Back
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
BALAKRISHNAN DEVARAJ & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
ADMIRAL COVE DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of the case. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 2. arguments on misrepresentation and its remedies. (Para 16 , 43 , 44 , 48 , 49 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 3. court’s analysis on misrepresentation. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 4. legal principles on rescission. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
Introduction
[1] In this appeal we shall refer the parties to what they were referred to in the High Court. Thus, Balakrishnan a/l Devaraj and Girija Devy a/p Gopinath Nair shall be referred to as the plaintiffs, while Admiral Cove Development Sdn Bhd shall be referred to as the defendant.
[2] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court sitting at Kuala Lumpur ("trial Court") after a full trial. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim with costs We heard the appeal and we unanimously allowed it in favour of the plaintiffs.
Background Facts
[3] The plaintiffs are husband and wife and they reside at Bandar Sunway, Petaling Jaya, Selangor
[4] The defendant, on the other hand, is a developer of a condominium projec
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
