MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD RUBY ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL SDN BHD

MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD RUBY ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL SDN BHD

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction and discretion to grant a stay because the defendant demonstrated bona fide disputes and procedural irregularity that, if resolved in its favour, would render execution of the Order for Sale unjust and cause irreversible prejudice; the balance of justice favored preserving the property pending resolution of the set aside application scheduled shortly.

Citation
AA-24MFC-41-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Maybank Islamic Berhad; Defendant: Ruby Engineering and Electrical Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 April 2025
Case Number
AA-24MFC-41-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons; Foreclosure; Civil Action Relating to Charge Over Land / Stay Application Decided at High Court; Order for Sale Stayed Pending Determination of Set Aside Application (decision Fixed 31 July 2025)
Outcome
Defendant's application (Enclosure 34) allowed; execution of the Order for Sale dated 7 January 2025 stayed pending final disposal of the defendant's application to set aside the Judgment in Default in Suit No: AA-22M-51-11/2023; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Foreclosure (action in Rem), Inherent Jurisdiction, Judgment in Default, Special Circumstances, Order for Sale
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Land Law Banking and Finance Equity Stay of Execution Foreclosure (action in Rem) Inherent Jurisdiction Judgment in Default +2 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maybank Islamic Berhad

Plaintiff

Ruby Engineering and Electrical Sdn Bhd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons; Foreclosure; Civil Action Relating to Charge Over Land / Stay Application Decided at High Court; Order for Sale Stayed Pending Determination of Set Aside Application (decision Fixed 31 July 2025)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should stay execution of an Order for Sale pending disposal of an application to set aside a Judgment in Default in a parallel in personam action
  2. 2 Whether foreclosure (action in rem) is independent of an in personam judgment and thus immune from stay
  3. 3 Whether special circumstances and abuse of process/inherent jurisdiction justify exercising discretion to stay enforcement

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction and discretion to grant a stay because the defendant demonstrated bona fide disputes and procedural irregularity that, if resolved in its favour, would render execution of the Order for Sale unjust and cause irreversible prejudice; the balance of justice favored preserving the property pending resolution of the set aside application scheduled shortly.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application (Enclosure 34) allowed; execution of the Order for Sale dated 7 January 2025 stayed pending final disposal of the defendant's application to set aside the Judgment in Default in Suit No: AA-22M-51-11/2023; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Execution of Order for Sale dated 7 January 2025 (Enclosure 37) is stayed pending final disposal of the defendant's application to set aside the Judgment in Default in Suit No: AA-22M-51-11/2023.
  • No order as to costs.