Manjit Singh Sachdev Mohammad Radzi & Partners

On the court record

Manjit Singh Sachdev Mohammad Radzi & Partners appears in the reported judgments as a land, banking and civil-litigation practice, working almost entirely in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) and acting most often for defendants and respondents. Land law and the enforcement of security are a defining strand: orders for sale under the National Land Code, including matters where the underlying facility was a moneylending agreement and where the originating summons was said to be premature under section 254(1) of the Code, and questions of whether a fresh inquiry was required before fixing an auction date. The firm's civil-procedure work is prominent — committal proceedings brought both against a plaintiff and against a defendant for alleged breach of court orders, and applications for a stay of action. Its company and commercial matters include minority-oppression suits, such as a long-running dispute among the members of a family rice-trading business and the effect of a consent order made between them. On the public-law side the firm appears in judicial review, including applications to quash a notice issued by a local authority under subsection 87(2) of the applicable legislation, and applications for a stay of a local authority's action pending determination. Its counterparties in the corpus include banks and corporate parties, with financing institutions such as Affin Bank Berhad among the recurring names. Acting across land, banking, company and administrative-law matters, the firm presents as a litigator whose corpus centres on the enforcement of security, committal and civil procedure, and the land and local-government disputes that surround them. Its committal work is unusual in appearing on both sides — bringing and resisting contempt proceedings for alleged breach of court orders — which reflects a practice familiar with the enforcement of orders as much as their obtaining. In the order-for-sale matters the court is asked whether the statutory conditions for foreclosure were satisfied and whether any cause to the contrary was shown, and in the local-authority judicial reviews whether the impugned notice was validly issued and within power. Taken as a whole, the corpus describes a firm rooted in land and secured-lending disputes, extending into company oppression and administrative-law challenges to local government.