are you sure ke ?

This argument was raised by the appellant in the case of Thomas Thomas@Mohan a/l K Thomas v Tenaga Nasional Berhad & Ors [2017] MLJU 70 (“Thomas”). The Appellant argued that he should not be held liable as he was not the occupier of the premises and therefore not the consumer of the electricity.

The Court of Appeal in Thomas followed the decision in Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Empayar Canggih Sdn Bhd (previously known as ODVD Manufacturer Sdn Bhd) [2014] 8 MLJ 280, where it was held that it was the registered consumer that was responsible as the power and supply agreement with TNB was in their name.

https://www.thomasphilip.com.my/articles/i-...eter-tampering/

The Court of Appeal in Thomas followed the decision in Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Empayar Canggih Sdn Bhd (previously known as ODVD Manufacturer Sdn Bhd) [2014] 8 MLJ 280, where it was held that it was the registered consumer that was responsible as the power and supply agreement with TNB was in their name.

its illegal to go after LL. need to go after the signatory for the electricity supply.

The Court of Appeal in Thomas followed the decision in Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Empayar Canggih Sdn Bhd (previously known as ODVD Manufacturer Sdn Bhd) [2014] 8 MLJ 280, where it was held that it was the registered consumer that was responsible as the power and supply agreement with TNB was in their name.

UPDATE Legal Case - TNB v Chew Thai Kay 2022

TNB cannot go after landlord. Must go after the registered meter owner.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Federal Court (‘FC’): Tenaga Nasional Berhad (‘TNB’) has no power to disconnect electricity supply under section 38(1) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 (‘ESA’) when there was no continuing offence under section 37 of the ESA

Section 38(1) of the ESA gives TNB, as licensee under the ESA, the power to disconnect electricity supply from premises if a person employed by TNB finds on the premises evidence which gives reasonable grounds for him to believe that an offence has been committed under sections 37(1), (3) or (14) of the ESA.



Issue

Does TNB have the power under section 38(1) of the ESA to disconnect electricity supply from premises when the meter alleged to have been tampered with has been rectified and replaced? This issue confronted the FC in Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Chew Thai Kay & Anor [2022] MLJU 5 (Judgment dated 4.1.2022).



Case summary and decision

TNB inspected its meter installation at premises operating a business of seafood processing on 7.6.2018 and found that there had been tampering of the meter. The meter was then rectified by TNB and replaced, after which TNB continued to supply electricity to the premises. TNB, thereafter, issued a Notice of Disconnection intending to disconnect supply of electricity to the premises on 3.7.2018. In response, the Respondents filed an action against TNB in the High Court (‘HC’) for orders, including that the Notice of Disconnection was unlawful. An application for an interim injunction (‘Interim Injunction’) was also made to prevent TNB from disconnecting the supply of electricity to the premises pending the disposal of the action against TNB. The HC granted the Interim Injunction, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. On appeal by TNB to the FC, in a unanimous decision delivered by Azahar Mohamed CJM (Mohd Zawawi, Vernon Ong, Zaleha Yusof and Rhodzariah Bujang FCJJ concurring), the appeal was dismissed. The learned CJM carried out a detailed discussion of the law pre and post the amendment of section 38(1) and came to the conclusion that the amended version under consideration did not alter the law — once a tampered meter had been rectified by TNB and the offence of meter tampering was no longer continuing, TNB had no power to issue the Notice of Disconnection under section 38(1) of the ESA.

UPDATE Legal Case - TNB v Chew Thai Kay 2022

TNB cannot go after landlord. Must go after the registered meter owner.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Federal Court (‘FC’): Tenaga Nasional Berhad (‘TNB’) has no power to disconnect electricity supply under section 38(1) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 (‘ESA’) when there was no continuing offence under section 37 of the ESA

Section 38(1) of the ESA gives TNB, as licensee under the ESA, the power to disconnect electricity supply from premises if a person employed by TNB finds on the premises evidence which gives reasonable grounds for him to believe that an offence has been committed under sections 37(1), (3) or (14) of the ESA.



Issue

Does TNB have the power under section 38(1) of the ESA to disconnect electricity supply from premises when the meter alleged to have been tampered with has been rectified and replaced? This issue confronted the FC in Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Chew Thai Kay & Anor [2022] MLJU 5 (Judgment dated 4.1.2022).



Case summary and decision

TNB inspected its meter installation at premises operating a business of seafood processing on 7.6.2018 and found that there had been tampering of the meter. The meter was then rectified by TNB and replaced, after which TNB continued to supply electricity to the premises. TNB, thereafter, issued a Notice of Disconnection intending to disconnect supply of electricity to the premises on 3.7.2018. In response, the Respondents filed an action against TNB in the High Court (‘HC’) for orders, including that the Notice of Disconnection was unlawful. An application for an interim injunction (‘Interim Injunction’) was also made to prevent TNB from disconnecting the supply of electricity to the premises pending the disposal of the action against TNB. The HC granted the Interim Injunction, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. On appeal by TNB to the FC, in a unanimous decision delivered by Azahar Mohamed CJM (Mohd Zawawi, Vernon Ong, Zaleha Yusof and Rhodzariah Bujang FCJJ concurring), the appeal was dismissed. The learned CJM carried out a detailed discussion of the law pre and post the amendment of section 38(1) and came to the conclusion that the amended version under consideration did not alter the law — once a tampered meter had been rectified by TNB and the offence of meter tampering was no longer continuing, TNB had no power to issue the Notice of Disconnection under section 38(1) of the ESA.

correct. TNB can only sue the party in which it has signed a contract which is the buyer of the electricity (or the registered meter owner). If i own a concrete shell, TNB has no business sueing me. TNB needs to go after the buyer of the electricity (or its counterparty).

executing a change of name is actually quite easy these days. register at mytnb and can open or close account online.

need a clamp meter or amp meter

can see very easily

If TNB goes after shop owner and NOT after the registered meter, then it is an illegal act.

TNB Kedai manager can huff and puff. However if it goes to TNB HQ, the legal department will follow the law.

TNB will only deal with the registered electricity meter name. Its implicit that this meter name has sub-contracted out to the other tenants, and this name has to deal with the sub-contracted accordingly.

TNB cannot cut off other registered names in the same address. its illegal

This post has been edited by billyboy: Feb 19 2025, 03:27 PM

report the TNB Kedai Manager to TNB HQ. This guy is senior management and has corporate governance background. he should know what TNB must do. Bypass the little napoleon at the shop level.




ALI MUNAWAR BIN HAJI SALIM
Company Secretary
Ali Munawar bin Haji Salim, ACIS (CS) (CGP) has more than 28 years of expertise in corporate secretarial matters, compliance, and governance at Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB). He previously held the position of Senior Manager (Corporate Compliance) in Company Secretary's Office of TNB. He serves as Joint Company Secretary for TNB Power Generation Sdn. Bhd., Southern Power Generation Sdn. Bhd., Jimah East Power Sdn. Bhd., and other companies within the TNB Group.

they can huff and puff but legally they have no case.

report them to TNB HQ.

solar + battery price (in kwh) > TNB supply price (in kwh).....maybe in the future if battery technology improves

Sarawak Energy and TNB different owner and framework

Sabah Electricity currently under TNB but Sabah Govt negotiating for buyover......

better shut down the tenant fast if meter is still in landlord's name....

TNB behave like gangster or follow law ?

Malaysia's Federal Court (highest Court in Malaysia) disagree with you

UPDATE Legal Case - TNB v Chew Thai Kay 2022

TNB cannot go after landlord. Must go after the registered meter owner.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Federal Court (‘FC’): Tenaga Nasional Berhad (‘TNB’) has no power to disconnect electricity supply under section 38(1) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 (‘ESA’) when there was no continuing offence under section 37 of the ESA

Section 38(1) of the ESA gives TNB, as licensee under the ESA, the power to disconnect electricity supply from premises if a person employed by TNB finds on the premises evidence which gives reasonable grounds for him to believe that an offence has been committed under sections 37(1), (3) or (14) of the ESA.



Issue

Does TNB have the power under section 38(1) of the ESA to disconnect electricity supply from premises when the meter alleged to have been tampered with has been rectified and replaced? This issue confronted the FC in Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Chew Thai Kay & Anor [2022] MLJU 5 (Judgment dated 4.1.2022).



Case summary and decision

TNB inspected its meter installation at premises operating a business of seafood processing on 7.6.2018 and found that there had been tampering of the meter. The meter was then rectified by TNB and replaced, after which TNB continued to supply electricity to the premises. TNB, thereafter, issued a Notice of Disconnection intending to disconnect supply of electricity to the premises on 3.7.2018. In response, the Respondents filed an action against TNB in the High Court (‘HC’) for orders, including that the Notice of Disconnection was unlawful. An application for an interim injunction (‘Interim Injunction’) was also made to prevent TNB from disconnecting the supply of electricity to the premises pending the disposal of the action against TNB. The HC granted the Interim Injunction, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. On appeal by TNB to the FC, in a unanimous decision delivered by Azahar Mohamed CJM (Mohd Zawawi, Vernon Ong, Zaleha Yusof and Rhodzariah Bujang FCJJ concurring), the appeal was dismissed. The learned CJM carried out a detailed discussion of the law pre and post the amendment of section 38(1) and came to the conclusion that the amended version under consideration did not alter the law — once a tampered meter had been rectified by TNB and the offence of meter tampering was no longer continuing, TNB had no power to issue the Notice of Disconnection under section 38(1) of the ESA.

Malaysia's Federal Court (highest Court in Malaysia) disagree with you cool2.gif


UPDATE Legal Case - TNB v Chew Thai Kay 2022

TNB cannot go after landlord. Must go after the registered meter owner.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Federal Court (‘FC’): Tenaga Nasional Berhad (‘TNB’) has no power to disconnect electricity supply under section 38(1) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 (‘ESA’) when there was no continuing offence under section 37 of the ESA

Section 38(1) of the ESA gives TNB, as licensee under the ESA, the power to disconnect electricity supply from premises if a person employed by TNB finds on the premises evidence which gives reasonable grounds for him to believe that an offence has been committed under sections 37(1), (3) or (14) of the ESA.

shouldn't TNB go after the person with the thumb print (who is the signatory to the Electricity Supply contract with TNB)......that why we sign those agreement ?

yes. that is a Federal Court decision. not my decision.

service provider front liner will huff and puff.....i believe a letter written to HQ (preferably by a friendly lawyer) will sort it out....but troublesome