DR SHAMSUL BAHAR ABDUL KADIR vs RHB BANK BERHAD & ANOTHER APPEAL

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 MarsdenLR 1367

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
DR SHAMSUL BAHAR ABDUL KADIR – Appellant
Versus
RHB BANK BERHAD & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent

Table of Content
1. the appeals involve bankruptcy proceedings and the necessity of leave before issuing notices. (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of the judgment debt and the bankruptcy notice issuance process. (Para 3 , 4)
3. the courts must be bound by prior rulings regarding execution and its implications. (Para 5 , 7 , 36)
4. the court clarifies that leave is mandatory for advancing bankruptcy related to judgments over six years older. (Para 8 , 58)

Arifin Zakaria CJ, Abdull Hamid Embong, Hasan Lah, Jeffrey Tan, Abu Samah Nordin FCJJ:

[1] These two related appeals, which involved similar issues of law and so were heard together, are against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 29 May 2012 which dismissed the appellants appeals with costs. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 21 November 2012 (that is, before the decision of this Court in Ambank (M) Berhad v. Tan Tem Son & Another Appeal, [2013] 3 MLJ 179) on the following questions of law:

"(1) Whether upon a true and proper interpretation of s 3(1)(i) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 , it is a mandatory requirement that a judgment creditor who intends to commence bankruptcy proceedings after more than six years from the date of the ju

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 MarsdenLR 1367

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYADR SHAMSUL BAHAR ABDUL KADIR – AppellantVersusRHB BANK BERHAD & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
DR SHAMSUL BAHAR ABDUL KADIR – Appellant
Versus
RHB BANK BERHAD & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent