Court of Appeal sets aside fraud, conspiracy findings in RM52.2m Johor land dispute

The Court of Appeal in Kuala Lumpur overturned findings of fraud and conspiracy against businessman J.

Siva Kumar and property agent R.

Thevandran in a land sale dispute but maintained that no binding sale agreement had been established for the RM52.2 million transaction.

The appellate court upheld the High Court's decision that Siva wrongfully lodged a private caveat over the property.

While dismissing Thevandran's appeal over agency fees, the court confirmed his breach of fiduciary duty and ordered financial penalties, including recalculating interest on the disputed sum and costs against Siva and Ammsa Property.

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 3 — The Court of Appeal has set aside findings of fraud and conspiracy against a businessman and property agent in a dispute over a proposed RM52.2 million sale of a 22ha tract of land in Johor.

However, a three-member panel upheld the High Court’s findings that no binding sale agreement had been concluded and that businessman J. Siva Kumar had wrongfully lodged a private caveat over the land.

The panel comprising Justices Datuk Azhahari Kamal Ramli, Datuk Ahmad Kamal Shahid and Datuk Ong Chee Kwan delivered its decision in two consolidated appeals arising from the High Court’s judgment dated January 22, 2024.

The first appeal was brought by Siva and Ammsa Property Sdn Bhd, while the second was filed by property agent R Thevandran K. Ragavan, also known as Thevan.

The dispute concerns a 22.06ha agricultural tract held under Lot 49259, Geran 5238, Mukim Plentong, Johor Bahru, owned by Firwas Sdn Bhd.

Siva and Ammsa had sought specific performance of an alleged sale and purchase agreement with Firwas.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal held that the High Court had gone beyond Firwas’ pleaded case when it made findings of fraud and conspiracy against Siva, Thevan and lawyer G Shoba without those causes of action and their constituent facts having been pleaded with the required particularity.

The appellate court therefore set aside the findings of fraud and conspiracy and overturned the High Court’s declaration that the alleged sale and purchase agreement was “illegal, fraudulent, void ab initio”.

The court nevertheless held that the agreement remained unenforceable as there had been no concluded agreement between Siva and Firwas, nor any binding authority on Firwas’ part to enter into such an agreement.

It also upheld the finding that Siva had wrongfully lodged the private caveat over the land.

The court rejected Siva’s argument that an earlier High Court decision dismissing Firwas’ application to remove the caveat prevented a subsequent finding that it had been wrongfully lodged.

The Court of Appeal held that the earlier proceedings were interlocutory in nature and had not determined the parties’ substantive rights at trial.

On damages, the court allowed Firwas’ cross-appeal and ordered interest on the RM52.2 million sum to be recalculated at eight per cent per annum from September 22, 2020 until the date of judgment.

Siva and Ammsa were also ordered to pay RM80,000 in costs for their appeal.

Meanwhile, Thevan’s appeal over his claim for RM1.2 million in agency fees was dismissed.

Although the findings of fraud and conspiracy against Thevan were set aside, the Court of Appeal upheld his liability for breach of fiduciary duty.

The court ordered him to pay RM100,000 in aggravated damages and for the RM1.2 million earnest deposit he had retained to be paid to Firwas towards satisfaction of the judgment debt.

Shoba, who did not appeal, remains liable for breach of fiduciary duty as a partner of the law firm involved in the transaction.

The case dates back to negotiations in 2017 and 2018, when Firwas sought to sell the Johor land for RM60 million.

Thevan had introduced Siva as a prospective purchaser. The negotiations eventually broke down and Firwas sold the land to another party for RM58 million.

Siva subsequently proceeded with an alleged sale agreement and lodged a private caveat over the property, leading Firwas to take legal action.

The High Court had ruled in favour of Firwas in January 2024, making strong findings of fraud and conspiracy and awarding damages over the wrongful caveat.

The Court of Appeal’s latest decision removes those fraud and conspiracy findings but leaves intact the key finding that there was no binding sale agreement and that Siva’s caveat was wrongful.

SAR area expanded to two nautical miles in search for three missing teenagers in Tanjung Lompat

Asyraf Wajdi says only Zahid can decide whether he should step down as Mara chairman

Umno’s future direction, unity govt ties among key issues at upcoming general assembly, says Asyraf Wajdi

吉隆坡上诉法院推翻了对商人 J 的欺诈和共谋罪的裁决。

Siva Kumar 和房产经纪人 R.

Thevandran卷入了一起土地买卖纠纷，但他坚称，这笔价值5220万令吉的交易并未达成具有约束力的买卖协议。

上诉法院维持了高等法院的判决，即 Siva 错误地对该房产提出了私人警告。

法院驳回了 Thevandran 对代理费的上诉，确认他违反了信托义务，并下令对 Siva 和 Ammsa Property 处以经济处罚，包括重新计算争议款项的利息和费用。

吉隆坡，9月3日讯——上诉法院推翻了此前对一名商人和一名房地产经纪人的欺诈和串谋指控，该指控源于一起涉及柔佛州一块22公顷土地的拟议出售，售价为5220万令吉。

然而，由三名成员组成的小组维持了高等法院的裁决，即没有达成具有约束力的买卖协议，并且商人 J. Siva Kumar 错误地对该土地提出了私人警告。

由法官拿督阿扎哈里·卡迈勒·拉姆利、拿督艾哈迈德·卡迈勒·沙希德和拿督翁志宽组成的合议庭对两起合并上诉案件作出裁决，这两起上诉案件均源于高等法院于 2024 年 1 月 22 日作出的判决。

第一起上诉由 Siva 和 Ammsa Property Sdn Bhd 提起，第二起上诉由房地产经纪人 R Thevandran K. Ragavan（又名 Thevan）提起。

争议涉及Firwas Sdn Bhd拥有的22.06公顷农田，该农田位于柔佛州新山Mukim Plentong，Geran 5238 Lot 49259下。

Siva 和 Ammsa 曾要求强制履行与 Firwas 签订的所谓买卖协议。

上诉法院在其判决中认为，高等法院在认定 Siva、Thevan 和律师 G Shoba 犯有欺诈和共谋罪时，超出了 Firwas 的诉讼请求范围，因为这些诉讼理由及其构成事实并未得到必要的详细说明。

因此，上诉法院撤销了欺诈和串谋的认定，并推翻了高等法院关于所谓买卖协议“非法、欺诈、自始无效”的声明。

然而，法院认为该协议仍然无法执行，因为 Siva 和 Firwas 之间没有达成最终协议，Firwas 也没有任何具有约束力的授权来订立这样的协议。

法院还维持了原判，认定 Siva 错误地对该土地提出了私人警告。

法院驳回了 Siva 的论点，即高等法院先前驳回 Firwas 撤销警告申请的裁决阻止了后来认定该警告系错误提交的裁决。

上诉法院认为，先前的诉讼程序属于中间程序，并未确定当事人在审判中的实质性权利。

关于损害赔偿，法院准许了菲尔瓦斯的交叉上诉，并下令将 5220 万令吉的赔偿金的利息从 2020 年 9 月 22 日起按年利率 8% 重新计算，直至判决之日。

Siva 和 Ammsa 还被勒令支付 80,000 令吉的上诉费用。

与此同时，Thevan 对其索要 120 万令吉代理费的上诉被驳回。

尽管对 Thevan 的欺诈和共谋指控被撤销，但上诉法院维持了他违反信托义务的责任。

法院判令他支付 10 万令吉的加重损害赔偿金，以及他保留的 120 万令吉保证金，用于支付给 Firwas 以清偿判决债务。

Shoba 没有提出上诉，作为参与该交易的律师事务所的合伙人，他仍然要为违反信托义务承担责任。

该案可追溯至 2017 年和 2018 年的谈判，当时 Firwas 试图以 6000 万令吉的价格出售柔佛州的土地。

Thevan曾介绍Siva作为潜在买家。但谈判最终破裂，Firwas以5800万令吉的价格将土地卖给了另一方。

随后，Siva 达成了所谓的买卖协议，并对该房产提出了私人警告，导致 Firwas 采取了法律行动。

高等法院于 2024 年 1 月作出有利于 Firwas 的裁决，认定存在欺诈和串谋行为，并就错误的警告作出损害赔偿判决。

上诉法院的最新裁决撤销了欺诈和共谋的认定，但保留了关键的认定，即不存在具有约束力的销售协议，以及 Siva 的警告是错误的。

在丹戎隆帕特地区搜寻三名失踪青少年的搜救区域扩大至两海里。

阿什拉夫·瓦吉迪表示，只有扎希德才能决定他是否应该辞去马拉主席一职。

阿什拉夫·瓦吉迪表示，巫统的未来方向和团结政府关系是即将召开的大会的关键议题之一。