Viola De Cruz and Claudia Lynetter Silva for the Interveners/Applicant of Enclosure 143 [Messrs V.L. Decruz & Co.] 1. ) Fiona Bodipalar and Sundaradevan a/l Ramachandaran for the Liquidator [Messrs Bodipalar Ponnudurai De Silva] 2. ) S. Rav

Viola De Cruz and Claudia Lynetter Silva for the Interveners/Applicant of Enclosure 143 [Messrs V.L. Decruz & Co.] 1. ) Fiona Bodipalar and Sundaradevan a/l Ramachandaran for the Liquidator [Messrs Bodipalar Ponnudurai De Silva] 2. ) S. Rav

The Court declined to determine whether the documents submitted by the liquidators were sufficient because that is a matter for the local land and planning authorities (R3,R4,R5). The Court refused to extend the Scheme of Arrangement and allowed it to lapse. As the Scheme is not extended, the Company (not the liquidators personally) is the party required to apply for subdivision and to comply with planning requirements including any new Development Order and the 30% Bumiputra allocation imposed by state authorities. Levies and subdivision costs (including any Bumiputra quota levy) form part of subdivision costs and must be borne pursuant to the Sale & Purchase Agreements; purchasers...

Citation
GUAMAN SIVIL NO: 24NCC-125-03/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicants / Joint Liquidators: Dato Jeyaraj A/L V. Ratnaswamy; Encik Mustapha bin Mohamed (as Liquidators of Alamanda Development Sdn Bhd); 1st Respondent: MBF Holdings Berhad; 2nd Respondent: Vintage Developers Sdn Bhd; 3rd Respondent: Majlis Perbandaran Kulim; 4th Respondent: Pegawai, Pejabat Daerah dan Tanah Kulim; 5th Respondent: Pengarah, Tanah dan Galian Negeri Kedah Darul Aman; Interveners / Applicants of Enclosure 143: Interveners (Padang Meha purchasers)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 April 2022
Case Number
GUAMAN SIVIL NO: 24NCC-125-03/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Companies Act Application in Liquidation / Scheme of Arrangement / Judgment on Notice of Application (hearing Dated 19.8.2021; Judgment 6.7.2022)
Outcome
Application partly declined; consequential relief refused; Scheme of Arrangement not extended and allowed to lapse; liquidation to continue
Legal Topics
Scheme of Arrangement, Liquidator Powers and Liability, Subdivision of Land, Planning Permission, Bumiputra/30% Malay Quota, Quit Rent, Levy Allocation
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Insolvency Law Land Law Administrative Law Property Law Scheme of Arrangement Liquidator Powers and Liability Subdivision of Land +4 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 7 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dato Jeyaraj A/L V. Ratnaswamy; Encik Mustapha bin Mohamed (as Liquidators of Alamanda Development Sdn Bhd)

Applicants / Joint Liquidators

MBF Holdings Berhad

1st Respondent

Vintage Developers Sdn Bhd

2nd Respondent

Majlis Perbandaran Kulim

3rd Respondent

Pegawai, Pejabat Daerah dan Tanah Kulim

4th Respondent

Pengarah, Tanah dan Galian Negeri Kedah Darul Aman

5th Respondent

Interveners (Padang Meha purchasers)

Interveners / Applicants of Enclosure 143

Procedural Posture

Companies Act Application in Liquidation / Scheme of Arrangement / Judgment on Notice of Application (hearing Dated 19.8.2021; Judgment 6.7.2022)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documents submitted by liquidators for subdivision were sufficient for issuance of individual titles
  2. 2 Whether liquidators, MBF and/or Vintage are responsible for applying for subdivision including new Development Order and allocation of 30% Bumiputra quota
  3. 3 Whether any subdivision levy could be waived and, if not, who is liable to pay it

Ratio Decidendi

The Court declined to determine whether the documents submitted by the liquidators were sufficient because that is a matter for the local land and planning authorities (R3,R4,R5). The Court refused to extend the Scheme of Arrangement and allowed it to lapse. As the Scheme is not extended, the Company (not the liquidators personally) is the party required to apply for subdivision and to comply with planning requirements including any new Development Order and the 30% Bumiputra allocation imposed by state authorities. Levies and subdivision costs (including any Bumiputra quota levy) form part of subdivision costs and must be borne pursuant to the Sale & Purchase Agreements; purchasers...

Court Disposition

Application partly declined; consequential relief refused; Scheme of Arrangement not extended and allowed to lapse; liquidation to continue

Orders

  • Court declines to answer question on sufficiency of subdivision documents (administrative authorities to determine)
  • Scheme of Arrangement is not extended and is allowed to lapse