Tan Sri Datuk Abdul Rahim bin Haji Din

Person 1 case

Tan Sri Datuk Abdul Rahim bin Haji Din appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:

02f-40-07-2023w

1. ) DETIK RIA SDN. BHD. 2. ) TAN SRI DATUK ABDUL RAHIM BIN HAJI DIN v 1. ) PRUDENTIAL CORPORATION HOLDING LIMITED 2. ) THE PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

MYFC 29 July 2024

See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.

About Tan Sri Datuk Abdul Rahim bin Haji Din

Tan Sri Datuk Abdul Rahim bin Haji Din appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning July 2024 to July 2024. Tan Sri Datuk Abdul Rahim bin Haji Din appeared as appellant in 1 case. Cases span the Federal Court (1).

How many court cases involve Tan Sri Datuk Abdul Rahim bin Haji Din?

Tan Sri Datuk Abdul Rahim bin Haji Din appears in 1 published judgment from July 2024 to July 2024. Most commonly as appellant (1 cases).

Practice Areas

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

Appellant (1)

02f-40-07-2023w MYFC

1. ) DETIK RIA SDN. BHD. 2. ) TAN SRI DATUK ABDUL RAHIM BIN HAJI DIN v 1. ) PRUDENTIAL CORPORATION HOLDING LIMITED 2. ) THE PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

29 July 2024