MANDEEP SINGH REKHRAJ A/L KERTAR SINGH Dato' Sukhdev Singh Randhawa (Beramal sebagai seorang Peguambela & Peguamcara di Tetuan Azlan Shah Sukhdev & Co)

MANDEEP SINGH REKHRAJ A/L KERTAR SINGH Dato' Sukhdev Singh Randhawa (Beramal sebagai seorang Peguambela & Peguamcara di Tetuan Azlan Shah Sukhdev & Co)

The court refused to exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time because the appellant failed to provide a credible explanation for the delays; O 28 r 3C(1) is mandatory and the five‑day delay in filing AIS‑4 plus the unexplained 18‑day delay in filing the appeal record meant there was no proper material to justify validating the late filings; consequently AIS‑4 and the appeal record were disregarded and the originating summons was dismissed with costs.

Citation
WA-17D-37-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/perayu: MANDEEP SINGH REKHRAJ A/L KERTAR SINGH; Respondent/responden: DATO' SUKHDEV SINGH RANDHAWA
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 September 2024
Case Number
WA-17D-37-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Legal Profession Act 1976 Against Disciplinary Board Decision / Application for Extension of Time to File Affidavits and Record of Appeal; Decision on Admissibility and Disposition of Originating Summons
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed; affidavit in support (AIS-4) and record of appeal disregarded; originating summons dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Originating Summons, Disciplinary Board Appeal, Compliance With Rules of Court 2012, Service and Filing Deadlines, Appeal Record Requirements
Source Language
Malay/English
Legal Profession Civil Procedure Administrative Law Extension of Time Originating Summons Disciplinary Board Appeal Compliance With Rules of Court 2012 Service and Filing Deadlines +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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MANDEEP SINGH REKHRAJ A/L KERTAR SINGH

Appellant/perayu

DATO' SUKHDEV SINGH RANDHAWA

Respondent/responden

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under the Legal Profession Act 1976 Against Disciplinary Board Decision / Application for Extension of Time to File Affidavits and Record of Appeal; Decision on Admissibility and Disposition of Originating Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the five‑day delay in filing the affidavit in support (AIS-4) and the 18‑day delay in filing the record of appeal were sufficiently explained to permit an extension of time
  2. 2 Whether O 28 r 3C(1) Rules of Court 2012 is mandatory and precludes late evidence
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was required to wait for documents from the Disciplinary Board before filing the affidavit in support

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time because the appellant failed to provide a credible explanation for the delays; O 28 r 3C(1) is mandatory and the five‑day delay in filing AIS‑4 plus the unexplained 18‑day delay in filing the appeal record meant there was no proper material to justify validating the late filings; consequently AIS‑4 and the appeal record were disregarded and the originating summons was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed; affidavit in support (AIS-4) and record of appeal disregarded; originating summons dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time dismissed
  • Affidavit in support filed on 7.11.2023 (AIS-4) is disregarded as irregular