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

1995 MarsdenLR 735

COURT OF APPEAL KUALA LUMPUR
NG HEE THOONG & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
PUBLIC BANK BERHAD – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:T Gunaseelan ,Respondent Advocate: Ng Chee Kong

JUDGMENT

Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] We allowed this appeal on 16 January 1995, for the reasons that follow.

1

[2] The appellants are guarantors of a loan advanced by the respondent to one Foo Yik Sdn Bhd (the first defendant in the Court below, and now in liquidation) under two overdraft facilities, the first for RM30,000 bearing interest at the rate of 11% per annum from 1 October 1989, and the second for RM1,150,000 bearing interest at the rate of 11.5% per annum from the same date. The interest is at monthly rests. The guarantee in respect of the first loan is dated 7 January 1981 while that in respect of the second is dated 2 August 1984. Both guarantees give the addresses of the appellants as 83, Jalan Sultan Iskandar, Ipoh. The liability of the appellants under both guarantees is predicated upon the making of a demand upon them by the respondent. Clause 8 in both guarantees reads as follows:

As to each of us any notice may be served on each of us or on the legal personal representative of each of us either personally or by sending the same through the post in an envelope addressed to the above mentioned address or the last known place of address of the person to be served, and a notic

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