A breach of contract claim is barred by the Limitation Act if not initiated within the prescribed period, irrespective of the contract's termination status.

[12] Subsequently, pursuant to information obtained from a Chinese newspaper report that was mailed to them, the Plaintiffs came to know of a proposal to revive the Project and in that regard the Plaintiffs were invited to attend a meeting of affected purchasers of the Project to be held on 25 November 2001. The Plaintiffs aver that at the said meeting attended by the Plaintiffs and/or their representatives, the 1st Defendant's representative was unable to give any assurances as to the possible completion date for the Project even though the completion was delayed by more than 3 years. In any event nothing positive happened thereafter for a considerable period of time.

[13] The appointment of Mr Subramaniam AV Shankar of Messrs Hals & Associates as Receivers and Managers ceased on 27 December 2006, and was replaced by Mr Heng Ji Keng and Mr Michael Joseph Monteiro both of Messrs Ferrier Hodgson MH Sdn Bhd as joint and several Receivers and Managers, who were on the very same day appointed as Directors of the 1st Defendant.

[14] However, despite this change, the Project remained abandoned and there were no attempts to revive it until sometime in 2010/2011.

[15] The Plaintiffs aver that based on the 1st Defendant's promise that they would use their best endeavours to revive the Project and in consideration of the 1st Defendant's request that the Plaintiffs not to take any legal action that may jeopardize the Project revival and the Plaintiffs did not take any legal action against the 1st Defendant.

[16] The 2nd Defendant, as a white knight with intention to revive the Project, entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement ("the 2nd SPA") with the 1st Defendant to purchase the Master Title Lands (see pp 220-267 of Bundle A). Mr Subramaniam a/l AV Shankar was reappointed at Receiver and Manager of the 1st Defendant.

[17] Thereafter, sometime in 2011, the 1st Defendant, proposed a restructuring scheme pursuant to s 176 of the Companies Act, that involved the 2nd Defendant taking on the responsibility 'to complete the abandoned mixed industrial commercial project involving the sale of plots of industrial properties with infrastructure servicing the same and commercial units of which earthworks have been completed' ("the Proposed Restructuring Scheme") on the Master Title Lands.

[18] At a Court Convened Meeting of Scheme Creditors on 19 November 2011, the Proposed Restructuring Scheme was approved by a majority of Scheme Creditors, comprising:

(i) Am Islamic Bank Berhad, as Secured Creditor; and

(ii) the Purchasers, namely, those purchasers listed in Appendix I to the Scheme Document, being purchasers whose sale and purchase agreements were not terminated as at 18 October 2011.

[19] Subsequently, the 1st Defendant vide Petition No 26NCC-110-12-2011 applied to the High Court in Malaya at Kuala Lumpur to sanction the Proposed Restructuring Scheme, which had been approved by the majority of Scheme Creditors at the Court Convened Meeting (CCM) on 19 November 2011. The High Court in Malaya at Kuala Lumpur sanctioned the approved scheme on 4 January 2012 upon terms contained in the Order of Court dated 4 January 2012 which is found at pp 63-112 of Bundle A.

[20] Among the terms and conditions approved by the CCM and sanctioned by the High Court are as follows:

(a) The Scheme Creditors under the Proposed Restructuring Scheme are the purchasers of the Original Plots in the Project who are listed in Appendix I to the Scheme Document being purchasers whose sale and purchase agreements are n