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

1981 MarsdenLR 192

CHANG MIN TAT, SALLEH ABAS, ABDUL HAMID
MALAYAN BANKING BHD – Appellant
Versus
FOO SEE MOI – Respondent


Advocates:
HY Too for the appellant.
NA Marjoribanks for the respondent.
Solicitors: Shook Lin & Bok; Lovelace & Hastings.

Chang Min Tat FJ

(delivering the judgment of the Court): In this action the plaintiff Bank issued out a writ for money owing to it by the defendant on three over-draft accounts and interest. On July 17, 1970 the Bank signed final judgment in default of defence. It is never suggested that the defendant had any defence to the claim and perhaps for this reason, he did not bother to defend. The judgment was for the sum of $674,539.53 with interest thereon at the agreed rate of 10.8% p.a. with monthly rests from January 1, 1970 to date of judgment and thereafter at 6% p.a. on the decretal sum to date of payment and costs.

Next, so far as the court is concerned, the Bank on December 30, 1978 applied for leave, as required by Order 42 rule 23, Rules of the High Court, 1957 (now Order 46 rule 2(1)(a) Rules of the High Court, 1980), to levy execution, since 6 years had elapsed from the judgment. It did not do so ex parte as it was entitled to do, though of course the court had at all times the power to order service on the defendant. To that inter partes summons, the defendant filed an affidavit in reply.

The matter came up before a Judge of the High Court on May 31, 1979. It was heard in o

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top