The Eminence of Sleeping
Ewe Chin Leong on behalf of The Estate of Ewe Kim Sum, deceased,
47A, School Lane,
11600 George Town,
Penang.
December 4th. 2012
Attn. Mr. Tomis Peter Samat
Director of the Complaints Secretariat
Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board
8t" and 9th Floor
Wisma Maran
28 Medan Pasar
50050 Kuala Lumpur.
...
Dear Sir,
Complaint No. DB/12/7737 Complaint Against Messr. Gurunam Singh & Co. Respondent : 1. Mr. Gurunam Singh s/o Joginder Singh 2. Mr. Ganeson a/l Manickam Kumarasamy Messrs Gurunam Singh & Co. 1st. Floor, No. 90 Lebuh Gereja, 10200 Penang.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for taking up my complaint and your reply dated 23/11/2012 together with the reply from the Respondents.
I refer to the reply from the Respondents and I do like to give my reply as follows.
There are 5 main points, which I had gone through both Respondents. They are:
I. Summary Judgement cannot be given against any one with license to stay, i.e. lessees, tenants, and including over-stayed tenants as expressed out by our Federal Judges. It was this point which the Respondents failed to express out in both the stay and the appeal. If they had expressed out which they willfully omitted to do then the sitting judges in both the stay and the appeal would had noticed the defect of the Summary Judgement. The Session Court Judge had no mandate or authority to give summary judgement against us based on the point expressed out our Federal Judges. There would be a good chance that the sitting judges declared the summary judgement against us as null and void.
This applies to any order whether it is under 89 for the High court or 26A for Session Court applications for Summary Judgements.
II. The sworn statements by the Plaintiffs that we were squatters was never used to attack on the creditability of their affidavits and statements. If the Respondents had expressed
47A, School Lane,
11600 George Town,
Penang.
December 4th. 2012
Attn. Mr. Tomis Peter Samat
Director of the Complaints Secretariat
Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board
8t" and 9th Floor
Wisma Maran
28 Medan Pasar
50050 Kuala Lumpur.
...
Dear Sir,
Complaint No. DB/12/7737 Complaint Against Messr. Gurunam Singh & Co. Respondent : 1. Mr. Gurunam Singh s/o Joginder Singh 2. Mr. Ganeson a/l Manickam Kumarasamy Messrs Gurunam Singh & Co. 1st. Floor, No. 90 Lebuh Gereja, 10200 Penang.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for taking up my complaint and your reply dated 23/11/2012 together with the reply from the Respondents.
I refer to the reply from the Respondents and I do like to give my reply as follows.
There are 5 main points, which I had gone through both Respondents. They are:
I. Summary Judgement cannot be given against any one with license to stay, i.e. lessees, tenants, and including over-stayed tenants as expressed out by our Federal Judges. It was this point which the Respondents failed to express out in both the stay and the appeal. If they had expressed out which they willfully omitted to do then the sitting judges in both the stay and the appeal would had noticed the defect of the Summary Judgement. The Session Court Judge had no mandate or authority to give summary judgement against us based on the point expressed out our Federal Judges. There would be a good chance that the sitting judges declared the summary judgement against us as null and void.
This applies to any order whether it is under 89 for the High court or 26A for Session Court applications for Summary Judgements.
II. The sworn statements by the Plaintiffs that we were squatters was never used to attack on the creditability of their affidavits and statements. If the Respondents had expressed