-----Original Message-----
From: yogaraj
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 6:18 PM
To: hwabeng1@streamyx.com
Subject: Sanjung Utama - update on CFO and legal suit
Dear Dato’ Lee I apologise for the delay in reply as we were waiting for clarification from our solicitors with regards to our ability to deliver vacant possession (VP) and keys, in order for us to give you a meaningful update. We successfully obtained the Certificate of Fitness for Occupation("CFO") from MPSJ on 28 March 2008 for Blocks A, B, C and the retail podium. However, our ability to deliver vacant possession ("VP") and keys to the purchasers is always subject to our position with regards to the injunction specifically, and the legal suit (both action brought by the directors) as a whole. During the hearing on 31 March 2008, what was certain is that the Judge confirmed that the Injunction was no longer in place. However, what was not made clear was whether we could proceed to deal with the properties which are the subject matter of the suit and whether by doing so, we would be open to the risk of interfering with the administration of justice. In view of this, our solicitors advised that we make an application to the Court to seek consent/ agreement to enable the receivers and managers to deliver VP and keys to all those entitled to them. We have instructed our solicitor to obtain an early hearing date for the matter. We will keep you posted on the status of delivering the VP. Regards T. Yogaraj
I find it strange that these matters were not brought to
the judge attention on 31st Mar 2008 and now have to
make another appointment which involves further delay. The hearing on 31st Mar 2008 was supposed to
seek written consent for vp and delivery of keys.
On another matter, the issue on the RM 50 per month parking fees imposed is just too steep. Eventhough, the word FREE is not stated in SPA, neither is the word CHARGEABLE mentioned in SPA. The SPA did mentioned that for additional parking space, the purchaser will have to make payment, which implies that the first parking lot is non-chargeable. The upkeep and maintenance of the parking lots should be cover by the maintenance fees and not be separately charge. This is the norm for all high-rises (condos, apartments, commercial or otherwise). We purchasers can afford to buy the units but with this additional unfair charges imposed on us, can we afford to stay in them ? This unfair practices does not augurs well for the future relationship between management and buyers.