Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Valuation dispute

Legal area

Court

12 Feb 2026

OCBC BANK (MALAYSIA) BERHAD 1. ) Irfan Asfaar Bin Abdullah(dahulunya Nagarajan A/l Renganathan) 2. ) JEEVANATHAN A/L MANIKAM

Citation

BA-38-1718-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-38-1718-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was allowed because the defendants failed to demonstrate special circumstances: they had actively participated in the fixation proceedings (filing multiple affidavits and proposing a higher reserve), the stay was filed after those steps and therefore amounted to abuse of process, the High Court Order for Sale had been regularly obtained and remained unchallenged for over 450 days (precluding approbation and reprobation), and the plaintiff could compensate if necessary; accordingly the stay was set aside and costs awarded.
18 Dec 2025

1. ) ZURAIDAH BINTI MOHD TAUFEK 2. ) NORAZIDAH BINTI MOHD TAUFEK 1. ) NORASHIDAH BINTI MOHD TAUFEK 2. ) NORAFIDAH BINTI MOHD TAUFEK

Citation

BA-24NCvC-2071-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-2071-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Originating Summons is dismissed because the plaintiffs' claim relied on a valuation that is genuinely disputed on material grounds — namely the inclusion of unauthorised structures that render the valuation unlawful — and final coercive relief akin to specific performance cannot be granted via Originating Summons where key factual issues are contested.
10 Dec 2025

BANK ISLAM MALAYSIA BERHAD QUANTUM MAJESTY SDN. BHD.

Citation

KA-38-14-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-38-14-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The SAR did not err: the Order for Sale was final and affirmed on appeal so substantive challenges to indebtedness, validity of Form 16D, and alleged Shariah issues could not be litigated at enforcement; the execution court is limited to auction management under Sections 256–259 NLC and may fix a reduced reserve price after failed auctions; the Plaintiff's valuation for forced sale was appropriate and the Defendant failed to produce a competing substantive valuation on the correct basis; appeal dismissed with costs.
18 Sept 2025

1. ) AFSAR BIN IBRAHIM 2. ) FAZRIL BIN IBRAHIM ROZAINI BINTI IBRAHIM

Citation

WA-24NCvC-1742-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-1742-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court granted the application under s60(3) because the sale was necessary to complete estate administration, a bona fide sale agreement with a serious buyer existed at RM1,300,000 supported by an existing valuation, the absence of a fresh valuation was not fatal where parties rely on prior reports and no evidence of a purchaser at the higher valuation existed, the majority of beneficiaries consented, and the administrators acted within their fiduciary duties; respondent failed to show prejudice or a competing bona fide purchaser.
22 Apr 2025

CJ POLYMERS SDN BHD 1. ) Kerk Han Meng [Notice Of Discontinuance At Encl. 27] 2. ) Sim Chin Hu [Notice Of Cross Appeal At Encl. 5] 3. ) LEE YU MENG 4. ) KUA CHIN WEE PIHAK TERKILAN TETUAN SHUI-TAI

Citation

W-02(NCC)(A)-2146-11/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCC
Case number

W-02(NCC)(A)-2146-11/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court finding that a quasi-partnership existed and survived the admission of new shareholders; exclusion of Sim from management and unilateral withdrawal of benefits without a fair buyout constituted oppression under s346; the appropriate remedy was a buyout ordered against the remaining shareholders (Kerk, Lee and Eric Kua) in proportion to their holdings (CJ Polymer removed from buyout), affirmation of monetary awards (refunds and payments) and dismissal of the attempt to cross-examine the independent valuer.
7 Apr 2025

MALAYSIA RAIL LINK SDN. BHD. 1. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak PENCELAH 1. ) Dato' Jitendra Chhotalal Doshi 2. ) KIRON CHHOTALAL DOSHI

Citation

BA-24NCvC-2593-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-2593-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held Plaintiff qualifies as a 'person interested' under s37 and that, on the specific facts (prompt engagement of valuer, receipt of valuation report showing large discrepancies, heavy caseload and no demonstrated prejudice to defendants), special circumstances under s38(4) justified enlarging time to serve Form N; extension granted and costs ordered as stated.
26 Nov 2024

PUBLIC BANK BERHAD G.M.P. MASYHUR SDN. BHD.

Citation

PA-38-186-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-38-186-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for a stay was dismissed because the Defendant failed to demonstrate special circumstances required to grant a stay; the existence or merits of pending appeals did not qualify as special circumstances; sentimental value and the risk of nugatory appeal did not amount to irreparable harm because damages would be an adequate remedy; the balance of convenience favoured the Plaintiff who would be prejudiced by further delay.
2 May 2024

Adzhar Bin Mohd Nordin 1. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH HULU LANGAT 2. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD 3. ) STIGMA EMAS SDN BHD 4. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR 5. ) Jabatan Ketua Pengarah Tanah & Galian (JKPTG) PIHAK KETIGA Landserve Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-21NCvC-36-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-21NCvC-36-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court dismissed plaintiff's claims: foreclosure was not time-barred because plaintiff's letter of 15.3.2007 constituted an unequivocal acknowledgement restarting limitation; plaintiff waived statutory remedy by failing to appeal Order for Sale under s.418 NLC within three months; gazettement did not bar sale because acquisition had not vested (no Form K) at time of sale; successful bidder who paid in full was entitled to compensation at acquisition enquiry; valuers owed no duty of care to plaintiff and their valuation was credible for purpose and method used.
27 Mar 2024

1. ) SEE CHU GEK 2. ) SEE CHU GEK Selaku Pemegang Surat Kuasa Wakil See Yew Chian SEE CHOO GIAP

Citation

JB-22NCvC-8-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-22NCvC-8-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The correspondence between solicitors, the executed transfer (Form 14A), the affidavits seeking amendment to consent judgments and the amended consent judgment established a concluded settlement: transfer of the 1/3 undivided share was accepted as full and final settlement of RM1,854,399.70. That transfer constituted accord and satisfaction discharging the judgment sums. Plaintiffs failed to prove mistake or coercion on the balance of probabilities. Consequently Plaintiffs' claim for return of land or market-value shortfall fails and the Defendant is entitled to removal of the private caveat.
27 Sept 2021

Sobehah Binti Che Wan Bank Pertanian Malaysia Berhad

Citation

W-02(NCvC)(A)-377-03/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-02(NCvC)(A)-377-03/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appellant failed to prove fraud, bad faith or procedural defect; respondent obtained and relied on an independent valuation that accounted for negative features and the appellant had notice and opportunity to challenge; therefore no basis to set aside order for sale and appellate intervention is unwarranted.