SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 MarsdenLR 1360

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
TANJUNG RHU LAND SDN BHD & ORS – Appellant
Versus
KAUTHAR VENTURE CAPITAL SDN BHD – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: WA-24NCC-369-08/2020]



Petitioner Advocates:Liew Seong Yee,Yiew De Quan ,Respondent Advocate: C Soosay Nathan,Karen Goonting,Jusween Kaur

The Receiver and Manager acted within their authority and the Defendant's claim of misfeasance was speculative, lacking evidence, leading to the dismissal of objections against the sale of charged assets.

Headnote:(A) National Land Code (Revised 2020) – Section 327 and 329 – Companies Act 2016 – Allegation of misfeasance against R&M and the validity of the sale of charged assets – The court rejected the Defendant's objections to the sanctioning of the sale of property, finding no evidence of fraud or impropriety, and ruled that the Receiver and Manager acted within their authority. (Paras 28-30, 60-90)

Facts of the case: This judgment deals with the objections raised by the Defendant against an Originating Summons filed by the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs to sanction the sale of properties, including Land A and B, and the validity surrounding the caveat lodged by the Defendant on Land B. (Paras 1-22)

Findings of Court: The court dismissed the Defendant’s objections and affirmed the lawful authority of the R&M to conduct the sale of the charged assets, ruling that the caveat lodged was without basis and wrongful. (Paras 33-36, 59-88)

Issues: The court addressed whether the caveat should be removed and if the sale was at an undervalue or misfeasance had occurred. (Paras 40-42)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the necessary documents must be specific, relevant, and in possession of the party from whom discovery is sought; thus finding the Defendant's claims were speculative. (Paras 24-87)

Result: The application by the Plaintiffs to sanction the sale was granted, and the caveat was ordered removed with costs awarded to the Plaintiffs. (Paras 88-90)

JUDGMENT

Liza Chan Sow Keng JC:

Introduction

[1] Enclosure ("Encl") 69 is the Defendant's application for discovery of documents pursuant to O 24 r 3 and r 7 of the Rules of ("ROC") 2012 against the against the 1st Plaintiff, 2nd Plaintiff and 3rd Plaintiff.

[2] On 25 March 2021, I heard Encl 69, reserved decision to 5 April 2021 and dismissed the application. Encl 1 was heard on 28 April 2021 with decision reserved to 10 May 2021 and was allowed. These are the reasons for the decision in Encl 69 and Encl 1.

Background

[3] At all material times:

3.1 the 1st Plaintiff (interchangeably referred herein as "TRL") is the registered proprietor of:

3.1.1 the properties held under H.S.(D)12/1983, PT Lain- lain, Mukim Ayer Hangat, Daerah Langkawi, Negeri Kedah ("Land A") and PN167, Lot 1476, Mukim Ayer Hangat, Daerah Langkawi, Negeri Kedah ("Land B"), where Tanjung Rhu Resort is erected thereon. Land A and Land B unless individually referred to are collectively referred to as the "Land";

3.1.2 land held under H.S(D) 623, PT 904, Mukim Ayer Hangat, Daerah Langkawi, Negeri Kedah ("Land C").

3.2 the 2nd Plaintiff (interchangeably referred herein as "RISB") was appointed by the 1st Plaintiff to operate and manage the Tanjung Rhu Resort pursuant to a Hotel Operator's Agreement dated 10 January 2000.

The Facilities

[4] The 3rd Plaintiff (interchangeably referred herein as "the Bank") had granted the following 3 Facilities to the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs:

4.1 pursuant to a Facility Agreement dated 13 September 2010 ("RM92,500,000.00 Facility Agreement"), the 3rd Plaintiff approved and granted to the 2nd Plaintiff a term loan facility in the sum of RM92,500,000.00 ("RM92,500,000.00 Facility") secured by a debenture dated 13 September 2010 ("First Debenture") wherein the 2nd Plaintiff charged all its assets in favour of the 3rd Plaintiff as well as the following in favour of the 3rd Plaintiff:

(a) a third party first legal charge over Land B vide presentation number 24464/2010 dated 27 December 2010 ("First Legal Charge 24464/2010"); and

(b) a third party first legal charge over Land A vide presentation number 24474/2010 dated 27 December 2010 ("First Legal Charge 24474/2010").

4.2 pursuant to a Facility Agreement dated 13 September 2010 ("RM4,500,000.00 Facility Agreement"), the 3rd Plaintiff approved and granted to the 1st Plaintiff a term loan facility in the sum of RM4,500,000.00 ("RM4,500,000.00 Facility") secured by a debenture dated 13 September 2010 ("Second Debenture") wherein the 1st Plaintiff charged all its assets and properties including the Land in favour of the 3rd Plaintiff and created and registered the following charge(s) in favour of the 3rd Plaintiff:

(a) a first party second legal charge over Land B vide presentation number 24465/2010 dated 27 December 2010 ("Second Legal Charge 24465/2010"); and

(b) a first party second legal charge over Land A vide presentation number 24475/2010 dated 27 December 2010 ("Second Legal Charge 24475/2010").

4.2.1 Pursuant to a Novation Agreement dated 1 October 2010 ("Novation Agreement") the RM4,500,000.00 Facility was novated by the 1st Plaintiff to the 2nd Plaintiff; and

4.2.2 The 2nd Plaintiff as a result of the novation of the RM4,500,000.00 Facility charged all its assets in favour of the 3rd Plaintiff by a supplemental debenture dated 23 May 2016 ("Supplemental Debenture").

4.3 pursuant to a Facility Agreement dated 4 September 2013 ("RM50,000,000.00 Facility Agreement"), the 3rd Plaintiff approved and granted to the 1st Plaintiff the following facilities in the aggregate sum of RM50,000,000.00 ("RM50,000,000.00 Facility"):

i. Term Loan Facility of RM40,000,000.00 ("Tranche 1"); and

ii. Term Loan Facility of RM10,000,000.00 ("Tranche 2").

4.3.1 As security for the RM50,000,000-00 Facility, the 1st Plaintiff, created and registered a first party third legal charge over the Land in favour of the 3rd Plaintiff vide presentation number 19340/2013 ("Third Legal Charge") free from all liens, charges and other encumb


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top