Krishna a/l Dallumah
About Krishna a/l Dallumah
Krishna a/l Dallumah appears as counsel of record in 3 reported Malaysia judgments (2025). These were heard before MYHC (2) and MYCOA (1).
On the court record
Krishna a/l Dallumah appears in the corpus in construction arbitration and in highway-negligence litigation, argued in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) and the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan). Two related High Court matters arose from the same arbitral award between a builder and a construction company and show the two sides of award litigation running in parallel: in one, appearing for the defendant, the builder applied to set aside the award under several limbs of section 37 of the Arbitration Act 2005, including sections 37(1)(a)(iv) and (v) and 37(2)(b); in the other, appearing for the plaintiff, the successful party applied to enforce the same award as binding by entering judgment in the High Court under section 38 of the Act. The pairing captures the characteristic posture of arbitration in the courts — the loser seeking to set aside on the limited statutory grounds while the winner seeks to convert the award into an enforceable judgment. A third matter, in the Court of Appeal and appearing for the appellant, was a negligence claim against a highway concessionaire arising from a fatal accident, engaging the statutory duty of a concessionaire and its maintenance contractor to keep the highway in good repair and condition under the Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984, the non-delegable nature of that duty, the standard of reasonable care, and whether the concessionaire's patrol arrangements were sufficient to discharge it, together with the proper scope for appellate intervention in the trial court's findings. The highway matter is notable for pressing the non-delegable character of the concessionaire's duty: even though the day-to-day maintenance and patrolling of the road were entrusted to a contractor, the concessionaire could not escape responsibility for a failure to keep the highway safe, and the appeal turned on whether the patrol regime that was in place met the standard of reasonable care the statute demands. Across the appearances the practice combines the enforcement and setting aside of construction arbitral awards with the tort liability of infrastructure operators for the safety of the roads they manage.
How many cases has Krishna a/l Dallumah appeared in?
Krishna a/l Dallumah appears as counsel of record in 3 reported Malaysia judgments (2025).
Which courts does Krishna a/l Dallumah appear in?
Krishna a/l Dallumah appears before MYHC (2) and MYCOA (1).
How did the two arbitration matters relate to each other?
They concerned the same award between a builder and a construction company: one was the builder's application to set the award aside under section 37 of the Arbitration Act 2005, and the other was the successful party's application to enforce it by entering judgment under section 38 — the loser seeking to set aside while the winner sought to enforce.
What negligence duty did the highway matter engage?
The statutory duty of a highway concessionaire and its maintenance contractor to keep the highway in good repair and condition under the Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984, the non-delegable nature of that duty, the standard of reasonable care, and whether the concessionaire's patrol arrangements were sufficient to discharge it.