Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Kaveat

Legal area

Court

21 Jun 2024

SARAF BIN MARU KHATAMMI DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

BL-24NCvC-12-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-24NCvC-12-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the defendant breached the payment obligations under the sale agreements, that the plaintiff validly served notice under clause 22, and that clause 23 entitled the plaintiff to terminate, to forfeit RM200,000 and to repay the excess; consequentially the power of attorney was cancelled; the COVID-19 argument failed absent a contractual force majeure and did not excuse performance; costs awarded.
22 Feb 2022

POSITIVE HARBINGER SDN BHD ASAS RAMAI SDN BHD.

Citation

KA-22NCvC-66-08/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-22NCvC-66-08/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

ARSB failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that OCS or PHSB made fraudulent misrepresentations or that the written Sale and Purchase Agreement was intended only as security for a loan; the written agreement unambiguously records a sale, oral evidence to vary it was inadmissible, the plaintiff's sole witness lacked credibility and key oral witnesses were not produced; accordingly the agreement is valid and PHSB is entitled to delivery of vacant possession under Clause 21; ARSB's claims dismissed and PHSB's claims allowed with costs.
24 Oct 2021

DA-22NCVC-53-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

DA-22NCVC-53-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCVC-53-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove on balance that the outstanding RM116,000 was paid to defendant 2 (through Mariah & Co); absent proof of full payment the vendor did not become a bare trustee and defendant 2 was entitled to transfer to defendant 1; the IPA was rendered academic by the subsequent transfer and plaintiff's bankruptcy vested any residual rights in the DGI; therefore defendant 1 holds indefeasible title under s340(1) KTN and plaintiff's declarations fail.
11 Dec 2020

1. VIGNESWARAN A/L CHINNIAH CHETTIAR 2. THAENGESWARAN A/L CHINNIAH CHETTIAR 3. SUBRAMANIAM A/L CHINNIAH 4. SOLAIYAMAH A/P CHINNIAH CHETTIAR 5. SELVI A/P CHINANAH CHETTIAR 6. ARASU A/L CHINNIAH CHETTIAR SARAWANA A/L CHINNIAH CHETTIAR

Citation

AA-24-1-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-24-1-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held it was necessary and expedient to order sale by public auction because the defendant had not shown present ability to purchase, failed to produce documentary evidence for alleged loan payments or renovation expenditure, the dispute created an impasse preventing plaintiffs enjoying their shares, and the proper mechanism to resolve co-ownership was a public sale at the agreed reserve price of RM250,000 with directions by the Senior Assistant Registrar; ancillary orders in Appendix 1 were granted to facilitate the sale.

Malaysia Case Law

SARAF BIN MARU KHATAMMI DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

POSITIVE HARBINGER SDN BHD ASAS RAMAI SDN BHD.

DA-22NCVC-53-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

1. VIGNESWARAN A/L CHINNIAH CHETTIAR 2. THAENGESWARAN A/L CHINNIAH CHETTIAR 3. SUBRAMANIAM A/L CHINNIAH 4. SOLAIYAMAH A/P CHINNIAH CHETTIAR 5. SELVI A/P CHINANAH CHETTIAR 6. ARASU A/L CHINNIAH CHETTIAR SARAWANA A/L CHINNIAH CHETTIAR