R
Raja Segaran a/l S.krishnan
J 7 cases
About J Raja Segaran a/l S.krishnan
Raja Segaran a/l S.krishnan has been involved in 7 judgments in the MY Case Law database, spanning February 2026 to February 2026. These cases are from the High Court (7 cases). Raja Segaran a/l S.krishnan served as the delivering judge in 7 of these cases. Raja Segaran a/l S.krishnan holds the designation of Dato' Sri.
7
Total Cases
7
Delivered
0
Sat On (Coram)
How many cases has Raja Segaran a/l S.krishnan been involved in?
Raja Segaran a/l S.krishnan has been involved in 7 published judgments from February 2026 to February 2026, serving as the delivering judge in 7 of them. Cases span the High Court (7 cases).
What types of cases does Raja Segaran a/l S.krishnan typically handle?
Based on 7 published judgments, Raja Segaran a/l S.krishnan's most common case types include Company law (3 cases) and Key Words (2 cases).
Practice Areas
Company law 3 Key Words 2 The First and Third Defendants applied under Order 34 rules 1(3) and 2(3) of the Rules of Court 2012 to dismiss the Plaintiff’s action for alleged non-compliance with pre-trial case management directions. 1 The High Court dismissed the application. 1 The Court held that although Order 34 confers a discretionary power to dismiss for non-compliance, dismissal is a severe sanction which extinguishes a cause of action without adjudication on the merits. The threshold for its exercise is therefore high. The power is protective, not punitive, and must be applied consistently with the principles of access to justice, fairness between parties and proportionality. 1 The Court articulated a structured approach in determining whether dismissal is warranted, including consideration of: 1. The nature and seriousness of the non-compliance; 2. Whether the conduct was intentional or contumelious; 3. Whether the delay was inordinate and inexcusable; 4. Whether the applicant contributed to the delay; 5. Whether real and material prejudice affecting trial fairness was demonstrated; 6. Whether lesser sanctions would suffice. 1 On the facts, while there was delay in finalising the Agreed Facts, Issues to be Tried and Common Bundle of Documents, the delay was not contumelious. There was no unless order or express warning of dismissal. The Defendants had materially contributed to the delay and had failed to demonstrate serious or irremediable prejudice. Dismissal would therefore be disproportionate. 1 The application was dismissed, and the Plaintiff was directed to complete the outstanding pre-trial case management documents, with liberty to impose stricter sanctions in the event of further non-compliance. 1
Cases Delivered (7)
ma-24ncc-9-05-2025 MYHC
AMIRELY BIN DAUD v 1. ) SYAHRUL HAFIZ BIN MD HASHIM 2. ) HASZAIDI BIN HAJI HASSAN 3. ) SYNTAX VALLEY PARKING (M) SDN BHD 4. ) Majlis Bandaraya Melaka Bersejarah (MBMB)
26 February 2026
ma-24ncc-5-05-2025 MYHC
NOVASARA DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. v CHEN GUO JUN
24 February 2026
ma-24ncc-6-05-2025 MYHC
NOVASARA DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. v CHEN GUO FEN
24 February 2026
ma-24ncc-7-05-2025 MYHC
NOVASARA DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. v CHEN XIAO CUI
24 February 2026
ma-22ncvc-23-04-2024 MYHC
LUI WEI PING v 1. ) YAU CHENG EE 2. ) SEE AH MOI 3. ) HAU YEONG TAI 4. ) BIOBENUA TEKNOLOGI SDN BHD 5. ) ABDUL RAZAK BIN ALI
23 February 2026
ma-22ncvc-37-06-2023 MYHC
1. ) CHAN HENG CHEW 2. ) YEOH SUAT CHENG 3. ) YEO SEOK ENG 4. ) KHOO CHENG HUAY 5. ) YEOW KHEK LIM 6. ) YEOW HOE SOON 7. ) YEOW HOE MENG v YEOW HOE SEAH
23 February 2026
ma-24mfc-107-07-2024 MYHC
BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT MALAYSIA BERHAD v Temasek Blooms Sdn Bhd
12 February 2026