HOO SEE SEN &
ANOR. V. PUBLIC BANK BHD. & ANOR.
17 MARCH 1988 - SUPREME COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
[CIVIL APPEAL NO. 335 OF 1987]
In this case the appellants/plaintiffs sued Public Bank Berhad, the
first respondent, for an injunction to restrain it from paying Sedaya
Sdn. Bhd., the 2nd respondent, a certain sum of money due from the appellant
to the 2nd respondent on the ground that a greater sum was due from the
2nd respondent to the appellant. Both sums arose out of a sale and purchase
agreement of a house, the first sum being the balance of the purchase
price whilst the second was an amount of liquidated damages for late delivery
of vacant possession. The Court below refused to issue the injunction
requested for.
SYARIKAT LEAN
HUP (LIEW BROTHERS) SDN BHD V. CHEOW CHONG THAI
26 MAY 1988 - HIGH COURT [KUALA LUMPUR]
CIVIL APPEAL NO 11-9-1987
The appellants are housing developers of a housing project known as
Taman Permai Jaya in Mantin, Negeri Sembilan. The respondent is a purchaser
of one of the houses, lot no 5644, built by the appellants for the sum
of $48,000. Both the appellants and the respondent entered into a sale
and purchase agreement on 30 July 1982, which is subject to and in compliance
with the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 and the rules
and amendments thereto.
Chye Fook & Anor v. Teh Teng Seng Realty Sdn Bhd
27 SEPTEMBER 1988 - HIGH COURT IPOH
CIVIL SUIT NO 22-38-87
By a consent
order dated 22 February 1988 (encl 17) following a summons for directions
(encl 13) filed on 2 January 1988, both parties had asked for the preliminary
issue of 'whether the plaintiffs can sue for rescission on the agreement
of 8 August 1984 as the house is not completed by 7 August 1986 which
is the completion date' be first determined by arguments in open court
on a date to be fixed by the senior assistant registrar.
Public
Prosecutor v Annamaly a/l Narayanan
25 AUGUST 1988 - HIGH COURT (SEREMBAN)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 51-33 OF 1987
Land law
- Housing developers - Unlicensed housing development affected by
collapse of housing market - Demand by purchasers for refund of purchase
moneys - Directive issued by Deputy Minister of Housing directing refunds
to be made - Failure of housing developer to comply with directive - Whether
directive was ultra vires the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing)
Act 1966 - Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act 1966, ss 11
& 12
The respondent was the managing director of a housing developer company
which was engaged in a housing development in Negeri Sembilan without
having a licence to do so. The housing market collapsed and the respondent's
company could not proceed with the housing scheme. The prospective buyers
who had booked the houses demanded a refund of their money and the Deputy
Minister of Housing subsequently issued a directive under s 12 of the
Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 ('the Act') directing
the respondent to make the refunds. The respondent failed to carry out
the refunds and was therefore charged in the Magistrate's Court for failure
to comply with the Deputy Minister's directive. The learned magistrate
acquitted and discharged the respondent, holding that the directive was
bad in law as it was not consistent with the scope and objective of s
12 of the Act and was ultra vires the Act. The Public Prosecutor appealed
against the learned magistrate's order.
Supreme Finance (M) Bhd v. Chandan Daya Sdn Bhd & Anors
14 FEBRUARY 1990 - HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. F31-3899-1986]
LAND LAW:
Charge - Default by chargee - Interest of third party purchaser -
Actual notice - Registration - Indefeasibility - Principles on which interest
can be varied - Not party to charge documents - Equitable interest - Nature
of incumbrance - National Land Code 1965, s. 340 - Civil Law Act 1956,
s. 11(a). Whether to be granted
SYKT. MUZWINA DEVELOPMENT
SDN. BHD LWN. ABBAS & NGAN
13 OGOS 1990 - MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA, IPOH
[SAMAN PEMULA NO. 24-246-90]
Abdul Malek H:
Melalui saman permulaan yang telah difailkan pada 21 Mac 1990, plaintif
telah memohon kepada Mahkamah untuk memutuskan tentang tiga soalan yang
telah dikemukakan. Soalan-soalan tersebut ialah:
(a) samada plaintif berhak menerima baki harga jualbeli yang patut dibayar
kepada mereka tetapi sekarang ditahan oleh defendan sungguhpun tempoh
penahanan telah berlalu?
ONG SEOK HENG V. WEE CHEONG MOTOR
& HOUSING DEVELOPER SDN. BHD.
12 SEPTEMBER 1990 - HIGH COURT MALAYA, PENANG
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. 24-666-1985]
Mohamed Dzaiddin J:
This is an appeal from the decision of Penolong Kanan Pendaftar on the
question of damages in lieu of specific performance of an agreement for
sale of a flat.
Fernandaz Holding Sdn Bhd & Yang Lain v. Sharani Holdings
(M) Sdn Bhd & Yang Lain
11 DISEMBER 1990 - MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
[GUAMAN SIVIL NO. 86-22-298-87]
KONTRAK: Perjanjian jual beli kondominium - Bangunan
tidak disiapkan dalam masa 24 bulan - Kegagalan menjalankan kerja - Makna
"pemaju" - Perjanjian terbatal - Tidak dapat diteruskan - Sama ada perbezaan
antara pembahagian tanah dengan pembahagian bangunan - Akta Pemaju Perumahan
1966, s. 3 - Kaedah-kaedah Pemaju Perumahan (Kawalan dan Pelesenan) 1970
- Peraturan Pemaju Perumahan (Kawalan dan Pelesenan) 1982, Peraturan 12(1).
Aw Yong Wai Choo
& Ors v. Arief Trading Sdn Bhd & ANOR
21 SEPTEMBER 1991 - HIGH COURT MALAYA IPOH
[HIGH COURT CIVIL SUIT NO. 753 OF 1982 CONSOLIDATED WITH 93/82, 687/82,
688/82, 689/82, 692/82, 693/82, 696/82, 710/82, 711/82, 712/82, 752/82,
754/82, 756/82, 757/82, 759/82, 762/82, 763/82, 764/82, 766/82, 768/82,
769/82, 782/82, 783/82, 784/82, 786/82, 787/82, 789/82, 791/82, 793/82,
794/82, 795/82, 10/83, 20/83, 57/83 & 659/83]
Civil Procedure:
Cost - Getting-up fee - Consolidation of actions - Whether getting-up
fee must be confined only to points raised at hearing of consolidated
action - Whether costs of getting-up should be repeated in each individual
case in the consolidated action
Civil Procedure: Action - Consolidation of actions - Common facts
and law and relief claimed - Same transaction or series of transactions
- Whether a single action including all plaintiffs would have been more
appropriate
TAN YANG LONG
& ANOR. V. NEWACRES SDN. BHD.
29 AUGUST 1991 - HIGH COURT MALAYA, SHAH ALAM
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. 24-10-89]
This is an application for a declaration that the plaintiffs are no
longer bound by an agreement for the purchase by them of an apartment
in Taman Sri Muda Shah Alam and for various consequential orders. The
defendant (hereinafter referred to as "Newacres") and Metroplex Leasing
and Credit Corporation Sdn. Bhd. (hereinafter referred to as "Metroplex"),
are both subsidiaries or associates of Metroplex Bhd. Indeed all of them
have their registered office at the same address that is 10th Floor, Wisma
Equity, No. 150, Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur.
Lim Seang Mee v. Keepahead Holdings Sdn Bhd
17 FEBRUARY 1992 - HIGH COURT MALAYA, PULAU PINANG
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. 24-26-1992]
Land Law: Housing Developers - Deed of Assignment
- Whether it is the Developer's obligation to endorse or just discretion
to grant its consent - Administrative fee to grant consent
LIMMEWAH DEVELOPMENT SDN
BHD V. DR JASBIR SINGH S/O HARBHAJAN SINGH
17 FEBRUARY 1993 - HIGH COURT [MUAR]
CIVIL APPEAL NO 11-1 OF 1990
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
By agreement (the contract) made on the 15th day of September 1981, the
appellant who was a housing developer (the Developer) contracted with
the respondent (the Buyer) to sell the Buyer a bungalow.
Penang
Development Corporation V. Teoh Eng Huat & Anor
03 APRIL 1993 - SUPREME COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
[CIVIL APPEAL NO. O4-23-1991]
The appellant, Penang Development Corporation (the Corporation) is
a statutory body established under the provisions of the Penang Development
Corporation Enactment 1971, (No. 10 of 1971) (the Enactment) with powers,
inter alia, to enter into contracts and may acquire, purchase, take, hold
and enjoy movable and immovable property of every description and may
convey, assign, surrender, yield-up, charge, mortgage, demise, reassign,
transfer or otherwise dispose of or dealt with, any movable or immovable
property or any interest therein vested in the Corporation upon such terms
as the Corporation deems fit but not inconsistent with the provisions
of the Enactment.
Joseph Peh Soon Keat & Peter Peh Hock Beng v. Newacres
Sdn Bhd
22 OCTOBER 1993 - HIGH COURT KUALA LUMPUR
GUAMAN SIVIL NO S-2-22-336 TAHUN 1991
Adalah jelas
kepada saya Defendan yang telah mungkir di dalam Perjanjian tersebut.
Sungguhpun Defendan telah menamatkan Perjanjian tersebut di atas alasan
Plaintif telah tidak membuat pembayaran terakhir dan 'service charge'
yang diminta. Pertama sekali surat pembatalan itu dibuat selepas tindakan
Mahkamah diambil oleh Plaintif. Keduanya kemungkiran adalah oleh Defendan.
Dengan itu Defendan tidak berhak membatalkan Perjanjian itu dan juga tidak
berhak di atas tuntutan balasannya.
