DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA .Dalam Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia (Bahagian Sivil)

  • View
    304

  • Download
    3

Embed Size (px)

Text of DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA .Dalam Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia (Bahagian Sivil)

-02(NCVC)(W)-2690-1101/12

1

DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN)

RAYUAN SIVIL NO.W-02(NCVC)(W)-2690-11/2012

ANTARA

1. ABDUL RAOUF BIN AB RAHMAN 2. WAFAA BT A. KADIR 3. AHMAD BIN BACHOK 4. AMEER BIN NOORDIN 5. BADRUL HISHAM BIN KAMAL ARIFFIN 6. SITI NURBAYAH BINTI KADDIM 7. RAMLI BIN KARIM (DATO DR) 8. HAJAH FATIMAH BINTI SALLEH 9. HAMZAH BIN IBRAHIM 10. HAZIZAN BIN DARUS 11. PAUZIAH BINTI ISMAIL 12. IRIZNA SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 219667-9) 13. MAZLIPAH @ MAZLIFAH BINTI MOHD 14. MODIN @ MAIDEEN BIN ALI 15. UNGKU RAHILAH BINTI UNGKU MAHMOOD 16. MOHAMAD ILLIAYAS BIN SEYED IBRAHIM 17. MOHAMED MOKHTAR BIN AHMAD 18. MOHAMED SETH BIN ABU BAKAR 19. NORAIDAH BINTI MOHD SHARIFF 20. RAGAYAH BINTI MAT ZIN 21. RAHAYAH BINTI YAHYA 22. RAJA BEE BT MD YUSOFF 23. RAZIYAH BINTI YAHYA

-02(NCVC)(W)-2690-1101/12

2

24. ROZIYAH BINTI YAHYA 25. SHAZLINA BINTI SHAHRIMAN 26. SITI SARAH BINTI OTHMAN 27. SITI ZEENATH BT SHAIK IBRAHIM 28. TAJALLUDIN BIN MD. RASHID 29. ZAHRIDAH BINTI ISMAIL 30. MOHAMAD BIN SHEIK MANA 31. AZIZAH BINTI KATAN 32. HALIBULLAH BIN ABDUL MAJID 33. SARA BEE BINTI MOHD SULTAN 34. JAMILAH @ NORMAH BTE ISMAIL 35. MOHAMMAD SHARIFF BIN MD ESA 36. ROSHAYATI BINTI SHAFIE 37. NIK AHMAD KAMAL ARIFF BIN N. OMAR PERAYU- 38. SYANIZA BINTI HISHAM PERAYU

DAN

1. PETPLUS (M) SDN BHD (No.Syarikat:221200-T)

2. PINGGIR KIARA SDN BHD (Dalam Likuidasi) (No.Syarikat:150156-M) (digulungkan melalui Petisyen Penggulungan No. D1-28-888-2002

3. INTAN PERMATA PROPERTIES SDN BHD (No. Syarikat:338979-P)

4. AHMAD RIZAL BIN UMAR 5. A.H.M.S.HOLDINGS SDN BHD

(No.Syarikat:338979-P) 6. AWANG AFDZAL ADENI 7. FARRAH MAISYARA NURAIN JIMMY 8. AZIZI BIN OMAR

-02(NCVC)(W)-2690-1101/12

3

9. ZAINAB BINTI YATIM 10. FARAHNAZ IREENA BINTI AMER HAMZAH 11. FAZLYNN NADIRA BINTI MOHD AZRUL RAJ 12. HABIL AKRAM BIN ROSLAND 13. KAMARUL AMIR BIN MOHD KASIM 14. MOHAMMAD NAZRIN RAHIM MAHMOOD 15. HANIFAH @ AINON BINTI JAAFAR 16. RAJA NOREZAH BINTI RAJA BAHARUDDIN 17. RAPID-AGE MARKETING SDN BHD (No.Syarikat: 563402-D) 18. SHAHRIZ IMRAN BIN ABOO SAMAH 19. SHALYA MORIFF BINTI MOHD SHARIFF 20. SITI NOR AMALINA BINTI SARIFF 21. SYED MOHD SALEHUDDIN WAFA BIN

SYED MOHD MUMTAZ WAFA 22. WAN NOOR AINI BINTI HJ ABU 23. ALIA BINTI MUHAMMAD ALI 24. AFFIN BANK BERHAD RESPONDEN- 25. AFFIN ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD RESPONDEN

(Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Di Kuala Lumpur Dalam Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia

(Bahagian Sivil) Guaman No:22NCVC-193-2011

Antara

1. Abdul Raouf Bin Ab Rahman 2. Wafaa Bt A. Kadir 3. Ahmad Bin Bachok 4. Ameer Bin Noordin 5. Badrul Hisham Bin Kamal Ariffin 6. Siti Nurbayah Binti Kassim

-02(NCVC)(W)-2690-1101/12

4

7. Ramli Bin Karim (DatoDr) 8. Hajah Fatimah Binti Sallah 9. Hamzah Bin Ibrahim 10.Hazizah Bin Darus 11.Pauziah Binti Ismail 12.Irizna Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat:219777-9) 13.Mazlipah @ Mazlifah Binti Mohd 14.Modin @ Maideen Bin Ali 15.Ungku Rahilah Binti Ungku Mahmood 16.Mohamad Illiayas Bin Seyed Ibrahim 18.Mohamed Mokhtar Bin Ahmad 19.Noridah Binti Mohd Shariff 20.Raqayah Binti Mat Zin 21.Rahayah Binti Yahya 22.Raja Bee Bt Md Yusoff 23.Raziyah Binti Yahya 24.Roziyah Binti Yahya 25.Shazlina Binti Shahriman 26.Siti Sarah Binti Othman 27.Siti Zeenath Bt Shaik Ibrahim 28.Tajalludin Bin Md Rashid 29.Zahridah Binti Ismail 30.Mohamad Bin Sheik Mana 31.Azizah Bin Katan 32.Halibullah Bin Abdul Majid 32.Sara Bee Binti Mohd Sultan 33.Jamilah @ Normah Bte Ismail 35.Mohammad Shariff Bin Md Esa 36.Roshayati Binti Shafie 37.Nik Ahmad Kamal Ariff Bin N.Omar Plaintif- 38.Syaniza Binti Hisham Plaintif

-02(NCVC)(W)-2690-1101/12

5

Dan

1. Petplus (M) Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat:221200-4)

2. Pinggir Kiara Sdn Bhd (Dalam Likuidasi) (No. Syarikat: 1505156-M) (digulungkan melalui Petisyen Penggulungan No. D1-28-888-2002)

3. Intan Permata Properties Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 637828-T)

4. Ahmad Rizal Bin Umar 5. A.H.M.S. Holdings Sdn Bhd

(No. Syarikat: 338979-P) 6. Awang Afdzal Adeni 7. Farrah Maisyara Nurain Jimmy 8. Azizi Bin Omar 9. Zainab Binti Yatim

10.Farahnaz Ireena Binti Amer Hamzah 11.Fazlynn Nadira Binti Mohd Azrul Raj 12.Habil Akram Bin Rosland 13.Kamarul Amir Bin Mohd Kasim 14.Mohammad Nazrin Rahim Mahmood 15.Hanifah @ Ainon Binti Jaafar 16.Raja Norezah Binti Raja Baharuddin 17.Rapid-Age Markekting Sdn Bhd (No.Syarikat: 563402-D) 18.Shahriz Imran Bin Aboo Samah 19.Shalya Moriff Binti Mohd Shariff 20.Siti Nor Amalina Binti Sariff 21.Syed Mohd Salehuddin Wafa Bin Syed Mohd Mumtaz Wafa 22.Wan Noor Aini Binti Hj Abu 23.Alia Binti Muhammad Ali 24.Affin Bank Berhad 25.Affin Islamic Bank Berhad Defendan-Defendan

-02(NCVC)(W)-2690-1101/12

6

CORAM

CLEMENT SKINNER, JCA LINTON ALBERT, JCA

LIM YEE LAN, JCA

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

Brief Facts [1] The Appellants are a group of purchasers who had bought units in

a housing development known as Mas Kiara Condominium (the

Project) built on 4 parcels of land owned by Petplus (M) Sdn Bhd the

(1st Respondent). The developer of the Project was Pinggir Kiara Sdn

Bhd (the 2nd Respondent). The 1st and 2nd Respondents had entered

into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated 2.9.1993 under which the

2nd Respondent was appointed to develop the Project in accordance

with the terms thereof.

[2] The Appellants entered into Sale & Purchase Agreements with the

1st and 2nd Respondents to purchase their respective units within the

Project.

[3] The Project was abandoned by the 2nd Respondent in 2001.

Thereafter the 2nd Respondent was wound-up on 17.2.2003.

[4] Consequently the 1st Respondent terminated the JVA between it

and the 2nd Respondent on 30.4.2003.

[5] Later on steps were taken to restart and complete the Project.

Subsequently the 1st Respondent entered into a Master Agreement with

-02(NCVC)(W)-2690-1101/12

7

Intan Permata Properties Sdn Bhd (the 3rd Respondent) whereunder

the 3rd Respondent was appointed as developer and turnkey contractor.

[6] The salient terms of the Master Agreement were:

(a) that certain units which had already been sold by the 1st and

2nd Respondents (sold units) could not be sold by the 3rd

Respondent;

(b) Units reserved for the 1st Respondent (the Petplus Units)

could not be sold by 3rd Respondent;

(c) the balance of the units including penthouse and commercial

units, were available for sale by 3rd Respondent.

[7] The purchasers of the units in the Project formed the Mas Kiara

Condominium Purchasers Committee (the Purchasers Committee).

The Ministry of Housing arranged for meetings between the Purchasers

Committee, the 1st Respondent, the Liquidators of the 2nd Respondent

and the 3rd Respondent.

[8] At a meeting on 7.11.2007 which was attended by the 2nd

Respondents Liquidator, the 3rd Respondent, the Purchasers

Committee and their Solicitor Encik Firuz, it was confirmed that the

Purchasers Committee was agreeable to the terms of a Tripartite

Agreement to be executed between the 1st Respondent, the 3rd

Respondent and the respective purchasers who had previously

executed sale and purchase agreements with the 1st and 2nd

Respondents.

-02(NCVC)(W)-2690-1101/12

8

[9] It is not in dispute that many other purchasers did sign the

Tripartite Agreement. However the 1st to 30th Appellants did not sign the

Tripartite Agreement, whilst the 31st to 38th Appellants did sign the

Tripartite Agreement but later on the 3rd Respondent terminated their

said agreements as they were alleged to have breached the same.

[10] The 1st to 30th Appellants claimed that they did not sign the

Tripartite Agreement as the 3rd Respondent had unilaterally imposed

unreasonable conditions in the Tripartite Agreement. They complained

that they were required to produce the original of the sale and purchase

agreement entered into with the 2nd Respondent and the original

documents evidencing payment to the 2nd Respondent of the purchase

price of their units.

[11] The 31st to 38th Appellants claimed their Tripartite Agreements

were wrongfully terminated by the 3rd Respondent when they allegedly

did not pay the purchase price in accordance with the agreement. They

say the 3rd Respondent should have charged interest on the outstanding

amount instead of terminating their agreements.

[12] The Appellants filed this suit against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd

Respondents, naming them as the original defendants alleging that the

3rd Respondent had refused to recognize their rights to the units they

had purchased and that the 3rd Respondent was attempting to sell their

units to third parties.

[13] After initiating the suit, the Appellants discovered that their