N
Nur Ainnabila Rosdi
About Nur Ainnabila Rosdi
Nur Ainnabila Rosdi has appeared as counsel in 3 judgments in the MY Case Law database, spanning July 2024 to November 2025. Role breakdown: counsel for defendant (2), counsel for respondent (1). Appearances span the High Court (2), Federal Court (1). Admitted to the Malaysian Bar on 2016-08-26.
3
Appearances
2016
Year of Call
2
Firms
No
Senior Counsel
How many court cases has Nur Ainnabila Rosdi appeared in?
Nur Ainnabila Rosdi has appeared in 3 published judgments from July 2024 to November 2025. Appearances span the High Court (2), Federal Court (1).
Practice Areas (from case appearances)
failure to obtain consent of the Minister of Finance under section 67 of the Insurance Act 1996 the repeal of the Insurance Act 1996 by the Financial Services Act 2013 whether relevant legislation is the statute in force at the time of entry into the agreement or at the time of performance of the agreement whether Bank Negara’s approval is equal to the approval by the Minister of Finance conditional contracts contingent contracts section 33 of the Contracts Act 1950 restitution pursuant to section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950 whether the agreements were void ab initio, but became void and unenforceable when the approval of the Minister of Finance was not obtained whether the agreements could become illegal in the course of performance, by reason of their being performed substantially or in part, without the fulfilment of the condition precedent whether specific performance is available the purpose and object of section 67 of the Insurance Act 1996 the consequences in law if an illegality arises in the course of performance the issue of the validity or enforceability of an agreement where an illegality arises by reason that the mode of performance adopted by the party performing it is in violation of a statute distinguish between a contract which has as its object an illegal act and a contract whose performance involves an illegal act 1 ORIGINATING SUMMON Issues: (a) The absence of sanction- whether it bars the present action? 1 (b) Whether section 38(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act, in its current form, imposes undue hardship upon undischarged bankrupts. Legislative reform is warranted to ensure fairness and justice in its application? 1 (c) Whether, by naming the Director General of Insolvency Malaysia as a party to the proceedings, the requirement of obtaining sanction from the Director General of Insolvency Malaysia is thereby dispensed with? 1 ORIGINATING SUMMON Issues: Whether the Plaintiff could institute the present action without first obtaining sanction from the DGI? 1 (b) Whether sanction is required in an action where the DGI is sued for failure in the discharge of his duties and responsibilities while acting as Official Assignee of Hosba Valley Resort? 1 (c) Whether the present action against the Liquidator is caught by the doctrine of res judicata for one of sanction as the issue has been raised and decided previously in Originating Summons No. KA-24NCvC-341-08/2021 (OS 341) and Originating Summons No. KA-24NCvC-543-11/2024 (OS 543)? 1
Counsel Defendant (2)
ka-24ncvc-165-06-2025 MYHC
THIYAGARAJAN A/L MPL YEGAPPAN v 1. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA 2. ) MENTERI UNDANG-UNDANG & REFORMASI INSTITUSI KERAJAAN MALAYSIA 3. ) KETUA HAKIM NEGARA MALAYSIA 4. ) KETUA PENGARAH INSOLVENSI MALAYSIA 5. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD 6. ) DATO ROBERT TEO KHENG TUAN 7. ) PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK, PEJABAT PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN NEGERI KEDAH DARULAMAN
12 November 2025
ka-24ncvc-217-07-2025 MYHC
THIYAGARAJAN A/L MPL YEGAPPAN v 1. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN INSOLVENSI MALAYSIA 2. ) DATO ROBERT TEO KHENG TUAN 3. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD
12 November 2025