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 refusal to grant an oral order for production of bank statements was correct because the Judgment Creditor failed to follow the mandatory Order 48 Rules of Court 2012 procedure for examination of an officer of a corporate judgment debtor; the JDS was not validly commenced under Order 48 and, being an interlocutory procedural ruling, the SAR’s decision is not appealable; accordingly the appeals are dismissed and the SAR’s exercise of discretion is upheld.

Citation
JB-37J-1-12/2023 (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-1-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Senior Assistant Registrar Ruling on Judgment Debtor Summons / Judge in Chambers Appeal From Interlocutory SAR Ruling
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Senior Assistant Registrar upheld
Legal Topics
Judgment Debtor Summons, Production of Documents, Order 48 Rules of Court 2012, Debtors Act 1957, Appealability of Interlocutory Orders, Jurisdiction of Enforcement Proceedings
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Company Law Judgment Debtor Summons Production of Documents Order 48 Rules of Court 2012 Debtors Act 1957 Appealability of Interlocutory Orders +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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MTrustee Berhad

Judgment Creditor / Appellant

Tashima Development Sdn Bhd

Judgment Debtor / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Senior Assistant Registrar Ruling on Judgment Debtor Summons / Judge in Chambers Appeal From Interlocutory SAR Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the SAR erred in refusing an oral application to order production of bank statements
  2. 2 Whether the JDS was validly issued and the correct procedural route (Order 48 vs Order 74)
  3. 3 Whether the JDS should have been commenced in the court of original proceedings (Sessions Court)

Ratio Decidendi

The SAR’s refusal to grant an oral order for production of bank statements was correct because the Judgment Creditor failed to follow the mandatory Order 48 Rules of Court 2012 procedure for examination of an officer of a corporate judgment debtor; the JDS was not validly commenced under Order 48 and, being an interlocutory procedural ruling, the SAR’s decision is not appealable; accordingly the appeals are dismissed and the SAR’s exercise of discretion is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Senior Assistant Registrar upheld

Orders

  • The three appeals are dismissed with costs
  • Finding that the Judgment Debtor Summonses were not validly commenced under Order 48 Rules of Court 2012