamation - Defence - Fair comment - Whether defence would succeed if primary facts are true - Whether malice or falsehood established - Whether comment was honest expression of genuine opinion - Whether fair and bona fide comments or criticism upon matter of public interest - Whether matter could have been settled by an apology - Defamation Act 1957, s. 10 - Federal Constitution, art. 10
HAMID SULTAN ABU BACKER JCA
HANIPAH FARIKULLAH JCA
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
- For the appellant - Ranjit Singh, Ng Siau Sun & Carmen Ng; M/s Sun & Michele
- For the respondent - Sarah Abishegam, Noor Farhah Mustaffa & Ian Hannibal; M/s Shafee & Co
Berdasarkan s. 38(1)(a) Akta Kebankrapan 1967, sanksi Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi tidak diperlukan jika si bankrap mengambil tindakan sendiri berkaitan dengan tindakan kebankrapannya. Seksyen 33B(4) dan (5) Akta mengesahkan hak si bankrap sebagai pihak yang ada kaitan dalam tindakan, kerana dia adalah pihak yang terkesan dan sewajarnya diberi peluang untuk hadir di mahkamah atau memfailkan rayuan.
Dalam Perkara Lim Chai Oi; Ex p Affin Bank Bhd [2020] 1 CLJ 518 [HC]
KEBANKRAPAN: Pelepasan - Sijil pelepasan - Notis rayuan - Notis rayuan oleh si bankrap terhadap keputusan Penolong Kanan Pendaftar ('PKP') menghalang Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi ('KPI') daripada mengeluarkan sijil pelepasan terhadap si bankrap - Sama ada si bankrap telah membuat tindakan tanpa mendapat sanksi daripada KPI - Sama ada si bankrap mempunyai locus untuk memfailkan rayuan - Hak-hak si bankrap - Akta Kebankrapan 1967, ss. 33A, 33B(4) & (5), 38(1)(a)
AHMAD BACHE H
- Bagi pihak perayu/JD - Rajasegeram Ramasamy; T/n R Rajasegeram & Co
- Bagi pihak responden/JC - Nor Erini; T/n Shukor Baljit & Partners
In order to ascertain whether there was a contract for sale by sample under s. 17(1) Sale of Goods Act 1957, it must first be determined whether the seller had made an express or implied promise that the goods sold will conform to the sample. Whether or not the seller had impliedly made such promise will depend on the intentions of the parties.
Fuyu International Sdn Bhd v. Lai Fui Pin & Ors [2020] 1 CLJ 528 [HC]
CONTRACT: Agreement - Supply of goods - Claim for refund of monies paid - Whether there was implied term in contract that supplier contractually agreed to supply and install marble with thickness of 20mm - Whether contract for supply and installation of marble was sale by sample - Whether contract silent on thickness of marble to be supplied - Whether allowing oral evidence to add term as to thickness of marble into contract in breach of parol evidence rule in s. 92 of Evidence Act 1950 - Whether supplier in breach of terms - Sale of Goods Act 1957, s. 17
SALE OF GOODS: Contract - Supply of goods - Claim for refund of monies paid - Whether there was implied term in contract that supplier contractually agreed to supply and install marble with thickness of 20mm - Whether contract for supply and installation of marble sale by sample - Whether contract silent on thickness of marble to be supplied - Whether allowing oral evidence to add term as to thickness of marble into contract in breach of parol evidence rule in s. 92 of Evidence Act 1950 - Whether supplier in breach of terms - Sale of Goods Act 1957, s. 17
FAIZAH JAMALUDIN J
- For the appellant - Wong Kam Leong & Lai Jin Shawn; M/s Tee, Liew & Co
- For the respondents - Amanda Farhana Roslaini; M/s SN Fam & Co
Whilst it is true that the offence of using criminal force with intent to outrage modesty carries a maximum sentence of 10 years' jail, considerations such as the fact that the accused is a man of advanced age, that he has pleaded guilty at the earliest available opportunity, that he is suffering from chronic illness, that he has spent time under remand and that he is remorseful may collectively weigh heavily in his mitigation. Under such circumstance, a mere fine sentence imposed on him may be justified, proportionate and sustainable.
PP v. Ali Ahmad [2020] 1 CLJ 548 [HC]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Sentence - Adequacy - Outraging modesty - Plea of guilt - Bus driver outraged modesty of passenger in bus - Sentenced to fine of RM5,000 in default six months' imprisonment - Whether manifestly and grossly inadequate - Penal Code, s. 354
MEOR HASHIMI ABDUL HAMID JC
- For the appellant - Mohd Raimi Mohd Ramly; DPP
- For the respondent - Mohd Fahmy Mohd Sulaiman; M/s Azharudin & Assocs
A child first-offender who has committed an offence under s. 376(1) of the Penal Code (statutory rape) should not as far as possible be made to suffer an imprisonment sentence as that may eventually turn him into a hardened criminal. A fine sentence only may be adequate and may indeed meet the public interest principle of inducing him to turn away from his criminal demeanour.
PP v. Hidayatul Akmal Azman [2020] 1 CLJ 562 [HC]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Sentence - Adequacy - Statutory rape - Guilty plea - Accused a child aged 17 years 11 months - Sentenced to a fine of RM1,000 in default three months' imprisonment - Whether adequate - Whether Magistrate had exercised discretion correctly - Penal Code, s. 376(1) - Child Act 2001, s. 91(1)
SHAHNAZ SULAIMAN JC
- For the appellant - Azizah Mohamad; DPP
- For the respondent - Mohd Tarmeze Mohd Taib; M/s Tarmeze & Assocs
A taser is a 'scheduled weapon' pursuant to s. 2 of the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958 ('Act') and therefore an expert opinion thereon is not required; a common knowledge of what a taser is would be sufficient proof of a charge under s. 6 of the Act.
PP v. Mohamad Ibrahim Rosli [2020] 1 CLJ 572 [HC]
CRIMINAL LAW: Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958 - Section 6 - Possession of taser - Whether offensive weapon - Whether listed under 'scheduled weapon' under Second Schedule - Whether should have been subjected to examination by forensic department - Whether failure rendered charge defective - Whether caused prejudice to accused person
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Charge - Framing of - Possession of taser - Charge under s. 6 of Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958 - Whether taser offensive weapon - Whether listed under 'scheduled weapon' under Second Schedule - Whether should have been subjected to examination by forensic department - Whether failure rendered charge defective - Whether should have been charged under s. 7 - Whether caused prejudice to accused person - Whether error remediable under s. 422 of Criminal Procedure Code
MOHD RADZI ABDUL HAMID JC
- For the appellant - JG Kaameni Jayaraman; DPP
- For the respondent - R Sankra Krishna; M/s R Sankra Krishna & Co
A judgment or an order of court can be impeached if it is obtained by fraud and the impeachment must be made through a fresh action. Where a witness has given a fraudulent testimony at trial which has influenced the court in arriving at a decision, it is not open for him to plead 'witness immunity' to stifle an action to impeach the decision. This is because it is the judgment, and not the witness, that is being targeted by such action.
Zamri Ibrahim & Anor v. Khoo Kah Hock [2020] 1 CLJ 582 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Action - Whether claim without foundation in law or in equity - Action against witness who had testified in earlier suit - Allegation of fraud - Whether requirements to nullify immunity of witness established - Whether issue totally different from earlier suit - Whether fraud an issue in earlier suit - Whether fraud only discovered after first suit heard - Whether plain and obvious case to be struck out summarily - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(a), (b), (d) & O. 92 r. 4
ABU BAKAR KATAR J
- For the plaintiffs - Zamri Ibrahim; M/s Zamri Ibrahim & Co
- For the defendant - Fazleeza Azli; M/s Chan Ban Eng & Co
LNS Article(s)
THE IMPORTANCE OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN A TRADE MARK DISPUTE [Read excerpt]
by SHAUN ADRIAN PERERA* [2020] 1 LNS(A) ivBURDEN OF PROOF UNDER HAGUE / HAGUE VISBY RULES: VOLCAFE 2018 OR GLENDARROCH 1894 FOR MALAYSIA, SINGAPORE AND INDIA? [Read excerpt]
by ARUN KASI* [2020] 1 LNS(A) vKEDUDUKAN KETERANGAN PENGAKUAN SALAH TERTUDUH BERSAMA DI MALAYSIA [Read excerpt]
by Ramalinggam Rajamanickam[i] Lau Shavin[ii] Nur Atiqah Dalila Shaffee[iii] Mohammad Solehheen Mohammad Zaki[iv] Vijeyasri Ramesh[v] Nor Suzwatul Hidayah Yusoff[vi] Nursuriati Zainal Abidin[vii] [2020] 1 LNS(A) vi
Principal Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Repealing |
| ACT 824 | Malaysian Health Promotion Board (Dissolution) Act 2019 | Not Yet In Force | - |
| ACT 823 | Finance Act 2019 | Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3, Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 22, Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 27, Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 29, Sales Tax Act 2018 [Act 806] see s 35, Finance Act 2010 [Act 702] see s 37 and the Finance Act 2018 [Act 812] see s 39 | - |
| ACT 822 | National Anti-Financial Crime Centre Act 2019 | 2 January 2020 [PU(B) 664/2019] | - |
| ACT 820 | Superior of the Institute of the Franciscan Missionaries of Mary (Incorporation) Act 1957 (Revised 2019) | 27 December 2019 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 1 December 2019; First enacted in 1957 as Federation of Malaya Ordinance No 39 of 1957 | - |
| ACT 819 | Daughters of Charity of the Canossian Institute (Incorporation) Act 1957 (Revised 2019) | 27 December 2019 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 1 December 2019; First enacted in 1957 as Federation of Malaya Ordinance No 33 of 1957 | - |
Amending Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Principal/Amending Act No |
| ACT A1611 | Employees Provident Fund (Amendment) Act 2019 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 452 |
| ACT A1610 | Petroleum (Income Tax) (Amendment) Act 2019 | 1 January 2020 | ACT 543 |
| ACT A1609 | Income Tax (Amendment) Act 2019 | 1 January 2020 | ACT 53 |
| ACT A1608 | Supply Act 2020 | 1 January 2020 | |
| ACT A1607 | Trade Descriptions (Amendment) Act 2019 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 730 |
PU(A)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(A) 5/2020 | Minimum Wages Order 2020 | 10 January 2020 | 1 February 2020 | ACT 732 |
| PU(A) 4/2020 | Islamic Financial Services (Exemption) Order 2020 | 7 January 2020 | 8 January 2020 | ACT 759 |
| PU(A) 3/2020 | Poisons (Amendment of Third Schedule) Order 2020 | 6 January 2020 | 7 January 2020 | ACT 366 |
| PU(A) 2/2020 | Customs Duties (Exemption) 2017 (Amendment) Order 2020 | 6 January 2020 | 6 January 2020 | PU(A) 445/2017 |
| PU(A) 1/2020 | Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Retail Price for Petrol and Diesel) Order 2020 | 3 January 2020 | 4 January 2020 | ACT 723 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 4/2020 | Islamic Financial Services (Exemption) Order 2020 | 7 January 2020 | 8 January 2020 | ACT 759 |
| PU(B) 3/2020 | Poisons (Amendment of Third Schedule) Order 2020 | 6 January 2020 | 7 January 2020 | ACT 366 |
| PU(B) 2/2020 | Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Members and Alternate Members of the Board | 2 January 2020 | 3 January 2020 | ACT 105 |
| PU(B) 1/2020 | Notification of Values of Crude Petroleum Oil Under Section 12 | 2 January 2020 | 3 January 2020 to 16 January 2020 | ACT 235 |
| PU(B) 666/2019 | Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation | 31 December 2019 | 1 January 2020 | ACT A1593 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(A) 150/2019 | Federal Roads (West Coast Expressway (Taiping-Banting)) Order 2019 | PU(A) 336/2019 | 10 December 2019 | Paragraph 2 and Schedule |
| PU(A) 153/2019 | Speed Limit (West Coast Expressway (Taiping-Banting)) Order 2019 | PU(A) 335/2019 | 10 December 2019 | First and Second Schedules |
| PU(A) 132/2019 | Ministers of the Federal Government Order 2019 | PU(A) 333/2019 | 7 December 2019 except subsubpara. 2(a)(i), subsubsubsubpara. 2(a)(ii)(B)(CC), subsubsubpara. 2(b)(i)(C), subsubsubparas. 2(b)(ii)(B) and (D), subsubsubparagraph 2(d)(i)(C), subsubsubpara. 2(f)(ii)(C), subsubsubpara. 2(f)(i)(C), subsubsubpara. 2(l)(ii)(C) and subsubsubpara. 2(v)(ii)(B), subsubsubpara. 2(q)(ii)(C), subsubsubparas. 2(v)(i)(B) and (E); 21 September 2019 - subsubpara. 2(a)(i); 21 May 2018 - subsubsubsubpara. 2(a)(ii)(B)(CC), subsubsubpara. 2(b)(i)(C), subsubsubparas. 2(b)(ii)(B) and (D), subsubsubparagraph 2(d)(i)(C), subsubsubpara. 2(f)(ii)(C); 26 June 2019 - subsubsubpara. 2(f)(i)(C); 8 May 2019 - subsubsubpara. 2(l)(ii)(C) and subsubsubpara. 2(v)(ii)(B); 2 July 2018 - subsubsubpara. 2(q)(ii)(C); 20 February 2019 - subsubsubparas. 2(v)(i)(B) and (E) |
Schedule |
| AKTA 169 | Akta Cukai Keuntungan Harta Tanah 1976 | AKTA 823 | Akta Cukai Pendapatan 1967 [Akta 53] lihat s. 3, Akta Cukai Keuntungan Harta Tanah 1976 [Akta 169] lihat s. 22, Akta Setem 1949 [Akta 378] lihat s. 27, Akta Petroleum (Cukai Pendapatan) 1967 [Akta 543] lihat s. 29, Akta Cukai Jualan 2018 [Akta 806] lihat s. 35, Akta Kewangan 2010 [Akta 702] lihat s. 37 dan Akta Kewangan 2018 [Akta 812] lihat s. 39 | Seksyen 21B, Jadual 2, 3 dan 5 |
| PU(A) 103/2017 | Customs (Prohibition of Imports) Order 2017 | PU(A) 332/2019 | 1 January 2020 | Second, Third and Fourth Schedule |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(A) 265/2018 | Minimum Wages Order 2018 | PU(A) 5/2020 | 1 February 2020 |
| PU(A) 207/2017 | Printing Presses and Publications (Control of Undesirable Publications) (No. 12) Order 2017 | PU(A) 343/2019 | 11 December 2019 |
| PU(A) 157/2018 | Co-Operative Societies (Assumption of Control) (Appointment) Order 2018 | PU(A) 315/2019 | 15 May 2019 |
| PU(A) 305/1999 | Johor Port Authority (Extension of Functions) Order 1999 | PU(A) 308/2019 | 1 November 2019 |
| PU(A) 50/2019 | Co-Operative Societies (Assumption of Control) (Appointment) Order 2019 | PU(A) 292/2019 | 31 October 2019 |