1. ) CITY PROPERTIES SDN. BHD. 2. ) KL LANDMARK SDN. BHD. 3. ) LEONG LI NAR REALTY SDN. BHD. 4. ) ANNE YAP SIM EE 5. ) LEONG LI NAR 6. ) M B PROPERTIES SDN BHD 7. ) YAP YONG SEONG REALTY SDN BHD 8. ) AMPLE PARAMOUNT SDN. BHD. v BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA AVENUE K DAN K RESIDENCE
Catchwords
Introduction 1. The Plaintiffs’ in this case applied for an interim injunction to be allowed to vote and participate in any Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) conducted by the Defendant before the disposal of this suit. Brief facts 2. The Plaintiffs are unit holders of the property referred to as the K Avenue whereas the Defendant is the managing body of the said property. 3. The Plaintiffs’’ claim against the Defendant by way of this suit is to invalidate 3 previous AGM’s held by the Defendant which prevented the Plaintiffs’ from voting during the AGM, on the allegation that they had failed to pay the arrears of the charges due to from them. 4. The Plaintiff refusal to pay the charges was on the grounds that the charges were not calculated according to the law. The Plaintiffs’ in the present suit are seeking a declaration from the Court to direct the Defendants to impose the charges according to the law. Conclusion 10. In the upshot the Court allowed the Plaintiffs’ application with a cost of RM2,000.
Practice Areas
Introduction 1. The Plaintiffs’ in this case applied for an interim injunction to be allowed to vote and participate in any Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) conducted by the Defendant before the disposal of this suit. Brief facts 2. The Plaintiffs are unit holders of the property referred to as the K Avenue whereas the Defendant is the managing body of the said property. 3. The Plaintiffs’’ claim against the Defendant by way of this suit is to invalidate 3 previous AGM’s held by the Defendant which prevented the Plaintiffs’ from voting during the AGM, on the allegation that they had failed to pay the arrears of the charges due to from them. 4. The Plaintiff refusal to pay the charges was on the grounds that the charges were not calculated according to the law. The Plaintiffs’ in the present suit are seeking a declaration from the Court to direct the Defendants to impose the charges according to the law. Conclusion 10. In the upshot the Court allowed the Plaintiffs’ application with a cost of RM2,000.
Judges (1)
Parties (9)
AMPLE PARAMOUNT Sdn Bhd Plaintiff BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA AVENUE K DAN K RESIDENCE Defendant CITY PROPERTIES Sdn Bhd Plaintiff KL LANDMARK Sdn Bhd Plaintiff LEONG LI NAR REALTY Sdn Bhd Plaintiff M B PROPERTIES Sdn Bhd Plaintiff YAP YONG SEONG REALTY Sdn Bhd Plaintiff Anne Yap Sim Ee Plaintiff Leong Li Nar Plaintiff
Case Significance
1. ) CITY PROPERTIES SDN. BHD. 2. ) KL LANDMARK SDN. BHD. 3. ) LEONG LI NAR R... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated May 29, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncvc-101-02-2025). The case was decided by Akhtar bin Tahir.
Key issues: Introduction.
What was the outcome of 1. ) CITY PROPERTIES SDN. BHD. 2. ) KL LANDMARK SDN. BHD. 3. ) LEONG LI NAR R...?
1. ) CITY PROPERTIES SDN. BHD. 2. ) KL LANDMARK SDN. BHD. 3. ) LEONG LI NAR R... is a High Court decision dated May 29, 2025. The case was heard by Akhtar bin Tahir. See the full judgment for details.