Kerajaan Malaysia

lwn. Sanjung Utama Sdn Bhd (Dalam Likuidasi); Tenaga

[2018] MLRHU 1887 Nastional Berhad (Pemohon) pg 1

KERAJAAN MALAYSIA
lwn.
SANJUNG UTAMA SDN BHD (DALAM LIKUIDASI);
TENAGA NASTIONAL BERHAD (PEMOHON)

Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya, Melaka

Ahmad Nasfy Haji Yasin H
[Penggulungan Syarikat No: MA-28PW-05-07/2017]
3 Julai 2018

Kes-kes yang dirujuk:

Empayar Canggih [2013] MLRHU 698; [2014] 8 MLJ 280 (dirujuk)
Torita Rubber Works v. Chew Chong Eu [2009] 2 MLRH 565; [2009] 5 MLJ 208;
[2009] 9 CLJ 280 (dirujuk)
Chin Ah Keow @ Chin Lai Sill v. Anggun Pintas [2005] 6 MLRH 65; [2005] 4
MLJ 747 (dirujuk)
Majlis Amanah Rakyat v. Official Receiver [1984] 1 MLRA 151; [1984] 1 MLJ
173; [1984] 1 CLJ (Rep) 240 (dirujuk)
JMB Perdana View v. Saujana Triangle Sdn Bhd [2016] MLRHU 1456 (dirujuk)
TNB v. Kencana Vest [2014] 5 LNS 66 (dirujuk)
Perangin Mall v. Tang Joo Ming [2012] MLRAU 556; [2013] 6 MLJ 753 (dirujuk)
Badan Pengurusan Bersama Kompleks Pandan Safari Lagoon v. Tam Cheng
Meng [2018] MLRHU 394; [2018] 8 MLJ 274; [2018] 3 AMR 597 (dirujuk)

Perundangan yang dirujuk:

Companies Acts 1965, ss 236, 269, 274, 279
Licensee Supply Regulations 1990, reg 3(2)
Strata Management Act 2013, ss 10(3), (4), 16, 21

Kaunsel:
Bagi pihak pemohon: Tetuan Desmond Ho & Associates
Bagi pihak responden: Tetuan E D Louis & Associates

[Permohonan ditolak dengan kos RM5000.00.]

ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN

Ahmad Nasfy Haji Yasin H:

[1] Ini adalah rayuan oleh Perayu/Pemohon kerana tidak berpuas hati ke atas
keputusan Mahkamah yang menolak permohonan Perayu/Pemohon di
Lampiran 1.

[2] Bagi tujuan rayuan ini, pihak-pihak masing-masing akan dirujuk sebagai
Pemohon, Pempetisyen dan Responden.

Latar Belakang Kes

 Kerajaan Malaysia
lwn. Sanjung Utama Sdn Bhd (Dalam Likuidasi); Tenaga
pg 2 Nastional Berhad (Pemohon) [2018] MLRHU 1887

[3] Sebelum ini pihak Pemohon telah memfailkan permohonan di Lampiran 6

untuk memohon perintah bahawa Rimbun Corporate Advisory salah
dicantum dan diberhentikan menjadi Responden dalam tindakan ini dan
percantuman "Jambulingan Sethuraman Raki" dan "Sundarasan A/L
Arumugam" sebagai Responden-responden dalam tindakan ini.

[4] Pihak-pihak mencapai persetujuan seperti berikut:

(a) Rimbun Corporate Advisory telah disalah cantum dan dihentikan

menjadi Responden dalam tindakan ini;

(b) Percantuman Sanjung Utama Sdn Bhd (dalam likuidasi) sebagai

Responden dalam tindakan ini.

[5] Notis Usul terpinda Lampiran 15 kemudian difailkan.

[6] Fakta kes diringkaskan seperti berikut:

(a) "Jambulingan" telah meninggal dunia pada 3 Oktober 2017 dan

sekarang pelikuidasi Responden kini hanyalah Encik Sundarasan;

(b) Jumlah yang terhutang dan harus dibayarkan oleh Responden

kepada Pemohon adalah RM2,962,205.60 setakat 1 September 2016
iaitu tarikh terdekat sebelum penggulungan syarikat;

(c) Pemohon memasuki perjanjian dengan Responden di mana

Pemohon membekalkan bekalan elektrik kepada Sanjung Utama.
Pada setiap bulan, Pemohon mengeluarkan bil-bil elektrik berdasarkan
kadar penggunaan bekalan elektrik di premis tersebut kepada Sanjung
Utama Sdn Bhd (Responden).

(d) Sanjung Utama gagal membayar sejak 1 Oktober 2015 dan

meninggalkan tunggakan bil elektrik berjumlah RM2,962,205.60
setakat 1 September 2016.

(e) Pemohon mendapati Responden telah digulungkan melalui No kes

28NCC-12- 04/2015 pada 5 September 2016. Dan, Mahkamah
melantik pelikuidasi swasta iaitu "Jambulingan" & "Sundrasan" dari
Rimbun Corporate Advisory sebagai Pelikuidi bersesama dan
berasingan untuk Responden.

(f) Kemudian pada 27 Mac 2017 pemohon memajukan borang bukti

hutang pada 24 Mac 2017 kepada Rimbun Corporate manakala
Responden telah pada 22 Jun 2017 menolak borang bukti hutang
tersebut (Borang 59 - Notice of Rejection of Proof of Debt).

(i) Responden memberikan alasan tolakannya iaitu tuntutan

yang dinyatakan oleh Pemohon dalam borang bukti hutang
bukan merupakan tuntutan terhadap Responden dan tuntutan
 Kerajaan Malaysia
lwn. Sanjung Utama Sdn Bhd (Dalam Likuidasi); Tenaga
[2018] MLRHU 1887 Nastional Berhad (Pemohon) pg 3

tersebut harus dibuat terhadap akaun penyelenggaraan bagi

pembangunan tersebut.

(g) Pada 29 Jun 2017, Pemohon mengeluarkan Notis Rayuan kepada

Responden untuk merayu terhadap Notis of Rejection.

Hujahan Pemohon

[7] Notis Usul Permohonan ini berdasarkan kepada s 274 Akta Syarikat 1965
(may apply to court to determine any question arising in the winding up of a
company) dan s 279 Akta Syarikat 1965 (appeal against the decision of
liquidator).

[8] Alasan penolakan oleh Responden termasuklah:

(i) tuntutan permohonan terhadap akaun Sanjung Utama adalah

berdasarkan kontrak antaranya dengan TNB untuk RP mendapatkan
bekalan elektrik di premis tersebut daripada pemohon. Responden
gagal bayar bil-bil elektrik yang dikeluarkan sejak bulan Oktober 2015
dan Pemohon mengalami kerugian berterusan. Walau bagaimanapun,
pemohon berhujah ini adalah jumlah tuntutan akibat kemungkiran
perjanjian dan sepatutnya dibuat terhadap akaun Responden. Rujuk
reg 3, Licensee Supply Regulations 1990 (recovery of electricity
charges) dan kes Empayar Canggih [2013] MLRHU 698; [2014] 8 MLJ
280, Pemohon berhujah Responden bertanggungjawab atas kadar
penggunaan elektrik premis Responden yang dikenakan oleh
Pemohon; dan

(ii) Pemohon berhujah premis yang digunakan oleh Responden adalah

dibekalkan kepada hartanah bersama (common property) tidak
mengecualikan pihak Responden daripada tanggungjawabnya
berdasarkan kontrak yang telah dimasuki oleh kedua-dua pihak kerana
Responden hujah tuntutan seharusnya dibuat terhadap Badan
Pengurusan bersama bagi USJ City mall dan/atau Rhythm Avenue
USJ 19 City Mail Condominium. Namun, kontrak bersama Pemohon
tiada kena-mengena dengan USJ City Mall tersebut (rujuk reg 3(2)
Licensee Supply Regulations 1990 - if a consumer quits premises at
which electricity has been supplied by a licensee without giving notice
to licensee at least 3 working days before he quits the premises then he
shall be liable to pay the licensee all charges in respect of the supply of
electricity to the premise).

Hujahan Responden

[9] Responden menyatakan terdapat dua alasan yang diberikan untuk menolak
bukti hutang tersebut iaitu:

(i) tuntutan pemohon bukanlah satu tuntutan terhadap Responden;

dan
 Kerajaan Malaysia
lwn. Sanjung Utama Sdn Bhd (Dalam Likuidasi); Tenaga
pg 4 Nastional Berhad (Pemohon) [2018] MLRHU 1887

(ii) tuntutan Pemohon seharusnya dibawa terhadap akaun

penyelenggaraan (maintenance account) bagi hartanah tersebut.

[10] Responden berhujah bukti hutang pemohon bukanlah satu liabiliti

sebenar Responden yang boleh dilaksanakan terhadap Responden.

[11] Merujuk kepada Akta Pengurusan Strata 2013 menunjukkan tuntutan

Pemohon tidak boleh dilaksanakan terhadap Responden kerana bukanlah
liabiliti Responden memandangkan Badan Pengurusan Bersama bagi hartanah
tersebut ditubuhkan pada 20 November 2011.

[12] Oleh itu, kewajipan membayar caj-caj elektrik untuk hartanah bersama
tersebut adalah di pihak pengurusan bersama bagi hartanah tersebut dan
bukannya Responden dan bayaran boleh dibuat daripada akaun
penyelenggaraan yang ditadbir oleh Badan Pengurusan Bersama tersebut
(rujuk s 10(3), Akta Pengurusan Strata 2013 - the developer shall deposit into
the maintenance account the charges received by the developer from the
purchasers in the development areas: and the charges to be paid by developer
in respect of those parcels which have not been sold).

[13] Responden juga merujuk kepada s 10(4) all moneys in the maintenance
account shall not form part of property of developer, 15(1) developer shall
transfer all balances of money before developer's management period expires,
to the joint management body's account, s 16 the money shall vest in the
maintenance account shall be administered and controlled by joint
management body, s 21 duty of a joint management body.

[14] Responden berhujah apa-apa wang dalam akaun penyelenggaraan yang

dibuka oleh Responden bukanlah aset atau harta Responden, dan tuntutan
pemohon untuk caj-caj elektrik yang terhutang tidak boleh dituntut daripada
Responden di bawah proses penggulungan Responden.

[15] Responden seterusnya berhujah borang bukti hutang yang difailkan oleh
pemohon mengandungi suatu tuntutan utk caj-caj yang kononnya terakru
selepas penggulungan Responden iaitu afidavit sokongan pemohon eksibit
"NSBMS-1" yang menyatakan jumlah tertunggak setakat tarikh 16 Februari
2017.

[16] Dalam posisi undang-undang, jumlah terhutang oleh syarikat yang

digulungkan hanya boleh dikira setakat tarikh penggulungan syarikat tersebut.

[17] Responden berhujah bekalan elektrik telah dibekalkan kepada hartanah

bersama dan dikeluarkan atas nama Responden hanya kerana nama akaun
tersebut belum ditukar kepada nama Badan Pengurusan Bersama hartanah
tersebut.

[18] Responden tiada apa-apa akses kepada wang- wang yang ada di dalam
akaun penyelenggaraan yang kini ditadbir oleh Badan Pengurusan Bersama
bagi hartanah tersebut.
 Kerajaan Malaysia
lwn. Sanjung Utama Sdn Bhd (Dalam Likuidasi); Tenaga
[2018] MLRHU 1887 Nastional Berhad (Pemohon) pg 5

[19] Pelikuidasi Responden ada obligasi undang - undang dalam

menentusahkan borang bukti hutang yang difailkan oleh pemiutangnya dan
hanya borang bukti hutang yang sah akan diterima. Dengan itu keputusan
Pelikuidasi Responden yang menolak Bukti Hutang Pemohon hendaklah
dikekalkan.

Keputusan Mahkamah

[20] Saya bersetuju dengan kedudukan Pemohon dgn merujuk kepada kes
Torita Rubber Works v. Chew Chong Eu [2009] 2 MLRH 565; [2009] 5 MLJ
208; [2009] 9 CLJ 280 (yang juga dirujuk oleh peguam pemohon) yang
menyatakan s 269 & s 236 tidak langsung memberikan sebarang kuasa kepada
Liquidator untuk menolak tuntutan Pemohon sepenuhnya tetapi
kemudiannya Liquidator hendaklah membuat permohonan dengan
Mahkamah untuk mendapatkan arahan lanjut (court's directions) mengikut
prosedur di bawah situasi sebegini:

" [5] I note even a liberal reading of s 269 and the whole s 236 does not
give any power to the liquidator to reject the creditors claim. The so called
powers, spelt out in r 92 of WR 1972 which is only a subsidiary legislation
run foul of the Parent Act (see s 23 of Interpretation Act). But courts have
often recognized r 92. As both parties did not address this issue! do not
want to deliberate further save to say that r 92 must not be considered as a
power but merely a procedural formality, subject to appropriate directions
of court, pursuant to s 279 and r 92 of WR 1972." (Penekanan ditambah.

[21] Peranan Mahkamah dalam kes sebegini dijelaskan dalam kes Chin Ah
Keow @ Chin Lai Sill v. Anggun Pintas [2005] 6 MLRH 65; [2005] 4 MLJ 747,
by Ramly Haji J menyatakan. "The function of the Court under s 279 is to
hear the matter as a strict appeal from the decision of the liquidator The
powers given to the Court are to consider whether the act or decision of the
liquidator was right, so that it should be confirmed, or was wrong so that it
should be reversed, or partly right and partly wrong, so that it should be
modified. To do this, the court must have regard to the circumstances which
were before the liquidator at the time of his act or decision and not to
circumstances subsequently arising."

[22] Bagi jumlah terhutang, saya bersetuju dengan hujahan Responden

bahawa jumlah hutang terakru hanya dikira setakat tarikh penggulungan
syarikat Responden. Dalam kes ini, Responden digutungkan pada 5
September 2016 dan adalah salah untuk pihak Pemohon memfailkan borang
bukti hutang yang menyatakan jumlah terakru setakat 16 Februari 2017
selepas tarikh penggulungan tersebut ( Majlis Amanah Rakyat v. Official
Receiver [1984] 1 MLRA 151; [1984] 1 MLJ 173; [1984] 1 CLJ (Rep) 240; The
effective date for the purposes of determining the debt or liability of an
insolvent company in liquidation by order of court is the date of the order for
winding up.')

[23] Namun begitu, merujuk kepada kes yang mempertikaikan lebih kurang
 Kerajaan Malaysia
lwn. Sanjung Utama Sdn Bhd (Dalam Likuidasi); Tenaga
pg 6 Nastional Berhad (Pemohon) [2018] MLRHU 1887

sama dengan kes ini JMB Perdana View v. Saujana Triangle Sdn Bhd [2016]
MLRHU 1456, High court Shah Alam, (Suit No 22NCvC-557-11 of 2014)
bertarikh 27 December 2016):

[36] PW1 gave evidence that based on records the management of PVC
was handed to JMB with an outstanding TNB bill of RM292,453.83 as
seen in B2 267-269. According to PW1 PVC had 3 separate accounts with
TNB 0121 00520360 02 for Block A, 0121 00520361 00 for Block B and
0121 00531338 06 for Block C and D. B2 267 for account no: 0121
00520360 02 had an outstanding of RM69,697.10, at p 268, account no:
0121 00520361 00 had an outstanding of RM139,155.15 and at p 269,
account no: 0121 00531338 06 had an outstanding of RM83,600.55. The
outstanding debt was not paid by Defendant and/or its appointed agents
ie, Golden Precint and Global during their management of PVC. Plaintiff
was left to bear this debt after the take over from Defendant. Based on
records Plaintiff made payments periodically as otherwise electricity
supply would be cut off. B3 10-12 are the recent TNB bills received and
show Plaintiff had made payments recently to TNB (Q&A).

[48] In re-examination he stated the registered owner was Saujana

Triangle. TNB would claim against Saujana Triangle for any outstanding
arrears and that for refunds the outstanding has to be settled first. He
stated that if electricity supply was cut for nonpayment, TNB would
accept payment from whoever wishing to p.

[49] DW1's evidence was that the supply of electricity was for the
common areas and the accounts were registered in Defendant's name so
that electricity could be supplied to the development area and in order for
certificate of fitness for occupation to be obtained. In cross examination
he was referred to B2 267-269 and confirmed these were unpaid bills
under Defendant's name and were during the time Defendant was
managing PVC (p 136 NOP). He then said the bills were under PVC but
for Tropics Shopping Center Management which is run by JMB. TNB
had wrongly credited into PVC account and reverted back and paid to the
rightful owner which was Tropics Shopping Centre (pp 137-139 NOP).
He disagreed the accounts belong to PVC and he had no documents to
show they belong to Tropics Shopping Centre. He further disagreed
Defendant was liable to pay the TNB bills (pp 139-141 NO.

(b) Analysis and finding

[51] The collective evidence of PW1 and PW2 with reference to TNB bills
as at 1 Julai 2008 in B2 267-269 shows outstanding amounts of
RM69,697.10 (account no 00520360 02 for Block A), RM139,155.15
(account no 00520361 for Block B) and RM83,600.55 (account no
00531338 06 for Blocks C and D) and these total RM292,453.83. These
evidence was supported by the TNB witness PW4 who confirmed the
accounts in question were issued in Defendant's name and he tendered
P35 - P37 which is the record of charges incurred prior to July 2008 and
explained why as at 8 Julai 2009 for all 3 accounts the total payable of
 Kerajaan Malaysia
lwn. Sanjung Utama Sdn Bhd (Dalam Likuidasi); Tenaga
[2018] MLRHU 1887 Nastional Berhad (Pemohon) pg 7

RM69,657.10, RM139,155.15 and RM83,600.55 were reduced and that

this was due to a transfer credit. Subsequently there was then a transfer
debit with the ensuing result that whatever was credited was debited and
the total payable was then back as before. This shows that for all intent
and purpose, those amounts outstanding as at 8 Julai 2008 had not been
paid. The account numbers in B 267-269 tally with that in P35 - P37. This
evidence was never challeng.

[52] Defendant's contention this was incurred for the common area for the
benefit of all residents and therefore Defendant ought not to be
responsible belies the fact these were incurred prior to the takeover by
JMB and was during the period they were managing PVC. It was in fact
his evidence these bills were incurred during their management of PVC. It
was also PW4's evidence that if Plaintiff wanted to close the accounts the
registered owner which is Defendant has to settle the outstanding arrears.
The suggestion by DW1 that the bills were not for PVC but for Tropics
Shopping Centre was not supported by any eviden.

[53] Defendant is thus liable for the outstanding TNB bills. However since
it was established that TNB will claim the outstanding bills from
Defendant as the registered account holder, the Court wilt allow the
alternative relief that the TNB accounts be transferred to Plaintiff free
from encumbranc.

Conclusion

[61] In conclusion Defendant is to pay Plaintiff the sinking fund amount

of RM447,416.00, TNB and Syabas deposit of RM115,300.00 and the
arrears for Unit A 1616 of RM42,820.61 and C 202 of RM46,547.75 with
5% interest from 1 Julai 2008 and to transfer TNB accounts in the
common area of PVC free from encumbrances. The rest of Plaintiff's
claim is dismissed. Defendant's counterclaim is dismissed. Defendant is to
bear 1/4 of Plaintiff's costs. (Penekanan ditambah)

[24] Penelitian dibuat ke atas hujahan pihak-pihak dan sebagainya di dapati

pihak Responden dalam kes ini gagal mengemukakan sebarang bukti yang
boleh menunjukkan pihak Responden telah mengambil tindakan
memaklumkan Pemohon atau menukar daftar Pemohon kepada nama-nama
pihak ketiga yang memberi premis Responden dan dengan ini pihak Pemohon
berhujah dalam sisi undang-undang adalah betul dan sepatutnya mengambil
tindakan sahaja terhadap Responden yang ada hubungan kontrak dengannya
tetapi bukan terhadap Badan pengurusan USJ City Mall itu yang tiada
hubungan secara kontrak dengan Pemohon di dalam kes ini atas prinsip
"privity" (TNB v. Kencana Vest [2014] 5 LNS 66 - Kes Majistret yang dirujuk
oleh Pemohon)

[25] Namun dalam kes ini Responden sebagai developer yang merupakan
"registered account holder" adalah tidak salah dinamakan dalam tindakan ini,
tetapi adalah fakta yang tidak (dinafikan bahawa Mahkamah boleh membuat
arahan kepada TNB accounts tersebut dipindahkan ke JMB sepertimana
 Kerajaan Malaysia
lwn. Sanjung Utama Sdn Bhd (Dalam Likuidasi); Tenaga
pg 8 Nastional Berhad (Pemohon) [2018] MLRHU 1887

diputuskan dalam kes Saujana Triangle di atas ini.

[26] Ini kerana dalam akta berkaitan tiada mana-mana yang menyentuh hak
pindahmilik boleh berlaku secara automatik dari developer kepada JMB
sejurus pertubuhan JMB, seperti kes keputusan Perangin Mall v. Tang Joo Ming
[2012] MLRAU 556; [2013] 6 MLJ 753 yang dijelaskan dalam kes Tam
Cheng Meng seperti berikut:

Badan Pengurusan Bersama Kompleks Pandan Safari Lagoon v. Tam Cheng

Meng [2018] MLRHU 394; [2018] 8 MLJ 274; [2018] 3 AMR 597, High Court
Kuala Lumpur, Faizah Jamaludin, JC, Civil Appeal No WA-11 BNCvC-3-1
of 2017 dated 23 February 2018.

"[24] The Court of Appeal in Prangin Mall recognised that the

developer is under a duty pursuant to s 5(4) of the BPCA to maintain
and managed the malt before the formation of the JMB.
Notwithstanding the obligation, the BPCA did not expressly state that
the developer has the right to collect the services charges required to
undertake the maintenance and management from the unit owners.
The Court of Appeal held that since the BPCA is silent on the power
of the developer to collect the charges, such power is a contractual
power derived from the sale and purchase agreement with the unit
owners and not one derived from statute. It also held that since there is
no provision in the BPCA which transfers or hand overs the
developer's contractual right to the JMB, the developer's contractual
right to collect the charges had to be assigned from the developer to
the JMB. Rohana Yusuf J (as she then was) in delivering the judgment
of the Court of Appeal held that:

"[10] The duty of the developer to carry out maintenance and

management of the mall before the formation of the JMB is imposed
by s 5(4) of Act 663. It is therefore a legal duty imposed on the
developer to carry out maintenance and management of the mall
before the formation of JMB. Having imposed such a duty the law is
silent on the right to collect the charges by the developer.......

[13] Having outlined the above, it becomes clear that the developer's
right to collect charges is one that is derived under the sale and
purchase agreement and the amount owed by the respondents herein
are expenses incurred by the developer prior to the formation of JMB.
This contractual right to collect the charges under the sale and
purchase agreement remain enforceable despite the obligation to
manage and maintain the building ceased upon the formation of the
JMB. We say this because Act 663 does not override or transfer that
contractual right to JMB.

...........

[18] Any 'handing over' or transfer of contractual rights can only take
effect if there is an assignment of such rights either contractually or by
 Kerajaan Malaysia
lwn. Sanjung Utama Sdn Bhd (Dalam Likuidasi); Tenaga
[2018] MLRHU 1887 Nastional Berhad (Pemohon) pg 9

law. There is no evidence of an assignment of the contractuai right,

nor any provision in Act 663 that transfers or hand over that
contractuai right. In this regard, we are mindful that if the words in the
statute are clear and precise, then no more can be said or inferred than
those words in the ordinary sense?[Emphasis added]

[38] Accordingly, I find that by reason of these statutory provisions in

the SMA 2013, there is no legal necessity for an assignment under s
4(3) of the CLA from the Developer or the Liquidator to transfer to
the Plaintiff of its rights to collect the charges from the Defendant. The
SMA 2013 has cured the lacuna identified by the Court of Appeal in
Prangin Mall. The reason why the Court of Appeal held that an
assignment was required in that case was because there was no express
statutory provision giving the developer the right collect the service
charges and requiring the developer to transfer/hand over that right to
the JMB.

[27]SMA 2013 berkuatkuasa mulai 1 Jun 2015. Diperturunkan seperti bawah

mengenai seksyen berkenaan dengan peranan developer dan JMB masing-
masing untuk rujukan mudah:

"Pursuant to s 38 of the Strata Management Act 2013, a JMB

established under the Building and Common Property (Maintenance
and Management) Act 2007 (BPCA) is deemed to be established under
the SMA 2013 and that the provisions of the SMA 2013 applies to the
JMB.

Under s 40 of the SMA 2013, every accounts or funds established by a

developer or a JMB under the BPCA before the commencement of the
SMA 2013 shall continue and deemed to be established under the
SMA 2013.

Section 9(3) of the SMA 2013 expressly states that the

developer has the power during the developer's management
period to collect charges and contribution to the sinking fund
from the parcel owners 5.9(3) of the SMA states as follows:

"9(3) The powers of the developer during the developer's

management period shall be as follows:

(a) to collect the Charges from the parcel owners in

proportion to the allocated share units of their
respective parcels;

(b) to collect the contribution to the sinking fund from

the parcel owners;

(c) to authorize expenditure for the carrying out of

maintenance and management of the buildings or
lands intended for subdivision into parcels and the
 Kerajaan Malaysia
lwn. Sanjung Utama Sdn Bhd (Dalam Likuidasi); Tenaga
pg 10 Nastional Berhad (Pemohon) [2018] MLRHU 1887

common property;

(d) to recover from any parcel owner any sum

expended by the developer in respect of that parcel in
complying with any such notice or order referred to
under paragraph (2)(d); and

(e) (e) to do all things reasonably necessary for the

performance of its duties under this act.

Section 13(2) of the SMA 2013 states that any developer who has
collected moneys from purchasers for the maintenance and
management of any building may continue to do so until the IMB is
established.

Section 15(1) of the SMA 2013 requires the developer before the
developer's management period expires, inter cilia, to transfer all
balances of moneys in the maintenance account and the sinking fund
account; and hand over all invoices, receipts and payment vouchers in
respect of the maintenance account and sinking fund account to the
JMB.

Kesimpulan

[28] Berdasarkan atas, saya berpendapat bil tunggakan elektrik ini telah
menjadi tanggungjawab JMB apabila pertubuhannya, namun Developer
belum menukarkan daftar akaunnya yang dibayar oleh kesemua penduduk ke
bawah nama JMB. Mahkamah boleh memberikan arahan supaya Developer
dikehendaki memindahmilik akaun tersebut kepada JMB ('handing over' or
transfer of contractual rights by an assignment of such rights either contractually or
by law) spt yang diperuntukkan di bawah s 13(2) & s 15(1) SMA 2013 di atas
ini yang kemudian membolehkan Pemohon menuntut daripada JMB nanti.

[29] Jumlah yang dituntut oleh Pemohon terhadap JMB bolehlah sepertimana
RM4,355,540.59 bertarikh 24 Mac 2017 tetapi bukanlah melalui borang bukti
hutang kerana JMB tidak digulungkan.

[30] Maka, permohonan ini ditolak dengan kos RM5000.00.