MTRUSTEE BERHAD (yang dahulunya dikenali sebagai AmTrustee Berhad) (sebagai pemegang amanah untuk Hektar Real Estate Investment Trust) TASHIMA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

MTRUSTEE BERHAD (yang dahulunya dikenali sebagai AmTrustee Berhad) (sebagai pemegang amanah untuk Hektar Real Estate Investment Trust) TASHIMA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

The SAR's ruling was upheld because the creditor failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Order 48 Rules of Court 2012 for examination and document production against a corporate judgment debtor; the JDS as issued under Order 74 was not valid for a corporate debtor and should have been commenced in the original court (Sessions Court); the SAR's refusal was an interlocutory procedural ruling and not appealable, and there was no basis to interfere with the SAR's discretionary exercise.

Citation
JB-37J-3-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Judgment Creditor / Appellant: MTRUSTEE BERHAD; Judgment Debtor / Respondent: TASHIMA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 January 2025
Case Number
JB-37J-3-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Senior Assistant Registrar's Ruling in Judgment Debtor Summons / Judgement on Appeal to Judge in Chambers (grounds of Judgement)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; decision of Senior Assistant Registrar upheld; costs awarded to respondent.
Legal Topics
Judgment Debtor Summons, Production of Documents, Order 48 Rules of Court 2012, Debtors Act 1957, Jurisdiction, Interlocutory Appealability
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Debt Recovery Corporate Law Judgment Debtor Summons Production of Documents Order 48 Rules of Court 2012 Debtors Act 1957 Jurisdiction +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MTRUSTEE BERHAD

Judgment Creditor / Appellant

TASHIMA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Judgment Debtor / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Senior Assistant Registrar's Ruling in Judgment Debtor Summons / Judgement on Appeal to Judge in Chambers (grounds of Judgement)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the SAR erred in refusing an oral application ordering production of bank statements (2018–date)
  2. 2 Whether a JDS against a corporate judgment debtor must be issued under Order 48 ROC 2012 and not orally
  3. 3 Whether the JDS should have been commenced in the original court (Sessions Court) rather than the High Court

Ratio Decidendi

The SAR's ruling was upheld because the creditor failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Order 48 Rules of Court 2012 for examination and document production against a corporate judgment debtor; the JDS as issued under Order 74 was not valid for a corporate debtor and should have been commenced in the original court (Sessions Court); the SAR's refusal was an interlocutory procedural ruling and not appealable, and there was no basis to interfere with the SAR's discretionary exercise.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; decision of Senior Assistant Registrar upheld; costs awarded to respondent.

Orders

  • The three appeals are dismissed with costs
  • The learned SAR's decision refusing the oral application for production of documents is upheld