INTAN PERMATA PROPERTIES SDN BHD AEJB ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD PIHAK YANG DIGARNIS 1. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD 2. ) CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD

INTAN PERMATA PROPERTIES SDN BHD AEJB ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD PIHAK YANG DIGARNIS 1. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD 2. ) CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD

The court allowed the absolute garnishee order and ordered Garnishee 1 to pay RM8,271.32 from the HDA to the judgment creditor; the appellant was ordered to pay costs of RM2,000 to the judgment creditor and the garnishee was awarded RM300 to be deducted from the garnished sum, with all costs subject to taxation (fi alokatur), because prior garnishment had reduced the HDA balance to RM8,271.32 and the statutory garnishment procedure under Order 49 justified the payment.

Citation
WA-12ANCvC-94-04/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Judgment Debtor: Intan Permata Properties Sdn Bhd; Respondent / Judgment Creditor: AEJB Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd; Garnishee: CIMB Bank Berhad; Garnishee: CIMB Islamic Bank Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 June 2022
Case Number
WA-12ANCvC-94-04/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (garnishee Proceedings) / Judgment (high Court)
Outcome
Garnishee order granted; garnishee to pay RM8,271.32 from HDA; costs awarded as set out below
Legal Topics
Garnishee Order, Costs, HDA Account, Calculation of Garnishable Balance
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Banking Law Garnishee Order Costs HDA Account Calculation of Garnishable Balance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Intan Permata Properties Sdn Bhd

Appellant / Judgment Debtor

AEJB Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd

Respondent / Judgment Creditor

CIMB Bank Berhad

Garnishee

CIMB Islamic Bank Berhad

Garnishee

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (garnishee Proceedings) / Judgment (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the garnishee should be ordered to pay RM8,271.32 from the Housing Developer Account (HDA)
  2. 2 Whether costs of RM2,000 and RM300 should be imposed and who should bear them
  3. 3 How prior garnishment affects the remaining balance available for garnishment

Ratio Decidendi

The court allowed the absolute garnishee order and ordered Garnishee 1 to pay RM8,271.32 from the HDA to the judgment creditor; the appellant was ordered to pay costs of RM2,000 to the judgment creditor and the garnishee was awarded RM300 to be deducted from the garnished sum, with all costs subject to taxation (fi alokatur), because prior garnishment had reduced the HDA balance to RM8,271.32 and the statutory garnishment procedure under Order 49 justified the payment.

Court Disposition

Garnishee order granted; garnishee to pay RM8,271.32 from HDA; costs awarded as set out below

Orders

  • Garnishee 1 ordered to pay RM8,271.32 from the Housing Developer Account (HDA) to the judgment creditor
  • Appellant to pay costs of RM2,000 to the judgment creditor