|
12,13 and 14 June 2008
Order under Section 103 LPA 1976
Mohd Razak bin Sharif - 14 June 2008 - Complaint No : IT/06/1725
Fakrul Nizam bin Isahak - 14 June 2008 - Complaint No : IT/06/1725 By ASDB Order dated 14Ih June 2008 the Respondents of No.43, 4A Wisma
Persatuan Guru Melayu Johor (PGMJ), Jalan Sultanah 83000, Batu Pahat, Johor were
fined RM1,000.00 each to be paid within 1 month with 8% interest per annum from
the date of the Order for failing to attempt and reply to the Complainant's solicitors
which had caused the transaction being delayed, unreasonably and inconvenience that
had brought the matter to an extend.
Order under Section 103D LPA 1976
Ravichandran a/l Dorados - 12 June 2008
By ASDB Order dated 12th June 2008 the Respondent of No. 26-1-2, Jalan 4/50,
Diamond Square Business Centre Off Jalan Gombak, 53000 Kuala Lumpur was
ordered to be struck off from the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors with effect 21 days
from the date of Order for acting in gross disregard of his client's interest and being
guilty of conduct which is unbefitting of an advocate and solicitor where the
Complainant had obtained judgement for an order of eviction. The Complainant's
solicitors requested for the return of the money amounting to RM57,500.00 from the
Respondent where he failed to do so.
Hairul Nizam bin Omar - 14 June 2008
By ASDB Order dated 14th June 2008 the Respondent of P.0 Box 26, Lot 1278,
Tingkat Atas, Jalan Kalabakan, Taman Feri, 45200 Sabak Bemam, Selangor was
fined RM10,000.00 with 8% interest per annum for acting in a conflict of interest in
the preparation of the documents in a Sale and Purchase agreement as he was acting
for both the purchaser and the vendor in the transaction.
Mehinder Singh a/l Shohan Singh - 13 June 2008
By ASDB Order dated 13th June 2008 the Respondent of No.7, Ist Floor, Jalan Pulau
Pinang 3, Pusat Perniagaan NBC, Batu 1 1/2 Jalan Meru, 41050 Klang, Selangor was
fined a sum of RM5,000.00 with 8% interest per annum for putting himself in a
situation of conflict by acting for both the parties in the transaction.
Order under Section 103D LPA 1976 (as Amended)
Rosdee bin Abdul Razak - 13 June 2008
By ASDB Order dated 13th June 2008 the Respondent of No.46A, Tingkat 1, Jalan
Perda Selatan, Bandar Perda, 14000 Bukit Mertajam was ordered to be struck off
from the Role of Advocates and Solicitors with effect 21 days from the date of Order.
The Respondent was paid by the Complainant but did not utilise and pay the proper
authorities the monies collected. Besides that, the Respondent failed and refused to act
on behalf of the Complainant despite numerous reminders and notices. The
Respondent also had caused undue and unnecessary delays in transferring the land.
The Respondent was further ordered to refund to the Complainant the sum of
RM12,454.00 being "Bayaran taksiran 6 lot tanah".
Paneerselvam Pandian a/l Seeralan - 13 June 2008
By ASDB Order dated 13th June 2008 the Respondent of No. 51, Jalan Cempaka
Harum 9,42700 Banting, Selangor was ordered to be struck off the Roll of Advocates
and Solicitors of the High Court of Malaya with effect twenty-one (21) days from the
dale of Order. The Respondent was also ordered to refund to the Complainant
RM9,760.00 with 8% interest per annum within 3 months from the date of the order
for failure to forward payment received from Bahagian Pinjaman Perumahan,
Perbendaharaan Malaysia (BPP) being part payment of purchase price of the property
bought by the purchaser. Besides that, the Respondent also had acted for the
purchaser.
Order under Section 100 LPA 1976 (as Amended)
Shenton Maniam a/l Sivamaniam - 13 June 2008
By ASDB Order dated 13th June 2008 the Respondent of No.27A, Jalan Tun Mohd
Fuad 3, Taman Tun Dr Ismail 60000 Kuala Lumpur was fined a sum of RM2,000.00
to be paid within 1 month with 8% interest per annum from the date of the Order and
was also ordered to refund RM1,615.00 to the Complainant within 3 months with
effect from the date of the Order until payment to the Complainant. The Respondent
alleged and made the Complainant believe that the case was still ongoing and gave the
impression that he had been attending court at every stage whereas the Respondent
had not been appearing in court during hearing dates and assessment of damages.
|