C
Chin Chee Shung (berniaga Atas Nama Dan Gaya Yan Seong Foundry )
Person 1 case
Chin Chee Shung (berniaga Atas Nama Dan Gaya Yan Seong Foundry ) appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:
wa-22ncvc-41-01-2021
Chin Chee Shung (Berniaga Atas Nama Dan Gaya Yan Seong Foundry [No. Perniagaan: Ip0101341-p]) v FELDA PALM INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD.
MYHC 27 March 2025
See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.
About Chin Chee Shung (berniaga Atas Nama Dan Gaya Yan Seong Foundry )
Chin Chee Shung (berniaga Atas Nama Dan Gaya Yan Seong Foundry ) appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning March 2025 to March 2025. Chin Chee Shung (berniaga Atas Nama Dan Gaya Yan Seong Foundry ) appeared as plaintiff in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).
How many court cases involve Chin Chee Shung (berniaga Atas Nama Dan Gaya Yan Seong Foundry )?
Chin Chee Shung (berniaga Atas Nama Dan Gaya Yan Seong Foundry ) appears in 1 published judgment from March 2025 to March 2025. Most commonly as plaintiff (1 cases).
Practice Areas
A dispute has arisen out of the Build, Own, Operate and Transfer (“BOOT”) Agreement dated 17.8.2015 (“BOOT Agreement”). Both parties were satisfied with the terms of this agreement after several discussions were held. In essence, the parties intended to cooperate into a business venture to process empty fruit brunch ("EFB") as a source of income for them. 1 Nevertheless, what was supposed to be a fruitful business venture failed as a result of the defendant's alleged failure to comply with its obligations. In the ensuing disputes, the plaintiff seeks RM2,023,650.00 in agreed compensation, RM10,702,502.60 in lost profits, general damages, costs and interest. Meanwhile, the defendant filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the termination of the BOOT Agreement was unlawful, along with a claim for the rental of the plant and special damages. The defendant, however, abandoned their counterclaim during the trial. 1 After reviewing all the evidence, the court finds that the BOOT Agreement had been validly terminated by the plaintiff. In this regard, the defendant failed to provide enough electricity to enable the plaintiff to fulfill his obligations under the BOOT Agreement. As a result, the plaintiff suffered losses. However, the plaintiff is only entitled to RM2,023,650.00 in agreed compensation, but not RM10,702,502.60 in lost profits. 1