Ambank (M) Berhad 1. Rev. Engineering Worldwide (M) S/B 2. Nandakumar a/l Suppiah 3. Hemalatha a/p M. Balasubramaniam

Ambank (M) Berhad 1. Rev. Engineering Worldwide (M) S/B 2. Nandakumar a/l Suppiah 3. Hemalatha a/p M. Balasubramaniam

Plaintiff satisfied Order 14 prerequisites and exhibited contemporaneous documents (facility agreements, guarantees, notices of demand, certificate of indebtedness) establishing a prima facie debt; defendants' defences were bare, inconsistent with their own documents (including defendant's settlement proposal) and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
BA-22NCC-130-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: AMBANK (M) BERHAD; Defendant: REV ENGINEERING WORLDWIDE (M) SDN BHD; Defendant: NANDAKUMAR A/L SUPPIAH; Defendant: HEMALATHA A/P M. BALASUBRAMANIAM
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 June 2020
Case Number
BA-22NCC-130-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit Banking/recovery / Summary Judgment Application Under Order 14 Rules of Court 2012
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of plaintiff against all defendants
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Guarantee and Indemnity, Construction of Contract, Estoppel, Mitigation of Loss, Notice of Demand, Certificate of Indebtedness
Contract Law Banking Law Civil Procedure Security and Guarantees Summary Judgment Guarantee and Indemnity Construction of Contract Estoppel +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AMBANK (M) BERHAD

Plaintiff

REV ENGINEERING WORLDWIDE (M) SDN BHD

Defendant

NANDAKUMAR A/L SUPPIAH

Defendant

HEMALATHA A/P M. BALASUBRAMANIAM

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit Banking/recovery / Summary Judgment Application Under Order 14 Rules of Court 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff has complied with Order 14 prerequisites and established a prima facie case warranting summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether the Open All Monies Guarantee and Indemnity precludes action against guarantors if action is taken against borrower (construction of clause 1.1(b))
  3. 3 Whether documents relied upon by plaintiff are vague or inconsistent so as to raise triable issues

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff satisfied Order 14 prerequisites and exhibited contemporaneous documents (facility agreements, guarantees, notices of demand, certificate of indebtedness) establishing a prima facie debt; defendants' defences were bare, inconsistent with their own documents (including defendant's settlement proposal) and unsupported by payment evidence; contract construction and guarantee terms obliged guarantors to pay on demand; no triable issues existed, therefore summary judgment was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of plaintiff against all defendants

Orders

  • Summary judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants
  • Defendants ordered to pay the outstanding sums claimed under the three banking facilities together with interest as claimed by the Plaintiff