SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2010 MarsdenLR 3376

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
ONG THEAN CHYE & ORS – Appellant
Versus
TIEW CHOY CHAI & ANOR – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:M Thayalan ,Respondent Advocate: Darshan Singh

Table of Content
1. execution of sale and purchase agreement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. respondents seek payment balance under document. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8)
3. appellants argue lack of licensure. (Para 7 , 12 , 17)
4. no privity between parties; no standing. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
5. payment as sham; illegal under contracts act. (Para 36 , 40 , 62 , 70 , 72)
6. court declines to lift veil of incorporation. (Para 75 , 76 , 78)
Abdul Malik Ishak JCA:

The Facts

[1] On 18 May 2004, the third appellant (TMI Ventures (M) Sdn Bhd) as the purchaser entered into a sale and purchase agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the said agreement") with several vendors (hereinafter referred to as "the vendors") to purchase parcels of land identified as Lot number 289, Lot number 290, Lot number 291 and Lot number 752. All these Lots were located at Mukim 11, Daerah Barat Daya, Penang (hereinafter referred to as "the said lands"). The said agreement can be seen at p 320 to 334 and at p 311 to 316 of the appeal record at Jilid 2(3). And at p 330 of the appeal record at Jilid 2(3), the purchase price was listed at RM3,883,645.

[2] On 12 May 2004, prior to the execution of the said agreement, the third appellant and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top