A
Amarjeet Singh a/l Wazir Singh
Person 1 case
Amarjeet Singh a/l Wazir Singh appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:
wa-24ncvc-1747-04-2025
Dato' Ahmad Feisal bin Ahmad Tajuddin (mendakwa sebagai pemangku presiden dan/atau naib presiden Persatuan Kriket Malaysia (1990)) v 1. ) Mohammed Iqbal Ali bin Kassim Ali 2. ) Dr Arun Kumar Beshamber Nath 3. ) Amarjeet Singh a/l Wazir Singh 4. ) Mahnorizal bin Mahat 5. ) Ahmad Salman bin Othman
MYHC 6 July 2025
See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.
About Amarjeet Singh a/l Wazir Singh
Amarjeet Singh a/l Wazir Singh appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning July 2025 to July 2025. Amarjeet Singh a/l Wazir Singh appeared as respondent in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).
How many court cases involve Amarjeet Singh a/l Wazir Singh?
Amarjeet Singh a/l Wazir Singh appears in 1 published judgment from July 2025 to July 2025. Most commonly as respondent (1 cases).
Practice Areas
1 This is a dispute regarding the validity of resignations and/or withdrawals of former members of the Executive Committee ("EXCO") of the Malaysia Cricket Association ("MCA"). It has resulted in the Originating Summons Enclosure 1 being filed. 1 2 In the meantime, the plaintiff is seeking an interim interlocutory injunction through Enclosure 2 pending the disposal of Enclosure 1. However, while Enclosure 2 is being dealt with, the plaintiff demands an ad interim injunction. 1 3 As regards Enclosure 2, the plaintiff seeks to restrain the first defendant from holding himself out as the President and/or affiliate committee members of the MCA, to restrain the second defendant from holding himself out as the Deputy President and/or affiliate committee member of the MCA, to prevent the third defendant from holding himself out as the Honorary Treasurer and/or affiliated committee member as well as to restrain the fourth and fifth defendants from holding themselves out as the affiliates committee members of the MCA. 1 4 The court, in this regard, is unable to find any evidence that the defendants played a role that would warrant an injunction. To this end, the Court does not find any evidence of the defendants holding themselves out as the plaintiff suggested. As a result, the plaintiff does not make out a sufficient case for this injunction. 1 5 In view of the same, Enclosure 2 is therefore dismissed with costs of RM2,000.00 to each defendant, subject to allocatur. 1