Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Late payment charges (ta’widh)

Legal area

Court

30 May 2023

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN MALAYSIA DEBT VENTURES BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN AZNAM BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

WA-29NCC-258-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-29NCC-258-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The bankruptcy notice was validly issued under s3(1) Insolvency Act 1967 based on the final default judgment of 26/8/2016; the appellant's challenges were immaterial because he failed to set aside that default judgment; disputes over Ta’widh calculation did not defeat the validity of the bankruptcy notice and there was no abuse of process.
16 Jul 2021

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT MALAYSIA BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN MOHD SAIFUL AZUAR BIN MD ISA (NRIC NO: 791107-04-5035)

Citation

AA-29PB-165-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-29PB-165-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was allowed and the AO & RO restored because the judgment debtor failed to dispute the amount stated in the bankruptcy notice within the statutory seven-day period, thereby committing an act of bankruptcy; additionally, a consent judgment is contractual and, absent an express contrary agreement, liability of joint promisors is joint and several (supported by s44(1) Contracts Act and subsequent Federal Court authority).
26 Aug 2020

1. ) STT TECHNOLOGIES SDN BHD 2. ) SUHAIMI BIN AHMAD 3. ) ZAITON BIN ALIAS MBSB BAN BERHAD

Citation

WA-22M-647-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22M-647-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff satisfied Order 14 preliminary requirements; discrepancies in amounts and profit rate were explained by timing, ibra' (rebate) and changes to ECOF-i and did not amount to manifest error; the Deed of Assignment did not extinguish the Defendants’ liabilities; the Notice of Termination was asserted and not contested and absence of its exhibit was not fatal where not denied; consequently Defendants failed to raise any bona fide triable issue and summary judgment was appropriate.
23 Jan 2020

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

Citation

22M-313-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22M-313-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

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.

Malaysia Case Law

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN MALAYSIA DEBT VENTURES BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN AZNAM BIN ABDULLAH

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT MALAYSIA BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN MOHD SAIFUL AZUAR BIN MD ISA (NRIC NO: 791107-04-5035)

1. ) STT TECHNOLOGIES SDN BHD 2. ) SUHAIMI BIN AHMAD 3. ) ZAITON BIN ALIAS MBSB BAN BERHAD

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