News by Hafiz Yatim

This comes after the appellate court ruled on Monday (July 20) that it was not proper for the High Court to enter a summary judgement against the Orang Asli without going for a full trial.

The seizure order was related to a 2021 demerger exercise.

The High Court hearing for Semantan Estate (1952) Sdn Bhd's compensation according to the 1956 market rate will proceed on Aug 1 and 14, and Sept 1.

The High Court has allowed Distinctive Acres Sdn Bhd, an investment unit of property developer UOA Development Bhd (KL:UOADEV), to challenge a RM165.66 million tax bill and penalty linked to the sale of an asset to a REIT in 2020.

The High Court still wants the federal government and the liquidator of Semantan Estate (1952) Sdn Bhd to explore the possibility of mediation before the court delivers its decision on mesne profit (trespass compensation) to the company following the occupation of the now prime "Duta enclave" land it had deemed to have trespassed on since it was acquired in December 1956.

The High Court has fixed Dec 16 to deliver its decision on the amount of compensation the Malaysian government must pay to Semantan Estate (1952) Sdn Bhd. The compensation will be assessed based on 1956 market rates, following a long-running dispute over the government’s acquisition of the prime “Duta enclave” land along Jalan Duta here.

The High Court on Wednesday has dismissed two separate discovery applications made by Semantan Estate (1952) Sdn Bhd on the federal government with regards to compensation for the 263.27 acres of prime ‘Duta enclave’ land that was acquired pre-Merdeka in 1956.

Semantan Estate (1952) Sdn Bhd has filed a discovery application to obtain survey and acquisition plans from before Merdeka for its compensation hearing over the “Duta Enclave” land, which the court ruled the government had trespassed on. The survey and acquisition plans date from 1956 to 1960.

In a landmark judgement last week involving a property development project in Penang, the Court of Appeal (COA) ruled that for mixed developments, a single joint management body (JMB) should operate, and there should not be different managements for commercial and residential properties in the running of maintenance and management of the development.

The Court of Appeal last week dismissed an appeal by a landowner-cum-developer for loss of profit/business disturbance following the acquisition of almost two acres of its 4.53 land in Klang for the construction the West Coast Expressway (WCE).