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 the JC's oral pre‑hearing request for bank statements was correctly decided because the proper procedural route for compelling production and examination of a corporate judgment debtor is by an Order 48 ex parte application (Form 95/96); the JDS had not been validly commenced under Order 48 and should have been pursued in the original Sessions Court; the SAR's decision was an interlocutory procedural ruling and not appealable. Appeal dismissed and SAR decision upheld with costs.

Citation
JB-37J-2-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Judgment Creditor: MTRUSTEE BERHAD; Judgment Debtor: TASHIMA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 January 2025
Case Number
JB-37J-2-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Judgment Debtor Summons Appeal (chambers) / Appeal Against Senior Assistant Registrar's Interlocutory Ruling; Decision Delivered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Senior Assistant Registrar upheld
Legal Topics
Judgment Debtor Summons, Production of Documents, Bank Statements, Order 48 Rules of Court 2012, Interlocutory Appeal, Venue of Enforcement Proceedings
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Company Law Judgment Debtor Summons Production of Documents Bank Statements Order 48 Rules of Court 2012 Interlocutory Appeal +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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MTRUSTEE BERHAD

Judgment Creditor

TASHIMA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Judgment Debtor

Procedural Posture

Judgment Debtor Summons Appeal (chambers) / Appeal Against Senior Assistant Registrar's Interlocutory Ruling; Decision Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Judgment Creditor could obtain pre-hearing production of the Judgment Debtor's bank statements (2018 to hearing date) by oral application
  2. 2 Whether the JDS was validly commenced and under which procedural provision (Order 48 ROC 2012 vs Order 74 ROC 2012)
  3. 3 Whether the SAR's refusal was appealable

Ratio Decidendi

The SAR's refusal to grant the JC's oral pre‑hearing request for bank statements was correctly decided because the proper procedural route for compelling production and examination of a corporate judgment debtor is by an Order 48 ex parte application (Form 95/96); the JDS had not been validly commenced under Order 48 and should have been pursued in the original Sessions Court; the SAR's decision was an interlocutory procedural ruling and not appealable. Appeal dismissed and SAR decision upheld with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Senior Assistant Registrar upheld

Orders

  • Three appeals dismissed with costs