Eight bumiputera companies will know on Jan 8 if their RM381 million breach of contract suit against Mara can be heard as a full trial or should be heard summarily.

The eight companies have sued Mara after being deprived for long from having a proper facility to run their businesses. These companies have also invested heavily in the furniture industry.

On the other hand, Mara has also filed a suit against the eight companies for allegedly owing the agency.

The eight companies in question are Indera Perabot (M) Sdn Bhd, Medan Data Sdn Bhd, Adi Wood Product Sdn Bhd, Almawood Industries Sdn Bhd, Ikrar Teguh Sdn Bhd, Phoenix Calibre Sdn Bhd, Perabut Wilayah Utara Sdn Bhd and CT Max Sdn Bhd.

They were each given specific tasks by Mara to produce dinner tables.

The matter came up before Penang High Court judge Zakaria Sam this morning to consider the legal issues to determine if the matter has to go through a full trial.

Among the legal issues raised were:

  • Is Mara responsible to ensure the completion and operational of the Shared Facility Centre, on Jan 1, 1998;
  • If it failed, does this constitute a breach of contract on the part of Mara to put up the facility; and
  • The incompletion of the facility has resulted in the eight companies' to suffer in the business, based on the terms and conditions of the agreement to produce dinner table sets.
Jan 8 decision

After hearing submissions, Justice Zakaria fixed Jan 8 for decision on whether the application will need to go for a full trial.

The eight companies have applied to rent Mara's premises to open a factory. However, Mara had asked all directors to attend a compulsory course of which they did.

The companies then agreed to form a consortium, called Distinction Alliance (M) Sdn Bhd, which would be jointly owned by the eight of them. Mara also agreed to bring in its subsidiary Syarikat Perabut Kmnbara Sdn Bhd.

However, Mara then took over the role and responsibility from Distinction Alliance and took over the task to complete and ensure the fully operational Shared Facility Centre.

However, the companies suffered heavy losses due to the incompletion of the centre.

After more than 11 years, the companies claimed the facility was not 100 percent completed and hence, had filed the legal action in 2003.