(delivering the judgment of the Board): This is an appeal from an order of the Federal Court of Malaysia (Salleh Abas C.J. (Malaya), Mohamed Azmi and Syed Agil Barakbah F.JJ.) dismissing with costs an appeal from the dismissal by the High Court of Malaysia (Peh Swee Chin J.) on November 12, 1982 of the appellant's motion to set aside an order made by the Collector of Land Revenue, Kelang, for the sale of certain land charged by the appellant in favour of the respondent.

The relevant facts can be shortly stated and were not in dispute. At all material times the appellant (to whom it will be convenient to refer as "the mortgagor") was the registered proprietor of certain land held under EMR 7188, Lot 1800, Mukim and Daerah of Kelang. On April 10, 1965 the mortgagor charged the land by way of first charge in favour of the respondent (to whom it will be convenient to refer as "the Bank") to secure loan facilities by way of bank overdraft in the sum of $400,000 and interest. In 1967, the mortgagor required to increase its overdraft and on September 21, 1967, it executed a further charge to secure further loan facilities of $180,000 and interest. Both charges were duly registered. The amounts secured by the two charges were advanced to the mortgagor on a single account with the Bank. By the autumn of 1980 the amount of the mortgagor's overdraft on the account exceeded $2,000,000 and, on October 9, 1980, the Bank's solicitors wrote a letter demanding repayment within seven days of the sum outstanding which then amounted to $2,374,382.24, together with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum with monthly rests. That demand was not complied with and on November 13, 1980 the Bank served on the mortgagor a statutory notice in Form 16D pursuant to section 254 of the National Land Code. A second undated notice in identical form was subsequently served under cover of a letter from the Bank's solicitors dated November 28, 1980.

The relevant provisions of the National Land Code are to be found in sections 253 and 254 which are, respectively, in the following terms (so far as material):-

Section 253

"(1) The provisions of this Chapter shall have effect for the purpose of enabling any chargee to obtain the sale of the land or lease to which his charge relates in the event of a breach by the chargor of any of the agreements on his part expressed or implied therein."

Section 254:-

"(1) Where, in the case of any charge, any such breach of agreement as is mentioned in subsection (1) of section 253 has been continued for a period of at least one month or such alternative period as may be specified in the charge, the chargee may serve on the chargor a notice in Form 16D —

(a) specifying the breach in question;

(b) requiring it to be remedied within one month of the date on which the notice is served, or such alternative period as may be specified in the charge; and

(c) warning the chargor that, if the notice is not complied with, he will take proceedings to obtain an order for sale.

(2) …

(3) If at the expiry of the period specified in any such notice the breach in question has not been remedied —

(a) the whole sum secured by the charge shall (if it has not already done so) become due and payable to the chargee; and

(b) the chargee may apply for an order for sale in accordance with the following provisions of this chapter."

No point now arises on the form (as opposed to the content) of the notices served by, or on behalf of, the Bank. Each was addressed to the mortgagor described as "chargor under the charges described in the schedule below of the land so described". It went on to recite a breach of the provisions of the charges "by failing to make payment on demand of the sum of Ringgit 2,374,382.24 being the whole outstanding balance on your account as at September 10, 1980 with interest thereon at the rate of 9% p.a. with monthly rests from September 11, 1980 to the date of payment or any part thereof pursuant to a no