Ambank Islamic Berhad 1. Konsortium Bas Ekspress Semenanjung (M) Sdn. Bhd. 2. Datuk Che Azizuddin Bin Che Ismail 3. Gets Global Berhad 4. Santero Sdn. Bhd
Plaintiff satisfied Order 14 prerequisites and established a prima facie case; contractual notice clauses plus certificates of posting established valid service of demand and recall; commodity particulars were shown in murabahah sale contracts; contract permitted variation of profit rate and foreclosure was not a prerequisite to suing guarantors; certificate of indebtedness stands absent evidence of manifest error; defendants failed to raise any triable issue or show prejudice from timing, therefore summary judgment was appropriate.
- Citation
- 22M-313-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Ambank Islamic Berhad; 1st Defendant: Konsortium Bas Ekspres Semenanjung (M) Sdn. Bhd.; 2nd Defendant: Datuk Che Azizuddin bin Che Ismail; 3rd Defendant: GETS Global Berhad (Previously known as KBES Berhad); 4th Defendant: Santero Sdn. Bhd.
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Malaysia
- Judgment Date
- 23 January 2020
- Case Number
- 22M-313-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial Civil Suit (banking/islamic Finance) / Summary Judgment Application (allowed)
- Outcome
- Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment allowed; Defendants’ applications to strike out dismissed; costs awarded to Plaintiff
- Legal Topics
- Summary Judgment, Guarantee and Indemnity, Tawarruq, Notice and Service, Foreclosure, Certificate of Indebtedness, Late Payment Charges (ta’widh)
- Source Language
- Malay/English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ambank Islamic Berhad
Plaintiff
Konsortium Bas Ekspres Semenanjung (M) Sdn. Bhd.
1st Defendant
Datuk Che Azizuddin bin Che Ismail
2nd Defendant
GETS Global Berhad (Previously known as KBES Berhad)
3rd Defendant
Santero Sdn. Bhd.
4th Defendant
Procedural Posture
Commercial Civil Suit (banking/islamic Finance) / Summary Judgment Application (allowed)
Legal Issues
- 1 whether plaintiff issued valid contractual notice/demand prior to suit
- 2 whether clause 5 of Master Agency Agreement unlawfully ousts remedies
- 3 whether foreclosure of charged property was prerequisite to suing guarantors
Ratio Decidendi
Plaintiff satisfied Order 14 prerequisites and established a prima facie case; contractual notice clauses plus certificates of posting established valid service of demand and recall; commodity particulars were shown in murabahah sale contracts; contract permitted variation of profit rate and foreclosure was not a prerequisite to suing guarantors; certificate of indebtedness stands absent evidence of manifest error; defendants failed to raise any triable issue or show prejudice from timing, therefore summary judgment was appropriate.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment allowed; Defendants’ applications to strike out dismissed; costs awarded to Plaintiff
Orders
- Application for summary judgment allowed in terms of enclosure 18
- Defendants' applications to strike out (enclosures 12, 14 and 16) dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment