MODULAR QUEST SDN BHD 1. ) HARIKRISHNAN A/L KANAPATHY / K.HARIKRISHNAN 2. ) MAJU CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

MODULAR QUEST SDN BHD 1. ) HARIKRISHNAN A/L KANAPATHY / K.HARIKRISHNAN 2. ) MAJU CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

The court held the written Stakeholders Agreement governed the RM150,000; the appellants failed to prove any valid oral variation (no consideration and insufficient evidence), the stakeholder improperly released funds in breach of the written agreement, and Maju is liable to indemnify the stakeholder; accordingly the Sessions Court judgments were set aside and the appeals allowed in the terms ordered.

Citation
BA-12B-112-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Modular Quest Sdn Bhd; 1st Respondent/defendant (stakeholder): Harikrishnan A/L Kanapathy (K. Harikrishnan); 2nd Respondent/defendant/third Party: Maju Construction & Development Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 July 2025
Case Number
BA-12B-112-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Both appeals allowed; Sessions Court judgments set aside; Harikrishnan liable for breach of the Stakeholders Agreement; Maju liable to indemnify Harikrishnan; claims and counterclaims resolved as per orders below.
Legal Topics
Stakeholder Agreement, Forfeiture of Deposit, Variation of Contract, Implied Terms, Indemnity, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Trusts and Solicitors' Undertakings Evidence Civil Procedure Stakeholder Agreement Forfeiture of Deposit Variation of Contract Implied Terms +2 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Modular Quest Sdn Bhd

Appellant/plaintiff

Harikrishnan A/L Kanapathy (K. Harikrishnan)

1st Respondent/defendant (stakeholder)

Maju Construction & Development Sdn Bhd

2nd Respondent/defendant/third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RM150,000 stakeholder deposit was validly forfeited
  2. 2 Whether an oral variation to the written Stakeholders Agreement was proved and enforceable
  3. 3 Whether the stakeholder (solicitor) breached duties in releasing trust monies

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the written Stakeholders Agreement governed the RM150,000; the appellants failed to prove any valid oral variation (no consideration and insufficient evidence), the stakeholder improperly released funds in breach of the written agreement, and Maju is liable to indemnify the stakeholder; accordingly the Sessions Court judgments were set aside and the appeals allowed in the terms ordered.

Court Disposition

Both appeals allowed; Sessions Court judgments set aside; Harikrishnan liable for breach of the Stakeholders Agreement; Maju liable to indemnify Harikrishnan; claims and counterclaims resolved as per orders below.

Orders

  • Judgment of the Sessions Court in Appeal 111 set aside; claim by Maju dismissed; counterclaim allowed in terms of para (a) to (c) of the counterclaim
  • Judgment of the Sessions Court in Appeal 112 set aside; claim by Modular allowed in terms of prayers in paragraph 17(a) to (d) of the Statement of Claim; Maju's indemnity in third party proceedings allowed in terms of prayers in paragraph 19(a) to (c) of the third party Statement of Claim with typographical amendments