Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 48 rules of court 2012

Legal area

Court

10 Jan 2025

MTRUSTEE BERHAD (yang dahulunya dikenali sebagai AmTrustee Berhad) (sebagai pemegang amanah untuk Hektar Real Estate Investment Trust) TASHIMA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

JB-37J-2-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-37J-2-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The SAR's refusal to grant the JC's oral pre‑hearing request for bank statements was correctly decided because the proper procedural route for compelling production and examination of a corporate judgment debtor is by an Order 48 ex parte application (Form 95/96); the JDS had not been validly commenced under Order 48 and should have been pursued in the original Sessions Court; the SAR's decision was an interlocutory procedural ruling and not appealable. Appeal dismissed and SAR decision upheld with costs.
10 Jan 2025

MTRUSTEE BERHAD (yang dahulunya dikenali sebagai AmTrustee Berhad) (sebagai pemegang amanah untuk Hektar Real Estate Investment Trust) TASHIMA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

JB-37J-1-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-37J-1-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The SAR’s refusal to grant an oral order for production of bank statements was correct because the Judgment Creditor failed to follow the mandatory Order 48 Rules of Court 2012 procedure for examination of an officer of a corporate judgment debtor; the JDS was not validly commenced under Order 48 and, being an interlocutory procedural ruling, the SAR’s decision is not appealable; accordingly the appeals are dismissed and the SAR’s exercise of discretion is upheld.
10 Jan 2025

MTRUSTEE BERHAD (yang dahulunya dikenali sebagai AmTrustee Berhad) (sebagai pemegang amanah untuk Hektar Real Estate Investment Trust) TASHIMA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

JB-37J-3-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-37J-3-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The SAR's ruling was upheld because the creditor failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Order 48 Rules of Court 2012 for examination and document production against a corporate judgment debtor; the JDS as issued under Order 74 was not valid for a corporate debtor and should have been commenced in the original court (Sessions Court); the SAR's refusal was an interlocutory procedural ruling and not appealable, and there was no basis to interfere with the SAR's discretionary exercise.
6 Mar 2023

1. ) XXXX 2. ) JAHSURIAWANY BINTI MUSTAPHA 1. ) MUHAMMAD HAMZI BIN MOHAMMAD HUSHAM 2. ) CT-ONE CORPORATION SDN BHD 3. ) MAAHAD TAHFIZ AL-HASHIMI

Citation

DA-12B-12-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-12B-12-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Order 48 is limited to examination and obtaining disclosure; it does not empower the Registrar or Court, in the exercise of an Order 48 ex parte application, to make substantive payment orders requiring the judgment debtor to pay instalments. The payment order of RM20,000/month was beyond the jurisdiction conferred by Order 48 and is set aside. No basis existed to order a re-examination; other orders made were upheld and costs were ordered against each party.

Malaysia Case Law

MTRUSTEE BERHAD (yang dahulunya dikenali sebagai AmTrustee Berhad) (sebagai pemegang amanah untuk Hektar Real Estate Investment Trust) TASHIMA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

MTRUSTEE BERHAD (yang dahulunya dikenali sebagai AmTrustee Berhad) (sebagai pemegang amanah untuk Hektar Real Estate Investment Trust) TASHIMA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

MTRUSTEE BERHAD (yang dahulunya dikenali sebagai AmTrustee Berhad) (sebagai pemegang amanah untuk Hektar Real Estate Investment Trust) TASHIMA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

1. ) XXXX 2. ) JAHSURIAWANY BINTI MUSTAPHA 1. ) MUHAMMAD HAMZI BIN MOHAMMAD HUSHAM 2. ) CT-ONE CORPORATION SDN BHD 3. ) MAAHAD TAHFIZ AL-HASHIMI