1. ) PUGANESVARAN A/L LACHEMANAN 2. ) NAGARAJAN A/L S. LACHEMANAN v LACHEMANAN A/L SINNASAMY
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (3)
Case Significance
1. ) PUGANESVARAN A/L LACHEMANAN 2. ) NAGARAJAN A/L S. LACHEMANAN v LACHEMANA... is a Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) decision dated October 22, 2025 (citation: b-02imncvc-1817-11-2023). <p>The appellants challenged a High Court order fixing a new compliance date under Order 45 Rule 6 of the Rules of Court 2012 for a mandatory injunction requiring them to deposit RM5.5 million, after they had already been found in contempt for non-compliance. The Court of Appeal held that while Order 45 Rule 6 did not apply to set a new date after contempt proceedings, the High Court had inherent power to do so, and the new compliance order did not violate the double jeopardy rule. The appeal wa The panel comprised Faizah binti Jamaludin, Mohamed Zaini bin Mazlan and Mohd Radzi bin Abdul Hamid, with Mohd Radzi bin Abdul Hamid delivering the judgment.
Summary
The appellants challenged a High Court order fixing a new compliance date under Order 45 Rule 6 of the Rules of Court 2012 for a mandatory injunction requiring them to deposit RM5.5 million, after they had already been found in contempt for non-compliance. The Court of Appeal held that while Order 45 Rule 6 did not apply to set a new date after contempt proceedings, the High Court had inherent power to do so, and the new compliance order did not violate the double jeopardy rule. The appeal was dismissed.
What was the outcome of 1. ) PUGANESVARAN A/L LACHEMANAN 2. ) NAGARAJAN A/L S. LACHEMANAN v LACHEMANA...?
<p>The appellants challenged a High Court order fixing a new compliance date under Order 45 Rule 6 of the Rules of Court 2012 for a mandatory injuncti...