GRAND DYNAMIC BUILDERS SDN. BHD. v PARADISE CITY SDN. BHD.
Catchwords
[1] This is an application by the Plaintiff for an interim preservation of property (Enclosure 8) pursuant to Order 29 Rule 2(1) and/or Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012) and/or Section 25 read together schedule 6 of the Court of Judicature Act 1964 and/or Section 51(1) of the Specific Reliefs Act 1950. [2] The Plaintiff seeks the interim order to prevent the Defendant from dealing with the Defendant’s land held under Grant 25711, Lot 240, Seksyen 63, Bandar Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur (Land) and any proceeds from its sale under sections 256, 268, and 268A of the National Land Code 1965, as may be obtained by Malayan Banking Bhd (MBB), pending the final disposal of this action. [3] The Plaintiff also seeks an order to deposit any proceeds from the sale into a joint interest-bearing account with the Defendant. [4] The Defendant contended that the Plaintiff has no basis to seek for an order for interlocutory injunction as the Plaintiff has no cause of action against the Defendant. It was submitted that there is no binding agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. [5] Based on the above deliberations, this Court dismissed Enclosure 8 with costs.
Practice Areas
1 This is an application by the Plaintiff for an interim preservation of property (Enclosure 8) pursuant to Order 29 Rule 2(1) and/or Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012) and/or Section 25 read together schedule 6 of the Court of Judicature Act 1964 and/or Section 51(1) of the Specific Reliefs Act 1950. 2 The Plaintiff seeks the interim order to prevent the Defendant from dealing with the Defendant’s land held under Grant 25711, Lot 240, Seksyen 63, Bandar Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur (Land) and any proceeds from its sale under sections 256, 268, and 268A of the National Land Code 1965, as may be obtained by Malayan Banking Bhd (MBB), pending the final disposal of this action. 3 The Plaintiff also seeks an order to deposit any proceeds from the sale into a joint interest-bearing account with the Defendant. 4 The Defendant contended that the Plaintiff has no basis to seek for an order for interlocutory injunction as the Plaintiff has no cause of action against the Defendant. It was submitted that there is no binding agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. 5 Based on the above deliberations, this Court dismissed Enclosure 8 with costs.
Judges (1)
Case Significance
GRAND DYNAMIC BUILDERS SDN. BHD. v PARADISE CITY SDN. BHD. is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated January 1, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncvc-573-08-2024). The case was decided by Suzana binti Muhamad Said.
Key issues: [3] The Plaintiff also seeks an order to deposit any proceeds from the sale into a joint interest-bearing account with the Defendant..
What was the outcome of GRAND DYNAMIC BUILDERS SDN. BHD. v PARADISE CITY SDN. BHD.?
GRAND DYNAMIC BUILDERS SDN. BHD. v PARADISE CITY SDN. BHD. is a High Court decision dated January 1, 2025. The case was heard by Suzana binti Muhamad Said. See the full judgment for details.