CASE(S) OF THE WEEK
MAHISHA SULAIHA ABDUL MAJEED v.
KETUA PENGARAH PENDAFTARAN & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL [2022] 8 CLJ 697
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA; AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA; S NANTHA BALAN JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NOS: W-01(A)-273-06-2020 & W-01(NCvC)(A)-531-09-2021]
09 AUGUST 2022
Parliament must take the necessary measure to ensure that any amendment to the Federal Constitution ('FC') must not result in a new Constitution, especially with regard to fundamental provision; likewise, the court is bound by the enacted laws and must strive to give effect to the intention of Parliament in enacting the laws. Hence, to declare the word 'father' in s. 1(b) Part II of Second Schedule of the FC to include 'mother' would mean to rewrite the FC and the courts must forbid itself from such an interpretation of the law.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Citizenship - Citizenship by operation of law - Children born overseas to Malaysian citizen mothers and non-citizen fathers - Article 14(1)(b) read with s. 1(b) of Part II Second Schedule of Federal Constitution ('FC') - Whether word 'father' in s. 1(b) refers only to father - Whether could also mean 'mother' or 'parents' - Whether interpreting 'father' to be read as 'mother' amounts to rewriting law - Whether there was conflict between art. 14(1)(b) read with s. 1(b) of Part II and art. 8(2) - Whether mothers entitled to protection and rights accorded under art. 8(2) of FC - Whether children entitled to Malaysian citizenship by operation of law
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Constitution - Federal Constitution ('FC') - Article 14(1)(b) read with s. 1(b) of Part II Second Schedule of FC and art. 8(2) of FC - Whether art. 8(2) applies to all provisions in FC - Whether word 'gender' in art. 8(2) excluded its application to provisions on citizenship in Part III of FC - Whether there was conflict between art. 14(1)(b) read with s. 1(b) of Part II and art. 8(2) - Whether art. 8(2) to be read to give primacy over art. 14(1)(b) read with s. 1(b) of Part II, Second Schedule of FC
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statute - Interpretation - Article 14(1)(b) read with s. 1(b) of Part II Second Schedule of FC and art. 8(2) Federal Constitution ('FC') - Whether art. 8(2) on equal standing with art. 14(1)(b) read with s. 1(b) of Part II Second Schedule - Whether there is conflict between Part III on Citizenship and Part II on Fundamental Liberties
WORDS & PHRASES: 'father' - Article 14(1)(b) read with s. 1(b) of Part II Second Schedule of Federal Constitution - Whether word 'father' in s. 1(b) refers only to father - Whether could be read as 'mother' or to include mother - Whether interpreting 'father' to be read as 'mother' amounts to rewriting law
APPEAL UPDATES
-
Ching Hong Seng v. Kumpulan Hartanah Selangor Berhad & Anor [2021] 1 LNS 1760 affirming the High Court case of Ching Hong Seng v. Kumpulan Hartanah Selangor Berhad & Anor [Judicial Review No: WA-25-87-02/2019]
-
Kumpulan Liziz Sdn Bhd v. Pembinaan Azam Jaya Sdn Bhd [2021] 1 LNS 2043 overruling the High Court case of Pembinaan Azam Jaya Sdn Bhd v. Kumpulan Liziz Sdn Bhd [Companies (Winding Up) Suit No. BKI-28NCC-40/6-2020 (HC2)]
LATEST CASES
Legal Network Series
|
[2021] 1 LNS 790
|
ROGER ANJID v. SABAH DEVELOPMENT BANK BERHAD
Where an originating summons fails to state sufficient particulars to identify the plaintiff's cause of action for the reliefs or remedies claimed against the defendant, or when there is a likelihood of serious disputes as to the material facts relating to the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff against the defendant, the court should not be inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of converting and continuing proceedings in the originating summons as if the case were a writ action.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Mode of commencement - Originating summons - Proper mode of commencement - Declaration, application for - Declaration that land charged and instrument used for charge are null and void - Originating summons did not state sufficient particulars to identify cause of action - Issues involved non-parties to action - Disputed material facts relating to reliefs claimed - Whether it was appropriate for court to exercise discretion to convert and order proceedings in originating summons to continue as if it had been begun by writ action - Whether conversion of proceeding could secure just, expeditious, and economical disposal of matters - Whether court should be inclined to exercise discretion in favour of converting proceeding
- For the plaintiff - Aaron Augustine; M/s A M & Co
- For the defendant - Philip Koh & Jeyan Marimuttu; M/s Philip Koh & Co
|
|
[2021] 1 LNS 962
|
KEJURUTERAAN BINA OPTIMA SDN BHD v. CAPITOL PROSPER SDN BHD & ANOR
An auditor only has the obligation not to disclose any confidential information which is given to them by their client for the purposes of carrying out the audit, and such confidential obligations do not extend to any third party. Thus, a client is entitled to apply for a disclosure of documents against his auditor relating to information acquired from any third party who owes no obligation of confidence in respect of the said information, as such information would not be deemed confidential or privileged in law. Any alleged confidentiality afforded to a third party according to the by-laws governing the auditor can be overridden by the court ordering the production of the same for the legal proceedings.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Discovery - Application for - Discovery application against a third party - Plaintiff seeking particulars of debtors and confirmation of balances from its former auditor - Auditor acquired information concerning confirmation of balances from defendant which plaintiff sought for discovery - Auditor alleged documents sought for discovery constitute confidential information under by-laws - Whether documents sought were relevant and necessary for plaintiff's action against defendant - Whether documents required were privileged documents - Whether disclosure of documents amounts to breach of confidential obligations - Whether any confidentiality afforded to defendant pursuant to by-laws governing auditors could be overridden by court ordering discovery for purposes of legal proceedings
- For the plaintiff - Nimalan Devaraja & Ann Tiang Wen En; M/s Skrine
- For the defendant - Teh Xin Yi; M/s Kumar Partnership
- For the aggrieved party - Lee Hoe Leong & Nur Eleena Othman; M/s HL Lee & Co
|
|
[2021] 1 LNS 964
|
JAPMAS STEEL SDN BHD v. KERJAYA BORNEO SDN BHD & ORS
1. The mere assertions that the delivery orders are not accompanied by any acknowledgement of receipt by the buyer cannot serve as a basis for denial or non-admission of the sum claimed by the seller or substantiate the assertion that the sum is not due and payable when the goods stated in the delivery orders corresponded to those stated in the invoices which the buyer acknowledged and when the invoices were never rejected by the buyer. Thus the assertion that the buyer did not sign the delivery orders in acknowledgement amounts to no defence to the seller's claim.
2. The jurisdiction of a court cannot be ousted by the parties' agreement. Where the facts on which the proceedings have occurred within the local jurisdiction of a court, the matter falls within that particular local jurisdiction of the court by virtue of s. 23(1)(b) and (c) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, notwithstanding that the parties have agreed to submit to different local jurisdictions of the court.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Goods sold and delivered - Claim against buyer and guarantors - Defendants alleged that some delivery orders do not bear acknowledgement of receipt by buyer - Defendants did not deny delivery of goods and partial payments made - Purchase orders and invoices acknowledged by buyer - Goods stated in delivery orders corresponded with those stated in invoices - Whether there was any basis of denial and non-admission of debt - Whether defendants could assert that sum claimed by plaintiff is not due and payable - Whether non-admission or denial of sum owed was merely a bare denial - Whether bare denial give rise to triable issues
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Guarantee - Claim for price of goods sold and delivered against guarantors - Whether guarantors were discharged from obligations by reason of seller giving time and forbearance to sue principal debtor earlier - Whether guarantors were liable as a principal debtor
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Action - Claim for goods sold and delivered - Cause of action arose in Sabah - Application premised on ground that court has no jurisdiction over matter - Allegation that guarantee agreement contained a provision that parties to submit to jurisdiction of court of Malaya - Guarantee states that it will be governed by and construed in accordance with laws of States of Malaya - Goods delivered in Sabah - Whether matters fall within jurisdiction of High Court of Sabah and Sarawak notwithstanding that parties agreed to submit to jurisdiction of Court of Malaya - Whether jurisdiction of court could be ousted by agreement of parties - Whether defendants' appearance and filing of defence in a court shows that they have submitted to jurisdiction of that court
- For the plaintiff - Collin Lau & Ken Chiam; M/s Chiam Ubing & Co
- For the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants - Wilson Chang; M/s FT Ahmad & Co
- For the 4th defendant - Melisa Tan; M/s Chee & Co
|
|
[2020] 1 LNS 989
|
AHILAN RAMAN lwn. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA & YANG LAIN
Laporan lengkap penyiasatan bawah s. 3(3) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 ('Akta') boleh mengandungi sumber-sumber yang diperolehi daripada percakapan risikan, percakapan bawah s. 4 Akta dan apa-apa sumber serta laporan berkaitan kes orang yang ditahan dalam aktiviti berhubung dengan atau melibatkan pengedaran dadah berbahaya. Justeru, percakapan yang diambil daripada saksi-saksi sebelum penangkapan orang yang ditahan yang digunakan untuk menyediakan laporan penyiasatan bukanlah satu ketidakpatuhan prosedur.
PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Habeas corpus - Perintah tahanan dikeluarkan bawah s. 6(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 ('Akta') - Sama ada laporan lengkap siasatan boleh mengandungi sumber-sumber yang diperolehi daripada percakapan risikan yang diambil daripada saksi-saksi sebelum pemohon ditangkap - Sama ada perintah tahanan telah diserahkan secepat mungkin atau praktikal kepada pemohon
- Bagi pihak pemohon - Nor Diana; T/n KL Chee & Co
- Bagi pihak responden-responden - TPR; Hajar Peguam Kanan Persekutuan Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Kementerian Dalam Negeri
|
|
[2020] 1 LNS 1031
|
UTHAYA KUMAR MUNUSAMY lwn. PP
Pemberian amaran kepada seseorang semasa tangkapan hanya akan menjadi isu penting bagi menentukan penerimaan masuk ucapan atau maklumat yang diberikan oleh orang yang ditangkap itu sebagai keterangan. Pemberian amaran atau sebaliknya semasa tangkapan dibuat ke atas tertuduh adalah tidak relevan apabila dadah berbahaya yang dijumpai oleh pegawai tangkapan adalah bukan hasil daripada maklumat yang diberikan oleh tertuduh.
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Borang bongkar - Kebolehterimaan - Borang bongkar tidak mengandungi tandatangan tertuduh - Borang bongkar ditandatangani oleh pegawai penyiasat yang berada di tempat kejadian - Sama ada borang bongkar mengenai barang rampasan yang telah dirampas semasa serbuan di tempat kejadian telah disediakan menurut s. 64 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Sama ada terdapat keraguan dalam penyediaan borang bongkar - Sama ada ketiadaan tandatangan tertuduh telah dijelaskan oleh saksi-saksi yang relevan
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Tangkapan - Amaran - Pertuduhan milikan dadah berbahaya - Percanggahan oleh saksi pendakwaan berkenaan pemberian amaran kepada tertuduh semasa tangkapan - Pegawai tangkapan mengakui tidak memberikan amaran kepada tertuduh kerana dadah berbahaya dijumpai tanpa hasil daripada maklumat yang diberikan tertuduh - Sama ada pemberian amaran kepada tertuduh adalah relevan apabila tiada maklumat yang diberikan oleh tertuduh yang membawa kepada penemuan dadah
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Ekshibit - Pemutusan rantaian keterangan - Barang kes - Penandaan - Dakwaan percanggahan berkenaan tempat di mana barang kes ditanda - Sama ada terdapat sebarang kelompangan dalam rantaian pengendalian barang kes dari masa rampasan sehingga dikemukakan di mahkamah - Sama ada penandaan dan pengecaman ke atas ekshibit dadah telah dibuktikan - Sama ada konsisten dengan keterangan dokumen dan lisan saksi pendakwaan
- Bagi pihak perayu - Aravind Raj; T/n Gerard Lazarus Associates
- Bagi pihak responden - Siti Fatimah Yahya; Pejabat Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Negeri Selangor
|
CLJ 2022 Volume 8 (Part 4)
Proper corporate governance requires the keeping of proper accounting records of the company pursuant to the Companies Act 2016. The minority directors were reasonable in their pursuit of leave to commence a derivative action against the majority directors, who were holding the management and control of the company, and who had failed to shed light on the substantial amounts advanced. An application for leave to commence a derivative action is subject to satisfaction of the threshold that the action is commenced in good faith and prima facie in the best interest of the company; there was no necessity to show that the action was bound to succeed.
Dato’ Seri Timor Shah Rafiq v. Nautilus Tug & Towage Sdn Bhd [2022] 8 CLJ 529 [CA]
COMPANY LAW
COMPANY LAW: Derivative action - Action taken by minority shareholders - Payment of shareholders' interest not substantiated by relevant documents - Whether company's accounts kept in order - Whether failure to keep proper accounting records give rise to fictitious transactions - Whether all payments evidenced by independent supporting documents - Whether majority shareholders caused substantial losses to company - Whether company at risk of further loss - Whether minority director has statutory right to inspect books and records of company - Whether majority directors immune from liability by having management control and rights
COMPANY LAW: Derivative action - Leave - Action by minority shareholders - Payment of shareholders' interest not substantiated by relevant documents - Whether company kept proper accounting records - Whether proposed action had reasonable prospect of success - Whether fulfilled threshold test of acting in good faith and prima facie in best interest of company
LEE SWEE SENG JCA
AHMAD NASFY YASIN JCA
SEE MEE CHUN JCA
- For the appellant - Lambert Rasa-Ratnam, G Vijay Kumar, Chan Mun Yew & Shona Rukmini Dutta Yean; M/s Sreenevasan
- For the respondent - Cyrus V Das, David Thomas Mathews, Olivia Loh & Lai Ann Xing; M/s Gananathan Loh
Where the parties to the deed of assignment have used the word 'absolutely', the deed is meant to be an absolute assignment. When a deed of assignment is an absolute assignment, the parties and the court are bound by those words and effect must be accorded to the contractual rights.
OCBC Bank (Malaysia) Bhd v. NZ Bina Sdn Bhd & Anor [2022] 8 CLJ 572 [CA]
CONTRACT | CIVIL PROCEDURE
CONTRACT: Assignment - Absolute assignment - Deed of assignment of contract proceeds executed in favour of bank - Whether deed to assign absolutely all contract proceeds from main contract - Whether deed of assignment of contract proceeds extinguished and of no effect - Whether there was any obligation to continue to assign any contract proceeds to bank - Amount that was absolutely assigned
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Disposal on point of law - Appeal against - Absolute assignment - Deed of assignment of contract proceeds executed in favour of bank to assign absolutely all contract proceeds from main contract - Whether deed of assignment of contract proceeds extinguished and of no effect - Whether there was any obligation to continue to assign any contract proceeds to bank - Rules of Court 2012, O. 14A
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA
HASHIM HAMZAH JCA
- For the appellant - Clarence Edwin, R Paramanandan & S Humah Devi; M/s Clarence Edwin Law Offices
- For the 1st respondent - Muralee Menon & Tan Wei Ting; M/s Jaffar & Menon
- For the 2nd respondent - Eugene Jayaraj, David Soosay & Prathib Patmanabon; M/s Kandiah Partnership
The detaining authority has a duty of care to ensure the welfare and well-being of the persons under detention, including ensuring medical treatment or care is available and to be provided readily. The detaining authority must be sensitive and must not be careless to the needs of the detained person. Every cry of pain cannot be brushed aside as being a silly cry for attention. The fact that a person is being detained either in prison or in lock up does not mean the detaining authority could trifle with the said person's due and constitutional right to life, in particular of the right to be treated with dignity.
Rahaya Salleh v. Nik Mohd Ghazali Nik Zul Azhar & Ors And Another Appeal [2022] 8 CLJ 591 [CA]
TORT | CIVIL LAW ACT
TORT: Negligence - Unlawful arrest/detention - Claim for damages - Deceased placed on series of five remands and detained for total of 24 days - Deceased died of chronic lung infection during detention - Whether detaining authority negligent in duty of care at lock-up and prison - Whether there was negligence in investigating cause of death of deceased - Whether there was negligence in supervising or controlling officers of detaining authority
CIVIL LAW ACT: Dependency claim - Claim for damages - Unlawful arrest/detention - Deceased placed on series of five remands and detained for total of 24 days - Deceased died of chronic lung infection during detention - Claims for loss of dependency and loss suffered by estate - Whether claimants entitled to dependency claim - Amount of costs to be awarded - Civil Law Act 1956, ss. 7 & 8
YAACOB MD SAM JCA
AHMAD NASFY YASIN JCA
GUNALAN MUNIANDY JCA
- For the appellant - M Visvanathan, R Karnan & V Sanjay Nathan; M/s Saibullah MV Nathan & Co
- For the respondents - Andi Razalijaya A Dadi, Azizan Md Arshad; SFCs & Mohd Ashraf Abd Hamid; FC AG's Chambers
(i) The claimants, purchasers of a housing development, being aggrieved with the executive decision in allowing extension of time of the sale and purchase agreement after ten years had passed, must challenge that decision by way of judicial review under O. 53 of the Rules of Court 2012. The legal and procedural mechanism could not be circumvented or sidestepped; and (ii) The claimants, who elected to execute the settlement agreements with the developer voluntarily, must be deemed to have waived their rights under the Contracts Act 1950 and cannot be allowed to resile from that bargain. It would be abusive and unjust to allow it unless there were legitimate vitiating factors in play.
Choy May May & Ors v. Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd [2022] 8 CLJ 614 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Application for - Claim for liquidated ascertained damages - Allegation of late delivery of vacant possession of parcel units and late completion of common facilities - Whether pre-conditions under O. 14 of Rules of Court 2012 satisfied
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Application for - Whether suit frivolous and vexatious - Whether suit may prejudice, embarrass or delay fair trial of action - Whether suit abuse of court process - Whether claim statute barred - Whether claim unfounded and outside scope of agreement signed by parties - Whether action commenced via wrong mode - Whether should be by way of judicial review - Whether action would unjustly enrich other party - Whether action bona fide - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(b), (c), (d) & O. 92 r. 4
HAYATUL AKMAL ABDUL AZIZ J
- For the plaintiffs - Jadadish Chandra; M/s Arbain & Co
- For the defendant - Lai Chee Hoe & Shelby Ngeow; M/s Chee Hoe & Assocs
The High Court has wide powers to issue interim measures even against a non-party to an arbitration agreement and where the arbitral tribunal itself would not have been able to do so, as the interim measures are targeted at a third party.
Padda Gurtaj Singh & Ors v. Axiata Group Bhd & Ors [2022] 8 CLJ 671 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Interim - Injunctive reliefs - Injunction restraining company from selling shares in sale of shareholding and to prohibit company from amending, varying or otherwise changing terms of agreement - Preservation of status quo to ensure arbitration proceedings would not become academic - Whether Arbitration Act 2005 permits granting of injunctive reliefs against non-party to arbitration agreement - Whether there was pre-existing cause of action to grant injunction sought - Whether interim measures sought necessary - Arbitration Act 2005, ss. 11 & 19J
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Application for - Application to strike out application for injunctive reliefs - Injunctive reliefs sought to restrain company from selling shares in sale of all its shareholding and to prohibit company from amending, varying or otherwise changing terms of agreement - Preservation of status quo to ensure arbitration proceedings would not become academic - Whether Arbitration Act 2005 permits granting of injunctive reliefs against non-party to arbitration agreement - Whether there was pre-existing cause of action to grant injunction sought - Whether interim measures sought necessary - Whether application ought to be struck out - Arbitration Act 2005, ss. 11 & 19J
- For the plaintiff - K Shanmuga & Fahri Azzat; M/s Kanesalingam & Co
- For the 1st-3rd defendants - HR Dipendra, Gary Yap Vern Chieh & Hemashini Kurup; M/s Koh Dipendra Jeremiah Law
- For the 4th-7th defendants - Logan Sabapathy & Vivian Oh; M/s Logan Sabapathy & Co
- For 8th defendant - Chong Yee Lim, Alfred; M/s A Chong & Co
- For 9th defendant - Foo Joon Liang & Kang Mei Yee; M/s Gan Partnership
ARTICLES
LNS Article(s)
IF JOHNNY DEPP WAS MALAYSIAN: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN MALAYSIA – LAWS AND LOOPHOLES* [Read excerpt]
by Hiral Sanghvi[i] Senthil Ramu[ii] [2022] 1 LNS(A) xciii
[2022] 1 LNS(A) xciii
MALAYSIA
IF JOHNNY DEPP WAS MALAYSIAN:
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN MALAYSIA – LAWS AND LOOPHOLES*
by
Hiral Sanghvi[i]
Senthil Ramu[ii]
A recent study shows domestic violence increases when family members spend more time together, even during festivities and summer vacations.[1] During the COVID-19 pandemic, this situation worsened when everyone was confined to their homes. As accurately put by Amanda Taub in her paper 'A New Covid-19 Crisis: Domestic Abuse Rises Worldwide', domestic abuse is acting like an opportunistic infection, flourishing in the conditions created by the pandemic.[2]
Malaysian Women, Family and Community Development Minister Datuk Seri Rina Harun said 9,015 police reports were lodged for domestic violence since the movement control order ('MCO') during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. For 2021, domestic violence cases from January to October were reported at 4,905 cases.[3] It was also publicised that the number of domestic violence cases reported increased from 5,260 cases in 2020 to 7,468 cases in 2021, a rise of 42%.[4]
This drastic increase in domestic abuse cases compels us to revisit the issue of domestic violence in light of the pandemic and consider its implications, not only for women victims but also men. For most people, an image of a terribly beaten woman with a black eye would come to mind when talking about domestic violence. However, not all domestic violence victims are females, as men are also subject to abuse by their partners.
. . .
WOMEN IN ISLAM [Read excerpt]
by Syed M Aatif* [2022] 1 LNS(A) xciv
[2022] 1 LNS(A) xciv
INDIA
WOMEN IN ISLAM
by
Syed M Aatif*
More than half a billion women in the world profess the religion of Islam. They are concentrated in the 45 Muslim-majority countries in a broad belt from Senegal to the Philippines, with the largest number in the South Asian subcontinent. The most populous single Muslim-majority nation is Indonesia. Stereotypes of Muslim women have long prevailed in the West, distorting the enormous interregional and class variations in their circumstances and status.
However, the truth is far from all this propaganda against Muslims. Islam is what the Quran says it is. Nevertheless, Islam predates Quran itself. It is believed that Islam came with the first human being and the first Prophet Adam (AS) and was preached and professed by every single prophet after him.[1] In Surah An-Nisa, the Holy Quran dedicates an entire chapter to women, and a whole chapter on Mother Mary can be found in Surah Maryam, which could not be found in the Bible. In Islam, a woman is given high status. When she is born, she becomes the path to paradise for her parents; when she gets married, she completes half the deen (religion) of her husband, and when she becomes a mother, paradise lies at her feet. Hence, it makes no sense on what pretext it can be said that Islam oppresses women as there is no material evidence as per the holy scriptures to prove the same.
. . .
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS
Principal Acts
| Number |
Title |
In force from |
Repealed |
Superseded |
| ACT 837 |
Malaysian Border Security Agency (Dissolution) Act 2022 |
Not Yet Inforce |
- |
- |
| ACT 836 |
Geographical Indications Act 2022 |
18 March 2022 [PU(B) 169/2022] |
Geographical Indications Act 2000 [ACT 602] |
- |
| ACT 835 |
Factories and Machinery (Repeal) Act 2022 |
Not Yet In Force |
- |
- |
| ACT 834 |
Malaysian Space Board Act 2022 |
4 August 2022 [PU(B) 359/2022] - s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 41, 42, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 and 72 |
- |
- |
| ACT 833 |
Finance Act 2021 |
The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3; the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 29; the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 36; the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 45; the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 52; the Promotion of Investments Act 1986 [Act 327] see s 59; the Finance Act 2012 [Act 742] see s 64 and the Finance Act 2018 [Act 812] see s 66 |
- |
- |
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. |
Title |
Amended by |
In force from |
Section amended |
| ACT 593 |
Criminal Procedure Code (Revised 1999) |
ACT A1662 |
1 October 2022 [PU(B) 452/2022] |
Section 307 |
| ACT 91 |
Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Revised 1972) |
ACT A1661 |
1 October 2022 [PU(B) 451/2022] |
Sections 28, 51, 52, 52A, 53, 55 and 68 |
| PU(A) 163/2022 |
Perintah Duti Eksais 2022 |
PU(A) 287/2022 |
1 November 2022 |
Jadual |
| PU(A) 163/2022 |
Excise Duties Order 2022 |
PU(A) 287/2022 |
1 November 2022 |
Schedule |
| AKTA 26 |
Akta Bantuan Guaman 1971 |
PU(A) 274/2022 |
5 September 2022 |
Jadual Kedua Dan Ketiga |
Revoked
|
