Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership

On the court record

Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership appears in the reported judgments with a pronounced revenue and corporate-disputes character, acting across the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi), the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) and the Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan). Tax litigation is a defining thread: appeals from the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (SCIT) involving the Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri (the Director General of Inland Revenue), on questions such as whether multi-storey car parks qualify as "plant" attracting capital allowances under Schedule 3 of the Income Tax Act 1967 on a functionality test, the treatment of interest and service-charge income under sections 4, 4B and 25(4), whether an independent non-executive director's fees are employment or business income, and appeals under paragraph 34 of Schedule 5 to the Income Tax Act 1967. Alongside the tax work, the firm handles company-law disputes — shareholder oppression under section 346 of the Companies Act 2016, winding up and leave for a contributory to bring proceedings under section 486(2), and internal-association governance contests over the validity of an annual general meeting, proxy voting and the removal of office-holders, argued against the backdrop of Foss v Harbottle and the principle of judicial non-intervention in the internal management of voluntary associations. Its matters also reach into arbitration and injunctions — restraining a call on a performance bond under section 11 of the Arbitration Act 2005 on grounds of unconscionable conduct — into equity and material non-disclosure on ex parte relief, and even a cross-border family petition for annulment of a marriage solemnised in Ontario. It has also litigated joint-venture and shareholding disputes over the ownership of shares in a joint-venture company, and applications to convert an originating summons into a writ action where the issues raise substantial disputes of fact that cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence alone. The counterparties in the corpus are largely corporate — spanning airport, marine, engineering and development companies — and the overall pattern is of a litigation practice strong in tax, company and commercial-equity disputes rather than in criminal or personal-injury work.