The court affirmed that objections under the Moneylenders Act do not affect the right to an order for sale based on a registered charge under the National Land Code 1965.

[1] This is case where the plaintiff had filed the originating summons ("OS") for it to request the order for sale pursuant to s 256(3) of the National Land Code 1965 ("NLC") from this court to foreclose the land of the defendant as the latter had failed to pay the loan given to it by the former. Arising from this application are the issues whether there is cause to the contrary in granting that order requested and whether the various statutory provisions of the Moneylenders Act 1951 ("the Act") have been complied by the plaintiff in requesting the same.

Background Facts

[2] The plaintiff's application for order for sale is pursuant to the legal charge created by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff over the property held under Pegangan Hakmilik Geran 72609, Lot 65922, Mukim Batu, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, Negeri Wilayah Persekutuan ("the property") which had been duly registered on 20 March 2015 vide Presentation No 8159/2015 ("the charge").

[3] The plaintiff is a licensed moneylender under the Act at the material time when the term loan facility was given to the defendant. The defendant is the registered owner of the property.

[4] At the defendant's application, the plaintiff had granted a term loan of RM1,608,900.00 ("the loan") to the defendant subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in the letter of offer dated 25 June 2014 ("the letter of Offer") the defendant had duly accepted the terms and conditions by signing the letter of offer. The plaintiff and the defendant also entered into a Loan Agreement dated 19 May 2014 ("the Loan Agreement").

[5] The format and the terms of the Loan Agreement have been duly approved by the Registrar of Moneylenders in 2004 as evidence in the letter of approval dated 5 July 2004.

[6] The charge provided, inter alia, that:

(a) the defendant will pay to the plaintiff the total amount outstanding upon demand;

(b) the defendant will indemnify the plaintiff against any losses or costs including legal fees on a solicitor and client basis and full indemnity upon the defendant's default to pay any sums due and payable under the charge including the interest;

(c) if the loan or indebtedness or any part thereof shall be required to be recovered through any process of law, the defendant shall pay the legal fees on a solicitor and client and full indemnity basis and any other fees and expenses incurred in respect of such collection;

(d) a certificate signed by a duly authorised officer of the plaintiff certifying the total amount due and payable by the defendant shall be conclusive for the purpose of legal proceedings and shall be binding upon the defendant.

[7] The loan had been disbursed to the defendant for the defendant's benefit or usage on 11 November 2014 vide a cheque dated 10 November 2014.

[8] However, the defendant had failed, refused and/or neglected to pay the outstanding sum in respect of the loan.

This court's Findings

A. General Observation

[9] It is important to say at the outset, respectfully the contentions of the defendant mostly are not relevant to answer the question whether the order for sale should be granted. After taking the loan of more than a million r