Dharmendra Kumar A/l Raghavan SEVANASPARAN A/L MANIKAM PENCELAH MAJLIS PEGUAM

Dharmendra Kumar A/l Raghavan SEVANASPARAN A/L MANIKAM PENCELAH MAJLIS PEGUAM

Appeal allowed because DC failed to produce prima facie proof of valid service under s.138(2) LPA and failed to comply with mandatory time limits, causing a denial of the appellant’s right to be heard; therefore the DB decision of 21.3.2025 (two-year suspension and RM50,000 fine) was unlawful and is set aside with direction for reinvestigation and rehearing by a new DC panel.

Citation
PA-17D-2-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Dharmendra Kumar a/l Raghavan; Respondent: Sevanasparan a/l Manikam; Intervener: Majlis Peguam
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 June 2025
Case Number
PA-17D-2-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Disciplinary Board Decision Under Legal Profession Act 1976 (judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings) / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Disciplinary Board decision dated 21.3.2025 set aside; matter remitted for fresh investigation and hearing by a new Disciplinary Committee panel
Legal Topics
Service of Documents, Natural Justice (audi Alteram Partem), Mandatory Time Limits, Standard of Proof in Disciplinary Proceedings, Suspension and Fine
Source Language
Malay/English
Legal Profession Administrative Law Disciplinary Proceedings Civil Procedure Service of Documents Natural Justice (audi Alteram Partem) Mandatory Time Limits Standard of Proof in Disciplinary Proceedings +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dharmendra Kumar a/l Raghavan

Appellant

Sevanasparan a/l Manikam

Respondent

Majlis Peguam

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Disciplinary Board Decision Under Legal Profession Act 1976 (judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether valid service was effected in accordance with s.138(2) LPA and Rules (proof of service)
  2. 2 Whether failure to give valid notice breached natural justice and deprived appellant of right to be heard
  3. 3 Whether DC complied with mandatory time limits under s.103B(1) LPA and Rule 15(1) and consequence of non-compliance

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal allowed because DC failed to produce prima facie proof of valid service under s.138(2) LPA and failed to comply with mandatory time limits, causing a denial of the appellant’s right to be heard; therefore the DB decision of 21.3.2025 (two-year suspension and RM50,000 fine) was unlawful and is set aside with direction for reinvestigation and rehearing by a new DC panel.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Disciplinary Board decision dated 21.3.2025 set aside; matter remitted for fresh investigation and hearing by a new Disciplinary Committee panel

Orders

  • Decision of Disciplinary Board dated 21 March 2025 (suspension for two years and fine RM50,000) is set aside
  • Complaint to be investigated and heard afresh by a new Disciplinary Committee panel