Case sarawak properties sdn bhd v

In other words, the object of a proviso is to carve out from the substantive section or clause of a statute, a class or category of persons or things to whom or to which the main section does not apply.

On appeal the Court of Appeal reversed the order of the High Court. Subsection 2 states that the title of any such person, i. Hence this appeal to the Federal Court. It excludes from the main provision of subsection 3 this category of registered proprietors so that these proprietors are not caught by the main provision of this sub-section.

Boonsom Boonyanit holder of Thai passport No D, and that another person holding a Thai passport Nobearing the name of Mrs. When the word "such" occurs in a section it must not be ignored, but must be read as referring back to the preceding provision - Ellis v Ellis [] 1 Case sarawak properties sdn bhd v The proviso cannot be divorced from the main clause to which it is attached.

The High Court Judge had stated in his judgment that had he adopted the balance of probability standard of proof, there was sufficient evidence to show that the plaintiffs signature was forged.

Therefore, a piece of land may have one proprietor or many co-proprietors. We are aware that any sovereign country may adopt and apply the Torrens system, but in adopting the system, it may modify the system to suit its own needs.

However, subsection 3 of s NLC does not stop there. The High Court dismissed the plaintiffs claim that she plaintiff be restored, as the registered owner of the lands.

It says that the "title or interest of any person for the time being registered as proprietor of any land Before us, two questions of law were posed for decision and the first is - For proof of forgery such as the one under appeal, whether the standard of proof is on balance of probabilities, or on beyond reasonable doubt?

Subsection 3 says that where that title is defeasible under any of the three circumstances enumerated under subsection 2the title of the registered proprietor to whom the land was subsequently transferred under the forged document, is liable to be set aside.

It contains a proviso. Subsection 2 of s NLC uses the word "such". Who are these proprietors? For this category of registered proprietors they obtained immediate indefeasibility notwithstanding that they acquired their titles under a forged document.

He might have become a registered proprietor of the land because he had bought it, or he got it by way of a gift, or by way of transmission upon the death of his parent or spouse. The detailed facts of this case can be found in the High Court judgment which is reported in [] 2 AMR It must be considered together with the section or subsection of the statute to which it stands as a proviso.

We would therefore proceed to interpret s NLC as it stands, and find what was the real intention of Parliament when enacting it, for, the object of interpretation is to discover the intention of Parliament, and the intention of Parliament must be deduced from the language used.

The proviso says that any purchaser in good faith and for valuable consideration or any person or body claiming through or under him are excluded from the application of the substantive provision of subsection 3.

The object of a proviso is to qualify or limit something which has gone before it. The High Court held that forgery must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, while the Court of Appeal held that it should be on a balance of probabilities.DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR (BAHAGIAN RAYUAN DAN KUASA-KUASA KHAS) KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI PERAYU 10 DAN DEBIR DESA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD RESPONDEN 15 KES DINYATAKAN OLEH PESURUHJAYA KHAS CUKAI relied on the case of Sarawak Properties.

Case UMBC v Syarikat Perumahan Luas Sdn Bhd Charge registered in breach of from SCIENCE at SMK Lukut. Now, the facts of this case upon which the present application arises have been well rehearsed in the main judgment as well in the judgment of the Court of Appeal, (see Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v Boonsom Boonyanit [] 1 AMR ; [] 1 MLJ and Boonsom Boonyanit v Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd [] 2 AMR ; [] 2.

Revenue cited the case of Sarawak Properties Sdn. Bhd. v The DGIR [] 4 AMR as being “on all fours with the instant case” in support of the points made in (2) above. However, e-CIRCULAR TO MEMBERS CHARTERED.

Case: Sarawak Properties Sdn Bhd V the Director General of Inland Revenue Essay CASE: SARAWAK PROPERTIES SDN BHD v THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INLAND REVENUE ISSUE: Whether the tax treatment of income accrued and the expenditures incurred in respect of the appellant’s property development activities regarding the two.

Land Law in Sarawak ISBN: Author: Nasser Hamid and Prof Salleh Effect of Decision in Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v Boonsom Boonyanit Stating a Special Case for the Federal Court Methods of Effecting Service Registration

Case sarawak properties sdn bhd v
Rated 0/5 based on 22 review