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

2025 MarsdenLR 1925

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MAA CREDIT BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
ALAM PAHLAWAN SDN BHD – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: WA-24FC-1377-09-2024]



Petitioner Advocates:Teoh Chye Yi,Cheong Tick Soon ,Respondent Advocate: Eldarius Yong Zhen Jie,Felix Sam Sze Jia

A moneylender's demand calculated in breach of the Moneylenders Act 1951 disentitles them from obtaining an order for sale of a charged property.

Headnote:(A) Moneylenders Act 1951 (Revised 1989) - Sections 17(1), 254(1), and 256(3) - Demand for payment exceeding statutory limits and computation of interest - A licensed moneylender's demand for payment computed in breach of statutory formula is unlawful, disentitling the lender from an order for sale of the charged property. (Paras 1, 54)

(B) Ground for refusal - A court may refuse an order for sale if the demand is not legally due or if it contravenes statutory provisions. (Paras 53, 54)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a licensed moneylender, sought an order for sale against the defendant for non-payment of a loan secured by a legal charge. The defendant contested this, alleging the plaintiff's interest calculation breached the Moneylenders Act.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the plaintiff's interest demand contravened section 17(1) of the MLA 1951, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's application for an order for sale.

Issues: Whether the plaintiff's demand was lawful under the MLA 1951 and whether it constituted cause to the contrary for denying the application for sale.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court affirmed the legality of the statutory formula for interest calculation under the MLA 1951 and ruled that the plaintiff's demand exceeding these limits amounted to cause to the contrary.

Result: Plaintiff's application for an order for sale was dismissed with costs.

Table of Content
1. validity of the statutory demand under the moneylenders act (Para 1 , 2)
2. loan agreement and default conditions (Para 5 , 10 , 12)
3. parties’ respective arguments on interest calculation (Para 32 , 34 , 35 , 39)
4. interpretation of sections in the moneylenders act (Para 42 , 43 , 45)
5. dismissal of the plaintiff’s application with cost implications (Para 54 , 56)
Su Tiang Joo J:

(Enclosures 1 And 5)

A licensed moneylender's demand for an amount computed in breach of the statutory formula prescribed by s 17 of the Moneylenders Act 1951 (Revised 1989) amounts to a cause to the contrary so as to disentitle the moneylender to an order for sale of the property charged to the moneylender as security

Introduction

[1] In seeking to enforce a third party charge over a piece of property, the plaintiff, a licensed moneylender, applied (Encl 1) for an order for sale of the property, alleging that the defendant / third party chargor has failed to comply with its statutory demand for payment. The defendant applied to strike out the application (Encl 5), asserting that it has raised a novel point which has not been decided before, namely that, the plaintiff's computation of the amount owing is in breach of the Moneylenders Act 1951 (Revised 1989) ("MLA 1951") and this amounts to cause to the contrary as to disentitle the plaintiff to an order for sale.

[2] After hearing the parties, this Court found that the statutory demand made in Form 16D pursuant to s 254(1) of the National Land Code (" NLC ") was in contravention of s 17(1) of the MLA 1951 and, that this amounts to cause to the contrary pursuant to s 256(3) of the , and had dismissed the application (Encl 1) with costs and with liberty to the plaintiff to apply afresh premised upon the computation of the amount owing in accordance with the MLA 1951. Upon the dismissal of Encl 1, the defendant withdrew Encl 5, and it was struck out. Dissatisfied, the plaintiff has appealed, and these are the full grounds of judgment.

Parties

[3] The plaintiff is a licensed moneylender under the MLA 1951.

[4] The defendant is a private limited company with a company registration number No Syarikat: 198901009519 (186820-M).

Background Facts

[5] The plaintiff has given a loan (the "said Loan") to a private company, Best Birdsnest Sdn Bhd ("Principal Borrower").

[6] The terms of the said Loan are contained in a moneylending agreement carrying the title "Schedule K Moneylenders Act 1951 , Moneylenders (Control and Licensing) Regulations 2003 [Subregulation 10(1)] Moneylending Agreement (Secured Loan)" made on 13 July 2021 (Encl 2 pp 11 to 18) (the "said MLA").

[7] The material terms set out in the First Schedule to the said MLA (Encl 2 p 15) are:

(i) the principal sum of the loan is RM24,500,000.00 (the "Principal Sum");

(ii) interest rate is at ten per centum (10%) per annum;

(iii) duration of repayment of the loan is 5 months from the date of disbursement of the Principal Sum, which was 16 July 2021 (Encl 2 para 6);

(iv) repayment is to be via only one [single] instalment; and

(v) the Principal Sum and the total accrued interest or any balance thereof shall be repaid in full immediately UPON EXPIRY OF THE DURATION OF REPAYMENT and shall be repaid together with any charges that may be outstanding on the account.

[8] Clause 2 of the MLA (Encl 2 p 11) provides that:

"(1) If default is made in the repayment upon the due date of any sum of instalment payable to the Lender under this Agreement, whether in respect of principal or interest, the Lender shall be entitled to charge simple interest on the unpaid sum of instalment which shall be calculated at the rate of eight per centum per annum from day to day from the date of default in repayment of the sum of instalment until that sum of instalment is paid, and any interest so charged shall not be reckoned for the purposes of this Agreement as part of the interest charged in respect of the loan.

(2) The interest shall be calculated in accordance with the

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