INTAN PERMATA PROPERTIES SDN BHD AEJB ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD PIHAK YANG DIGARNIS 1. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD 2. ) CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD

INTAN PERMATA PROPERTIES SDN BHD AEJB ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD PIHAK YANG DIGARNIS 1. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD 2. ) CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD

Section 7A(7) of the HDA does not create an absolute, perpetual immunity from garnishment; here the occupancy certificate dated 4.6.2012 and the lapse of the defect liability period on 3.12.2013 meant the developer's liabilities under the sale and purchase agreements were discharged. The RM200,000 deposit was a developer/license deposit (not purchasers' monies) and therefore available in the HDA to satisfy the judgment debt; accordingly the garnishee may be ordered to pay the judgment creditor to the extent of available funds.

Citation
WA-12ANCvC-93-04/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Perayu / Penghutang Penghakiman: INTAN PERMATA PROPERTIES SDN BHD; Responden / Pemiutang Penghakiman: AEJB ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD; Garnisi Pertama: CIMB BANK BERHAD; Garnisi Kedua: CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 June 2022
Case Number
WA-12ANCvC-93-04/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal and Garnishee Proceedings / Hearing on Garnishee Show‑cause Under Order 49 (garnishee Proceedings)
Outcome
Lampiran 41 allowed (garnishee show‑cause application allowed)
Legal Topics
Garnishee Order, Housing Development Account (hda), Interpretation of S7 A(7) HDA, Defect Liability Period, Controller Consent (regulation 11), Subdivision/strata Title Obligations
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Banking Law Housing Development (control and Licensing) Law Garnishee Order Housing Development Account (hda) Interpretation of S7 A(7) HDA Defect Liability Period Controller Consent (regulation 11) +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

INTAN PERMATA PROPERTIES SDN BHD

Perayu / Penghutang Penghakiman

AEJB ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD

Responden / Pemiutang Penghakiman

CIMB BANK BERHAD

Garnisi Pertama

CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD

Garnisi Kedua

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal and Garnishee Proceedings / Hearing on Garnishee Show‑cause Under Order 49 (garnishee Proceedings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether monies in a Housing Development Account (HDA) are absolutely immune from garnishment under section 7A(7) of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 until developer liabilities under sale and purchase agreements are fully discharged
  2. 2 Whether the developer's defect liability period had expired such that liabilities were discharged
  3. 3 Whether the RM200,000 deposit was developer/license deposit (not purchasers' monies) and therefore garnishable

Ratio Decidendi

Section 7A(7) of the HDA does not create an absolute, perpetual immunity from garnishment; here the occupancy certificate dated 4.6.2012 and the lapse of the defect liability period on 3.12.2013 meant the developer's liabilities under the sale and purchase agreements were discharged. The RM200,000 deposit was a developer/license deposit (not purchasers' monies) and therefore available in the HDA to satisfy the judgment debt; accordingly the garnishee may be ordered to pay the judgment creditor to the extent of available funds.

Court Disposition

Lampiran 41 allowed (garnishee show‑cause application allowed)

Orders

  • Lampiran 41 allowed
  • Garnishee ordered to pay judgment debt to respondent to the extent of available funds in the HDA (court found available HDA balance RM25,988.71)