| Malaysian Court System |  |  |  |
THE SUPERIOR COURTS
This consists of the High Court of Malaya, the High Court of Sabah & Sarawak, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court. The Federal Court is the highest court of the land. High Courts
The High Courts have general supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction over all the Subordinate Courts and hear appeals from the Subordinate Courts in civil and criminal matters.
They hear matters relating to the validity or dissolution of marriage (divorce) and matrimonial causes, bankruptcy and companies winding up matters, guardianship or custody of children, grants probates of wills and letters of administration of deceased persons, injunctions, specific performance or rescissions of contracts, legitimacy of any persons and generally actions of which the claim exceeds RM250,000-00 (except motor vehicle accidents, landlord and tenant and distress). The High Courts have powers to hear all criminal matters. Court of Appeal
Generally, the Court of Appeal hears all civil appeals against decisions of the High Courts except where against judgment or orders made by consent. In cases where the claim is less than RM250,000-00 or the judgment or order relates to costs only or against decisions of a judge in chambers on an interpleader summons on undisputed facts, leave of the Court of Appeal must first be obtained.
The Court of Appeal also hears criminal appeals against decisions of the High Courts. Federal Court
All civil appeals from the Court of Appeal are heard by the Federal Court only after leave is granted by the Federal Court. The Federal Court also hears criminal appeals from the Court of Appeal only in respect of matters heard by the High Court in its original jurisdiction.
THE SUBORDINATE COURTS This consists of the Sessions Courts, the Magistrates' Courts and in West Malaysia the Penghulu's Courts. Penghulu's Courts
Generally, the Penghulu's Courts hear civil matters of which the claim does not exceed RM50-00 and where the parties are persons of Asian race and speaking and understanding the Malay language. The Penghulu's Court’s criminal jurisdiction is limited to offences of a minor nature charged against a person of Asian race of which is specially enumerated in his "kuasa" which can be punished with a fine not exceeding RM25-00.
Magistrates' Courts
The Magistrates' Courts hear all civil matters of which the claim does not exceed RM25,000-00. Generally in criminal matters, the Magistrates' Courts have power to try all offences of which the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed 10 years or which are punishable with fine only but may pass sentences not exceeding 5 years imprisonment, fine not exceeding RM10,000-00 and/or whipping up to 12 strokes.
The Magistrates' Courts also hear appeals from the Penghulu's Courts. Sessions Courts
The Sessions Courts hear all matters of which the claim exceeds RM25,000-00 but does not exceed RM250,000-00 except in matters relating to motor vehicle accidents, landlord and tenant and distress, where the Sessions Courts have unlimited jurisdiction. The Sessions Courts have powers to hear all criminal matters except for offences punishable with death and may pass any sentences allowed by law except the sentence of death.
Small Claims Civil claims not exceeding RM5,000-00 where the party pursuing the claim is an individual (i.e. not a company or agent/assignee of debts) are brought before the Magistrates' Courts pursuant to the small claims procedure where legal representations are strictly prohibited. You may fill in the Form 164 (Summons and Statement of Claim) which is available upon request at the Subordinate Courts Building by following the instructions found on the Form. You may also consult a lawyer but you cannot be represented by him at the hearing. |
CASE HIGHLIGHTS
PARTNERSHIP: Partnership property - Legal firm - Share in partnership - Retirement of partner - Whether retiring partner's share in firm comprised value of both goodwill and assets of firm - Whether 'surplus-profit' method of valuation ideal for valuing on-going legal practice - Whether 'surplus-profit' method took into consideration both goodwill and assets of firm - Whether trial court duty-bound to consider and rule on opinions expressed in conflicting valuation reports - Whether partner bound by agreement
Mohamed Ismail Mohamed Shariff v. Zain Azahari Zainal Abidin & Ors
Arifin Zakaria CJ, Hashim Yusoff, Abdull Hamid Embong FCJJ [2013] 2 CLJ 717 [FC]
Mohamed Ismail Mohamed Shariff v. Zain Azahari Zainal Abidin & Ors
Arifin Zakaria CJ, Hashim Yusoff, Abdull Hamid Embong FCJJ [2013] 2 CLJ 717 [FC]
CASES OF THE WEEK
DATO' DR ABD ISA ISMAIL v. DATO' ABU HASAN SARIF & ANOR
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ZULKEFLI MAKINUDIN CJ (MALAYA), HASHIM YUSOFF FCJ, AHMAD MAAROP FCJ, ZALEHA ZAHARI FCJ, ZAINUN ALI FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02-7-03-2012 (W)]
21 JANUARY 2013
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ZULKEFLI MAKINUDIN CJ (MALAYA), HASHIM YUSOFF FCJ, AHMAD MAAROP FCJ, ZALEHA ZAHARI FCJ, ZAINUN ALI FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02-7-03-2012 (W)]
21 JANUARY 2013
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: State Assemblyman - State Legislative Assembly meetings - Attendance - Failure of State Assemblyman to attend 5th Meeting of First Session and subsequent 1st Meeting of Second Session thereof - Whether having absented from `two consecutive meetings' of the Assembly - Whether in breach of s. 51 of Kedah Constitution - Whether causing relevant state seat to fall vacant - Constitution of the State of Kedah arts. 2, 39, 51, 53
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Constitution - Constitution of the State of Kedah - Section 51 - Interpretation of words "two consecutive meetings" therein - State Legislative Assembly meetings - Failure of State Assemblyman to attend two meetings thereof - Effect and consequence - Whether causing relevant state seat to fall vacant - Constitution of the State of Kedah ss. 2, 39, 51, 53
WORD & PHRASES: "two consecutive meetings" - Article 51, Constitution of the State of Kedah - Meaning and import
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Constitution - Constitution of the State of Kedah - Section 51 - Interpretation of words "two consecutive meetings" therein - State Legislative Assembly meetings - Failure of State Assemblyman to attend two meetings thereof - Effect and consequence - Whether causing relevant state seat to fall vacant - Constitution of the State of Kedah ss. 2, 39, 51, 53
WORD & PHRASES: "two consecutive meetings" - Article 51, Constitution of the State of Kedah - Meaning and import
MICHAEL SEBASTIAN LWN. DANNY THOMAS [2013] 1 SMC 31
MAHKAMAH SESYEN, SEGAMAT
LISAH CHE MAT HS
[SAMAN NO: 52-236-2010]
30 MEI 2012
MAHKAMAH SESYEN, SEGAMAT
LISAH CHE MAT HS
[SAMAN NO: 52-236-2010]
30 MEI 2012
KONTRAK: Perjanjian - Peminjaman wang - Sama ada suatu peminjaman persahabatan - Sama ada perjanjian menyalahi undang-undang - Sama ada perjanjian tak sah dan batal - Akta Pemberipinjam Wang 1951, s. 2 - Akta Kontrak 1950, s. 71
PERKATAAN & ISTILAH: "Pemberipinjam wang" - Seksyen 2, Akta Pemberipinjam Wang 1951 - Maksud dan skop
PERKATAAN & ISTILAH: "Pemberipinjam wang" - Seksyen 2, Akta Pemberipinjam Wang 1951 - Maksud dan skop
Central Information Commission (CIC):
While hearing an RTI application, vide which the appellant, Rahul Mohod wanted to know the basis, such as any enactment, guidelines, notification or regulation, for the expression “Yatodharma stato Jaya” appearing underneath the seal of the Supreme Court, CIC has asked the Supreme Court to declare reasons behind adopting the line "Yatodharma Stato Jaya" mentioned in its logo under the Lion Capital of Ashoka and not "Satyamev Jayate" which is part of the National emblem. The appellant approached CIC as his query regarding the matter before the lower forums was not provided with satisfactory answers. Chief Information Commissioner Satyananda Mishra, after hearing both the parties held, “We are of the view that this information should be provided to him if it is available. Since the Supreme Court of India had chosen for its logo a different expression from what the Government of India had adopted (Satyameva Jayate) for the National Emblem, there must be some record about it. We would like the CPIO to look for the relevant records and provide to the Appellant within 15 working days of receiving this order the copy of the relevant authority for adoption of this particular expression as a part of the Supreme Court logo.” (Rahul Mohod v. Supreme Court of India, Case No. CIC/SM/A/2012/001491, decided on March 22, 2013)
Delhi High Court: Delhi High Court
has restrained NIIT Ltd. from using the expression “Turning Point” along with their mark NIIT in their computer training program under the name “NIIT: The Turning Point”. The court was hearing a petition filed by one Keshav Kumar Aggarwal, who is the sole proprietor of the firm M/s Turning Point, New Delhi which is engaged in providing Educational Services, Coaching & training for students in various Schools & Colleges, since the year 1998 under the trademark “Turning Point”. The petitioner has alleged that the defendant by using the registered trademark of the plaintiff, as part of their educational and training course is infringing upon the valuable statutory and common law rights of the plaintiff in its registered trademark and sought injunction against it. The contention of the defendant was that the alleged mark is in respect of the label mark as a whole and that the alleged registration of the label mark does not confer any exclusivity on the words Turning Point rather it read as TP Turning Point and hence no infringement suit lies against the Defendant. After hearing both the parties and citing various judgments, court held that as the plaintiff’s trade mark/ label “Turning Point‟ has achieved the status of a well-known mark/ label within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (zg) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and the plaintiff’s trademark “Turning Point” being an essential feature of the label of the plaintiff “TP-Turning Point” deserves protection from any acts of infringement/passing off caused at the hand of any other person using the similar/ identical mark. Hence, the court allowed the plea of the plaintiff and said, “Plaintiff has been able to make out a prima facie case for grant of injunction against the Defendant. The use of the expression Turning Point along with their mark NIIT by the Defendant at this initial stage deserves to be injuncted as the mark of the Defendant is deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiff Institution. As a result, the plaintiff’s application for the grant of interim injunction stands allowed and accordingly, the defendant, its directors, employees, servants, agents etc. are restrained from marketing, selling or using in any manner whatsoever the plaintiff’s registered trademark “Turning Point” with respect to its services.” (Keshav Kumar Aggarwal v. NIIT Ltd., CS (OS) No. 2237/2012, March 22, 2013)
Supreme Court Justice Says Gay Marriage Newer Than Cell Phones and the Internet. We Say, Huh?
A gay-marriage supporter in San Francisco Monday. (Getty Images)OK, so while countless gay couples wait—in some cases for many decades, their lives and families held in the balance—Supreme Court Justices are freaking out about moving too fast. The New York Times reported that some expressed a sort of “buyer’s remorse” about the hearings Tuesday, with Justice Alito feeling the need to give a little history lesson.
“You want us to step in and assess the effects of this institution, which is newer than cellphones and/or the Internet?” he asked, urging caution in a ruling.
Hmm. The Internet was introduced to the public by UCLA in 1969. And the mobile phone was invented by Martin Cooper in 1973.
So, by Alito's bizarre logic, that must mean the concept of gay marriage—the mere fact of same-sex lovers entering into a commitment and living together as partners—must have been invented some time in the ’70s. Right?
Hmm. The Internet was introduced to the public by UCLA in 1969. And the mobile phone was invented by Martin Cooper in 1973.
So, by Alito's bizarre logic, that must mean the concept of gay marriage—the mere fact of same-sex lovers entering into a commitment and living together as partners—must have been invented some time in the ’70s. Right?
Now it's time for our history lesson, in brief, easy-to-digest timeline format:
"A Very Long Engagement" via YouTube.1970: Minnesota couple Jack Baker and Michael McConnell tried to legally marry; their case went to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear arguments. But they're still together.1969: Stonewall uprising, the kick-off of the modern-day gay rights movement, takes place in NYC.
1965: Edie Windsor and Theya Speyer, profiled in the documentary "A Very Long Engagement," enter into their 44-year relationship.
1963: The book “The Homosexual and his Society” described informal gay weddings where all the formalities of a legally certified and religiously sanctioned ceremony "are aped with the greatest of care.”
2400 B.C.: Evidence of the first gay couple, in ancient Egypt, was unearthed when two male royal manicurists named Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep were found buried together in a shared tomb similar to the way married couples were often buried.
Justice Scalia: Shall we go on?
No comments:
Post a Comment