1. ) IMPIANA SDN. BHD. 2. ) DATO' SERI ISMAIL @ FAROUK BIN ABDULLAH v 1. ) V CAPITAL SDN. BHD. 2. ) DATO' HOO VOON HIM PIHAK TERKILAN LEE HOCK SENG

wa-22ncc-354-05-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 11 February 2026 • WA-22NCC-354-05/2024 • 24 min read
4 cases cited (0 SG, 4 foreign)

Outcome

For the reasons above, I grant the following orders prayed for in the Statement of Claim [Enclosure 2] at paragraph 28- As against the 1st defendant (a) an order that the 1st defendant specifically perform all its obligations under the Share Sale Agreement and the Supplemental Agreement, namely: - (i) to forthwith effect the 3rd Tranche Payment in the sum of RM 15,000,000.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (wa-22ncc-354-05-2024). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

the statute on specific performance in Malaysia is the Specific Relief Act 1950 in particular sections 11 and 18 and the Illustrations therein. These sections 11 and 18 and the Illustrations therein codified the common law principle that where monetary damages are inadequate for breaches of contract, the Court will grant the remedy of specific performance-the Specific Relief Act 1950 is based on and is pari materia with the Indian Specific Relief Act 1877-the Specific Relief Act 1950 and the Indian Specific Relief Act 1877 were enacted to use equitable principles to address situations, inter-alia, where monetary damages are inadequate for breaches of contract-a Court of Equity is sufficiently empowered to decree specific performance on terms. An order decreeing specific performance can make provision for ancillary matters, such as the payment of purchase money with interest. If there is non-compliance, the plaintiff is at liberty to apply to have the decree vacated. If it became impossible to enforce, the plaintiff has the right to ask the court to discharge the order and terminate the contract. On such an application he could be awarded damages at common law for breach of contract since the contract was not rescinded ab initio but remained in existence until it was terminated by the court-The court can grant a decree of specific performance in the four instances set out in section 11[1] [a] of the Specific Relief Act 1950 [which codified the common law principle that damages are not adequate for these four instances-48. It is trite law that for the remedy of specific performance to be invoked, the following three conditions must be fulfilled:-i.the contract is valid in form-ii.has been made between competent parties; and-iii. is unobjectionable in its nature and circumstances-In addition, although not present in section 11 of the Specific Relief Act 1950, the plaintiffs are also required to prove a continuous readiness and willingness, from the date of the contract to the time of the hearing, to perform the contract on their part-Damages in addition to specific performance can also be granted if the facts show the plaintiffs had suffered losses due to the defendants’ defaults

Practice Areas

Remedies Contract

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Counsel (8)

Atma Singh Veriah & Co. Firm Tiong Woon & Khusyri Firm Angus Tiong Chau Siong Counsel Defendant Edel Siva Sanker Counsel Plaintiff Edward Vinodh Kuruvilla Counsel Plaintiff Francis Wong Kum Heng Counsel Defendant K. H. Yeap Counsel Defendant Nereen Kaur Kaher Atma Singh Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (5)

IMPIANA Sdn Bhd Plaintiff V CAPITAL Sdn Bhd Defendant Dato' Hoo Voon Him Defendant Dato' Seri Ismail @ Farouk bin Abdullah Plaintiff Lee Hock Seng Aggrieved Party

Statutes Cited

Specific Relief Act 1950 (Cap 137)
s 11 s 11(1)(c) s 18

Cases Cited (4)

MY (4)
[1984] 2 MLJ 290 [2005] 4 MLJ 101 [2005] 6 MLJ 132 [2025] MLJU 1475

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-22ncc-354-05-2024)