E
EDISIJUTA PARKING Sdn Bhd
Organisation 2 cases
About EDISIJUTA PARKING Sdn Bhd
EDISIJUTA PARKING Sdn Bhd appears as a party in 2 judgments in the MY Case Law database, spanning March 2025 to April 2025. EDISIJUTA PARKING Sdn Bhd appeared as appellant in 1 case, plaintiff in 1 case. Cases span the Court of Appeal (1), High Court (1).
How many court cases involve EDISIJUTA PARKING Sdn Bhd?
EDISIJUTA PARKING Sdn Bhd appears in 2 published judgments from March 2025 to April 2025. Most commonly as appellant (1 cases).
Practice Areas
1. The appellant company (Appellant) entered into a “Carpark Operator Cum Licence Agreement” dated 1.10.2019 (Agreement), with Bukit Damansara Development Sdn. Bhd. (BDD). According to the Agreement, among others, BDD granted the Appellant a license to operate car park services, including valet services (Car Park Services), at VSquare @ PJ City Centre, Jalan Utara, 46200 Petaling Jaya, Selangor (Building). The Agreement was for a period of five years, commencing on 1.10.2019 and concluding on the 30.9.2024 (Expiry Date). 1 2. Around December 2020, the second respondent (2nd Respondent) entered into a separate arrangement with BDD wherein the 2nd Respondent acquired ownership of the Building from BDD for a consideration of RM147 million. 1 3. By a “Notice of Assignment” dated 2.11.2021 from BDD to the Appellant (copied to the 2nd Respondent), BDD informed the Appellant that, among others, BDD had assigned, novated and transferred absolutely all of BDD’s rights, interest, benefits, liabilities and obligations under the Agreement to the 2nd Respondent. 1 4. The first respondent company (1st Respondent) is a subsidiary of TH Properties Sdn. Bhd. (which is part of the 2nd Respondent’s group of companies). 1 A dispute has arisen over the right to operate a car park in a building. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants had renewed their contract to operate the car park for another term. The contract was later broken, said the plaintiff. The defendants disputed this claim, claiming the contract had expired and that the second defendant did not renew it. 1 There were 4 interlocutory applications before the court. Enclosure 3 was the plaintiff's application for an inter partes injunction prohibiting the defendants from executing any contract to operate the car park with third parties until the final disposal of this case. Enclosures 12 and 37 were the first and second defendants' applications to set aside the ex parte order. Enclosure 14 was the first defendant's application to strike out the plaintiff's claim. 1 The court found that there was no serious issue to be tried. The plaintiff had accepted the fact that their contract had expired and accepted the Notice of Expiry issued by the second defendant in good faith and without objection at the time. The court also found that damages would still provide an adequate remedy for the plaintiff. The court also found that the plaintiff had failed to disclose the above important facts to the court in a full and frank manner. The court also found that the first defendant was not a party to any agreement with the plaintiff. It was the second defendant. 1 As a result of the above, Enclosure 3 was dismissed with costs, while Enclosures 12, 37 and 14 were allowed with costs. 1