7 Feb 2025
ARKAN ROMA TRAD EST 1. ) RIPAC SDN BHD 2. ) MOHD QHOLIF BIN SHAH IZRON DADAMEAH 3. ) BURHAN @ OSMIZAR BIN ABDUL RAHMAN 4. ) HISHAM SABBAGH A. FATTAH
- Citation
- BA-22NCvC-128-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Court
- High Court
- Case number
- BA-22NCvC-128-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court found a binding purchase agreement existed despite lack of Plaintiff signature; Plaintiff proved breach in that defective parts were returned and Defendant First failed to replace them as contracted; Plaintiff did not prove fraud, misuse of position or facts sufficient to lift the corporate veil; on the balance of probabilities Plaintiff was entitled to return of the 30% deposit paid but not to the full SAR 2,170,000 claimed; Defendants' counterclaim was not proven and was dismissed.