Dynasty Palace Sdn. Bhd. v 1. ) SHAHRIZAT RASHID & LEE 2. ) LIM CHAI LOY (didakwa sebagai seorang individu dan bekas rakan kongsi Sharizat Rashid & Lee) 3. ) LIM MOK SAN (didakwa sebagai seorang individu dan bekas rakan kongsi Sharizat Rashid & Lee (cawangan Pulau Pinang) 4. ) SHAHRIR ABDUL JALIL (didakwa sebagai seorang individu dan rakan kongsi Shahrizat Rashid & Lee) 5. ) YOHAN ANANDA RAJAN (didakwa sebagai seorang individu dan rakan kongsi Shahrizat Rashid & Lee) 6. ) LOO MAY PEARL (didak...

pa-22ncvc-84-04-2021 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 13 March 2025 • PA-22NCvC-84-04/2021 • 39 min read
29 cases cited (0 SG, 29 foreign)

Catchwords

This Court will interpret the Order 14A of the ROC 2012 in accordance with its true meaning i.e. “nothing in this Order shall limit the powers of the Court under Order 18 rule 19 of the ROC 2012 or any other provisions of these rules” rather than the views of the parties. In the particular case of AURA INDAH JAYA SDN BHD V OCBC BANK (M) BHD [2021] 10 MLJ 21, this Court quotes the following decisions: “With great respect to the plaintiff’s counsel, this court cannot apply Humpty Dumpty’s logic when he told Alice: ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’ – Humpty Dumpty/Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll”

Judges (1)

Azizan bin Md. Arshad Delivered

Counsel (5)

Mureli Navaratnam Firm Saravanan Veerappan & Co. Firm Loh Jia Chun Counsel Defendant M Veerappan Counsel Defendant Mureli Navaratnam Counsel Defendant

Parties (14)

Dynasty Palace Sdn Bhd Plaintiff Elizabeth Shanti a/p Frank Louis Defendant Harjinder Kaur a/p Ajaib Singh Defendant Komala Veloo Defendant Lim Chai Loy Defendant Lim Mok San Defendant Loo May Pearl Defendant Michele Yeoh Ee Leen Defendant Naseem binti Mohamed Abdulla Defendant Ng Su Hing Defendant Shahrir Abdul Jalil Defendant Shahrizat Rashid & Lee Defendant Subramaniam a/l Anjan Defendant Yohan Ananda Rajan Defendant

Case Significance

Dynasty Palace Sdn. Bhd. v 1. ) SHAHRIZAT RASHID & LEE 2. ) LIM CHAI LOY (did... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated March 13, 2025 (citation: pa-22ncvc-84-04-2021). The case was decided by Azizan bin Md. Arshad.

What was the outcome of Dynasty Palace Sdn. Bhd. v 1. ) SHAHRIZAT RASHID & LEE 2. ) LIM CHAI LOY (did...?

Dynasty Palace Sdn. Bhd. v 1. ) SHAHRIZAT RASHID & LEE 2. ) LIM CHAI LOY (did... is a High Court decision dated March 13, 2025. The case was heard by Azizan bin Md. Arshad. See the full judgment for details.

Statutes Cited

Court of Judicature Act 1964
s 68
Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)
Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
Partnership Act 1961
s 19(1)
Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (29)

UK (4)
[1937] AC 473 [1942] AC 130 [1952] 2 QB 198 [1998] 2 All ER 720
MY (25)
[1965] 1 MLJ 228 [1991] 3 CLJ 2781 [1991] 3 MLJ 474 [1992] 2 MLJ 610 [2007] 6 CLJ 741 [2007] MLJU 845 [2008] 1 AMR 105 [2008] 2 MLJ 812 [2008] MLJU 60 [2009] 9 MLJ 175 [2012] 1 CLJ 49 [2012] 2 MLJ 299 [2013] 3 MLJ 35 [2016] MLJU 11 [2016] MLJU 113 [2019] 4 CLJ 131 [2020] 3 CLJ 153 [2020] MLJU 1476 [2021] 10 MLJ 21 [2021] MLJU 1019 [2022] 7 MLJ 404 [2023] MLJU 1766 [2023] MLJU 2511 [2023] MLJU 457 [2023] MLJU 967

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (pa-22ncvc-84-04-2021)