Chandran KP Nair claims he had verbal approval to paint his main door and never received a warning letter from the management corporation.
Chandran KP Nair, 71, applied for the judicial review earlier this month, naming the tribunal and Araville’s management corporation (MC) as respondents in challenging the tribunal’s award.
In an affidavit filed through his lawyers, Messrs V L Decruz & Co, Chandran alleged that he had obtained verbal approval from a committee member before painting his main door in September 2024. He claimed he had never received a warning letter over the matter from the MC at the time.
He argued that it was untenable to contend that the main door and the area where the artwork was placed formed part of the common property, as the developer had provided built-in shoe racks in front of the main doors of all units for the owners’ personal use.
“Given that the personal shoe racks were constructed in front of the main doors, this area cannot be used by the other owners and, as such, does not constitute part of the common property,” the affidavit read.
He accused the MC of selective enforcement, claiming that other residents had painted their main doors and installed artwork and security gates without any action taken against them.
Chandran also claimed that he was being targeted by the management committee, which is part of the MC, due to his previous actions as chairman for the 2024/2025 term, including questioning the treasurer’s term.
He said he resigned on March 16, 2025, as he was unhappy with how the administrative affairs were being handled.
Chandran alleged that the MC sent him two warning emails instructing him to restore the original colour of his main door, dated Sept 20, 2025 and Oct 10, 2025.
On Dec 18, 2025, the MC filed a claim against him at the tribunal.
Chandran said during the tribunal hearing, its president directed the MC to produce proof of warning letters issued to other owners, but it failed to do so.
Chandran said the tribunal did not address the MC’s failure to produce such proof.
The tribunal subsequently ordered him to restore the original colour of the door and remove the artwork within 30 days of its ruling dated July 8, 2026.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, Chandran claimed that the tribunal’s decision was affected by serious irregularities, errors of law and procedural impropriety.
He also questioned the validity of the tribunal proceedings, claiming the MC was represented by a property management staff member who lacked official authorisation, rather than a member of the management committee.
He is seeking a stay of execution of the tribunal’s ruling pending disposal of the judicial review, leave to proceed with his judicial review application and an order quashing the tribunal’s award.
He is also seeking costs and any other relief the court deems fit.
In a letter to the deputy registrar, senior federal counsel Nurhafizza Azizan said the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had no objection to the judicial review application, except for the application to stay the tribunal’s award.
She sought for the stay application to be heard inter partes and said the AGC would not represent the tribunal at the substantive stage.
Messrs Siva, Thurai, Marinay & Co represented the Araville MC.
The matter has been fixed for hearing before High Court judge Azizan Arshad on Sept 9. - FMT
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.