OSK CAPITAL SDN. BHD. BUMI RIA DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.

OSK CAPITAL SDN. BHD. BUMI RIA DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.

The court found the plaintiff had a registered charge and had complied with the statutory preconditions in Sections 254–256 NLC and Order 83 Rules of Court 2012, produced compliant account statements and lawful interest calculations under the Moneylenders Act, and the defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving any 'cause to the contrary'; accordingly the originating summons seeking an order for sale by public auction was granted.

Citation
BA-24FC-814-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
PLAINTIF: OSK Capital Sdn. Bhd.; DEFENDAN: Bumi Ria Development Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
26 November 2024
Case Number
BA-24FC-814-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under Section 256 National Land Code 1965 / Judgment on Originating Summons and Order for Sale (interlocutory Enforcement)
Outcome
Originating summons granted in favour of plaintiff; order for sale by public auction granted
Legal Topics
Order for Sale Under S256 NLC, Registered Charge/foreclosure, Cause to the Contrary, Validity and Enforceability of Loan Agreement, Interest Calculation and Compliance With Moneylenders Act, Form 16 D/notice of Default, Summary Proceedings Under Order 83 Rules of Court 2012
Source Language
Malay/English
Land Law Enforcement of Security Contract Law Consumer/regulatory (moneylenders Act) Civil Procedure Order for Sale Under S256 NLC Registered Charge/foreclosure Cause to the Contrary +4 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OSK Capital Sdn. Bhd.

PLAINTIF

Bumi Ria Development Sdn. Bhd.

DEFENDAN

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under Section 256 National Land Code 1965 / Judgment on Originating Summons and Order for Sale (interlocutory Enforcement)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff satisfied statutory preconditions under Sections 254–256 NLC and Order 83 Rules of Court 2012 to obtain an order for sale
  2. 2 Whether there exists 'cause to the contrary' to refuse an order for sale
  3. 3 Whether the underlying finance agreement is void or unenforceable under the Moneylenders Act 1951 and regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the plaintiff had a registered charge and had complied with the statutory preconditions in Sections 254–256 NLC and Order 83 Rules of Court 2012, produced compliant account statements and lawful interest calculations under the Moneylenders Act, and the defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving any 'cause to the contrary'; accordingly the originating summons seeking an order for sale by public auction was granted.

Court Disposition

Originating summons granted in favour of plaintiff; order for sale by public auction granted

Orders

  • Originating summons (Kand.1) allowed
  • Order for sale of the charged property by public auction under the direction of the Senior Assistant Registrar to realize sums due