• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA(BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN)PERMOHONAN NO. 08-89-2007 (W)
ANTARA1.
 
ANANTHA KIRUISAN P.S.R. … PEMOHON-@ ANANTHA KRISHNAN PEMOHON2. S. RAMLI B. ABDUL LATIFDANTEOH CHU THONG … RESPONDENDalam Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia Di Putrajaya(Bidang Kuasa Rayuan)Rayuan Sivil No. W-04-197-2004AntaraTeoh Chu Thong … PerayuDan1.
 
Anantha Kiruisan P.S.R. @ Anantha Krishnan … Responden-2.
 
S. Ramli B. Abdul Latif RespondenDalam Perkara Guaman No. R2-12-541-2000Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Di Kuala LumpurAntara1.
 
Anantha Kiruisan P.S.R. @ Anantha Krishnan … Perayu-2.
 
S. Ramli B. Abdul Latif PerayuDanTeoh Chu Thong … Responden
 
2
Dalam Perkara Guaman No. 1-53-780-1997Dalam Mahkamah Sesyen Di Kuala LumpurAntaraTeoh Chu Thong … Plaintif Dan1.
 
Anantha Kiruisan P.S.R. @ Anantha Krishnan … Defenden-2.
 
S. Ramli B. Abdul Latif DefendenCoram: Abdul Hamid bin Haji Mohamad, CJZaki bin Tun Azmi, PCAZulkefli bin Ahmad Makinudin, FCJ
JUDGMENT OF ZULKEFLI BIN AHMAD MAKINUDIN, FCJ
IntroductionThis is an application by way of Notice of Motion of the applicantsoriginating from an action filed by the respondent in the Civil Suit No. 1-53-780-1997 in the Sessions Court at Kuala Lumpur against the applicants in apersonal injury claim arising from motor vehicles accident. Before theSessions Court the applicants were the defendants and the respondent wasthe plaintiff. In this application I shall refer the parties as they were in theSessions Court. Under this application filed pursuant to Rule 137 of theRules of the Federal Court 1995 [“RFC 1995”] the defendants are seekingfor an Order that:(1)
 
Leave be granted to file this Notice of Motion.
 
3
(2)
 
That this Apex Court do determine the following issues of lawbased on its inherent jurisdiction, arising out of a decision of the Court of Appeal namely:(a)
 
Whether, pursuant to section 96(a) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 [“the Act”] the Court of Appeal,being the final Appellate Court on matters originatingfrom the Sessions Court, can on such a premise, refuse tobe bound by a decision of the Federal Court being thehighest Appellate Court in this country.(b)
 
Whether, pursuant to section 96(a) of the Act, the Courtof Appeal, being the final Appellate Court on mattersoriginating from the Sessions Court, can on such apremise hold that the decision of the Federal Court iswrong and thus give a decision, on a point of law,contrary to the decision given by the Federal Court on thesame point of law such as in:(i)
 
Chan Chin Ming & Anor. v. Lim Yok Eng[1994] 3 MLJ 233
where the Federal Court heldthat although section 28A(2)(d)(i) of the Civil LawAct, 1956 [“CLA 1956”] provides for a multiplierof 16 years, yet where appropriate and taking intoconsideration factors such as the possible marriageof the deceased and the ages of the dependent-parents, the courts can and ought not to fix theyears of purchase at 16. However, the Court of 
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...