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

2011 MarsdenLR 2174

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
DAMANSARA REALTY BHD – Appellant
Versus
BUNGSAR HILL HOLDINGS SDN BHD & ANOR – Respondent


Table of Content
1. leave granted for appeal and key facts highlighted. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6)
2. dispute pertains to the requirement for continuous development. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. the interpretation of the pda as a stand-alone contract. (Para 12 , 19 , 30)
4. arguments regarding interlocking agreements. (Para 15 , 16 , 25)
5. obligations under s 47 of the contracts act. (Para 33 , 41)
6. validity of the termination notice. (Para 42 , 46)

[1] On 26 January 2011, leave was granted to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal given on 29 October 2009. Six questions were posed for our consideration. We heard the appeal on 14 June 2011. We reserved our decision to consider the points raised by the parties. We now give our judgment.

[2] For convenience, in this judgment the appellant is referred to as the plaintiff and the respondents collectively as the defendants. Where necessary, the defendants will respectively be referred to as either the first defendant or the second defendant.

[3] In coming to its decision, the Court of Appeal by majority upheld the judgment of the High Court given on 22 June 2009 dismissing the action of the plaintiff.

[4] For the reasons given below, we

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