Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order for sale under national land code

Legal area

Court

3 Mar 2025

READY CASH SDN BHD 1. ) NOORHAYATI BINTI MUSTAPHA 2. ) ROHIZIR BIN ABDUL RASHID

Citation

BA-24FC-1088-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24FC-1088-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants failed to demonstrate the required special circumstances to justify a stay; their challenge to the loan agreement was brought only after receipt of funds and after the order for sale, appears an afterthought, the contract and registered charge remain valid until set aside, and damages are adequate to compensate any loss; therefore the stay application is dismissed with costs.
18 Nov 2024

OCBC Al-Amin Bank Berhad Mohd Naza Bin Osman Ali (Si Bankrap diwakili oleh Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi)

Citation

JA-24MFC-400-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24MFC-400-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff elected to realize the charged property (issue Notice of Recall and Form 16D) and therefore, having accepted payments afterwards and given inconsistent assurances culminating in acceptance and clearance of cheques, the plaintiff acted inconsistently and without clean hands; that inconsistent conduct established cause to the contrary under s256(3) National Land Code and justified refusing the order for sale; accordingly the originating summons for sale is dismissed with costs.
30 Aug 2023

CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD RUSDYANTO BIN AZHAR

Citation

WA-22M-20-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22M-20-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The JID, writ and statement of claim were validly served to the contractual addresses by registered post and the Defendant failed to rebut the presumption of service or to demonstrate change of address; the Defendant delayed unreasonably in seeking to set aside the JID and failed to file a draft defence or show any meritorious triable issue (including Ibra' which is inapplicable where termination follows default); accordingly the SAR's dismissal of the application to set aside the JID was correct and the appeal is dismissed with costs.
25 Jul 2023

1. ) ZULIAHA BINTI SELAMAT 2. ) NOOR AMALI BIN SELAMAT 1. ) Majlis Amanah Rakyat (MARA) 2. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH BATU PAHAT

Citation

JB-24NCvC-546-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-24NCvC-546-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Part payments made in 2020 by the guarantor revived the Respondent's right to enforce the charge under s.26 Limitation Act 1953 so the application for order for sale filed in July 2020 was not time-barred; there was no evidence the Respondent was guilty of laches or that the Appellants suffered prejudice from delay; the late Additional Affidavit was excluded for non-compliance with court direction. Consequently the appeal was dismissed with costs.
28 Dec 2021

RAMES A/L PALANIANDY MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD PENCELAH TAN CHONG HUAT

Citation

WA-24NCvC-480-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-480-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons (Enclosure 1) is dismissed because the Plaintiff is an undischarged bankrupt who did not obtain the required sanction from the Director General of Insolvency and is therefore incompetent to maintain the action; independently, the OFS was valid under s.263 NLC with no proven 'cause to the contrary', the Second Defendant was a bona fide purchaser with indefeasible title under the Torrens system, the application was procedurally defective for failing to join the co-proprietor and the proper decision-maker (GLA) and is estopped by prior related suits (res judicata).
15 May 2020

MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT : 3813 – K) ISMAIL BIN MOHAMED (NO. K/P : 531213-10-5301/8379424)

Citation

BA-24FC-884-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24FC-884-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for extension of time was dismissed because the defendant failed to provide cogent reasons for the lengthy delay, failed to show any automatic suspension of the main proceedings by filing a stay application, and failed to demonstrate any 'cause to the contrary' to defeat the plaintiff's statutory right to seek an order for sale under the National Land Code; accordingly the extension was refused and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
15 Nov 2019

CIMB BANK BERHAD SIVADEVI A/P SIVALINGAM

Citation

02(f)-62-08/2018 (J) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-62-08/2018 (J) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Section 21(1) of the Limitation Act 1953 applies to proceedings by a chargee for an order for sale under the National Land Code and the twelve-year limitation period begins to run only upon expiry of the statutory notice period (Form 16D/16E) when, under s254(3)(a), the whole sum secured becomes due and payable and the right to receive the money has accrued.

Malaysia Case Law

READY CASH SDN BHD 1. ) NOORHAYATI BINTI MUSTAPHA 2. ) ROHIZIR BIN ABDUL RASHID

OCBC Al-Amin Bank Berhad Mohd Naza Bin Osman Ali (Si Bankrap diwakili oleh Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi)

CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD RUSDYANTO BIN AZHAR

1. ) ZULIAHA BINTI SELAMAT 2. ) NOOR AMALI BIN SELAMAT 1. ) Majlis Amanah Rakyat (MARA) 2. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH BATU PAHAT

RAMES A/L PALANIANDY MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD PENCELAH TAN CHONG HUAT

MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT : 3813 – K) ISMAIL BIN MOHAMED (NO. K/P : 531213-10-5301/8379424)

CIMB BANK BERHAD SIVADEVI A/P SIVALINGAM