Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpleader

Legal area

Court

2 Nov 2025

SYARIKAT NG & ANUAR 1. ) BESGRADE PLYWOOD SDN. BHD. 2. ) COMPUTER FORMS (MALAYSIA) BERHAD

Citation

KA-24NCvC-136-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-24NCvC-136-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Variation Letter is a binding agreement; Clause 2.5(ii) entitles the Second Respondent to a refund if financing is not secured within 60 days but does not expressly or by necessary implication create a right of forfeiture upon expiry; the First Respondent committed a fundamental breach by accepting a third party purchaser without notification thereby disentitling it from claiming forfeiture; accordingly the earnest deposit of RM600,000 must be returned to the Second Respondent with accrued interest and the First Respondent ordered to pay costs.
8 Oct 2025

SHELL MDS (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD 1. ) PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD (PETRONAS) 2. ) PETROLEUM SARAWAK BERHAD PIHAK TERKILAN Kerajaan Malaysia BUKAN PIHAK-PIHAK KERAJAAN NEGERI SARAWAK

Citation

WA-24NCvC-4367-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-4367-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Order 17 ROC 2012 constitutes a self-contained interpleader procedure and Order 28 rule 8 does not apply to convert such proceedings into writs; alternatively, even if conversion were available, the disputes here are predominantly legal and documentary concerning statutory interpretation and contractual entitlement, adequately resolved on affidavit, so there is no necessity for oral evidence — therefore the application to convert (Enclosure 84) is dismissed and the matter remains an interpleader under Order 17.
15 Apr 2025

Tan Kheng Guan (Mendakwa Bagi Pihak Dirinya Sendiri Dan Pemegang Saham Syarikat Ketiga Shigen Polycolor Sdn. Bhd., Selain Daripada Pertama Dan Kedua) 1. ) CHU KOK KHING 2. ) EE GENG CHOON 3. ) SHIGEN POLYCOLOR SDN BHD 4. ) SHIFTY TECHNOLOGY

Citation

PA-22NCvC-223-11/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-223-11/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found, on bank statements and oral testimony, that defendants knowingly and deliberately withdrew RM7,049,286.76 in breach of the Injunction, Stay Order and undertakings; solicitors John Khoo and Martin Khoo failed in their duty as officers of the court and assisted/abetted the breach; contempt proven beyond reasonable doubt; ordered return of the funds within 30 days and imposed fines with default imprisonment as specified.
8 Apr 2025

GOLDEN MINERALS SDN BHD 1. ) THARMANANDAN A/L THANGAMUTHU 2. ) ALAM ETIKAA RESOURCES (M) SDN. BHD. 3. ) Dato' Rajagopal A/l Ramasamy

Citation

CA-22NCvC-44-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CA-22NCvC-44-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found the seized assets were the property of Golden Minerals at the time of seizure; there was no cogent evidence of fraud or sham transfers to justify piercing the corporate veil; defendant was liable for wrongful execution/trespass; defendant's counterclaim for abuse of process failed; plaintiff awarded RM102,461.88 and costs RM10,000 (subject to taxation).
27 Jan 2025

ABDUL JALIL BIN ABDUL MUTHALIB KEKATONG SDN BHD

Citation

WA-A72NCC-50559-12/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A72NCC-50559-12/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiff proved payment of RM40,000 to DMIS on behalf of the Defendant and proved an oral agreement (friendly loan) that the Defendant would repay when it had funds; limitation did not bar the claim because repayment was conditional on demand and Plaintiff made effective demand only after Defendant became capable of repayment following the interpleader order on 27 November 2023, therefore the writ filed 20 December 2023 was within six years.
25 Sept 2023

COSMOS INFRATECH SDN BHD TURNPIKE SYNERGY SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN PANZANA ENTERPRISE SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-92-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-92-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that s.30 CIPAA is a specific statutory regime that takes precedence over the general moratorium and preference provisions of the Companies Act 2016; because monies were due or payable by the principal to the contractor at the time the s.30 request was received, the principal was statutorily obliged to make direct payment under s.30(3) CIPAA to the Plaintiff and the judicial management moratorium did not invalidate that obligation.
15 Sept 2023

CONCRETE EMPIRE SDN BHD TURNPIKE SYNERGY SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN PANZANA ENTERPRISE SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-116-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-116-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 30 of CIPAA creates a separate, mandatory statutory obligation on the principal to pay the adjudicated sum where money was due or payable at the time of receipt of the s30 request; that obligation takes precedence over the general Companies Act provisions relied on under judicial management (ss 410 and 426), and therefore the Defendant was obliged to pay the Plaintiff the adjudicated sum as prayed.
9 Sept 2022

LOH SIM SENG 1. ) ONG MEI LEAN 2. ) LITTLE CRAVINGS SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24NCvC-210-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-210-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to grant ancillary orders to give effect to the consent order because the defendants had failed to perform specified obligations under the re-amended settlement; accordingly the Court ordered specific performance in respect of the obligations set out in paragraphs 1(a) to 1(e) of the originating summons, excluded the liquidated damages clause from immediate enforcement pending proof at trial, converted claims for damages to a writ action and awarded costs of RM5,000.
6 Apr 2022

Prosmier Construction Sdn Bhd 1. ) Tradewinds Plantation Management Sdn Bhd 2. ) Bay Commercial Services Sdn Bhd

Citation

JA-12A-18-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12A-18-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Invoice 48 was validly factored and assigned by the 2nd Defendant to the 1st Defendant with documentary evidence and notice, thereby transferring rights under s.4(3) Civil Law Act 1956; the amended Mareva injunction did not revive the 2nd Defendant's entitlement to sums due under an already assigned invoice; the Plaintiff faced genuine competing claims and was entitled to interpleader relief; accordingly the Sessions Court order directing payment of RM618,010.31 to the 1st Defendant was correct and the appellant's challenge failed.
28 Dec 2021

1. TITANWOOD INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD. (COMPANY NO.: 200401036812/675323-K) 2. ROXY BENDWOOD SDN. BHD. (COMPANY NO.: 201501012391/1137726-H) NCS WOOD PRODUCTS SDN. BHD. (COMPANY NO.: 984396-T)

Citation

JB-11BNCVC-1-02/2021 (ENCLOSURE 36) (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ENCLOSURE 36
Case number

JB-11BNCVC-1-02/2021 (ENCLOSURE 36) (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the applicants were not the judgment debtor and thus did not satisfy Order 47 r.1 in strict terms, the High Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction to grant a conditional stay to prevent the appeal from being rendered nugatory; stay limited until disposal of the Court of Appeal appeal and secured by RM72,500 to be held in trust by respondent's solicitors as security for damages; no order as to costs.