Back
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
MAJUIKAN SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
BARCLAYS BANK PLC – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties involved in the case and their roles. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the promissory note and endorsement. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. role of barclays in the loan transaction. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. claims of forgery and defense arguments. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. court's consideration of evidence and forgery. (Para 14 , 15 , 24 , 31) |
| 6. legal definitions and implications of holder in due course. (Para 16 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. rights of a holder in due course. (Para 18) |
| 8. court's findings on due diligence by barclays. (Para 22 , 23 , 30) |
| 9. arguments regarding barclays' status as a holder. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 10. estoppel by representation and corporate governance considerations. (Para 35 , 60 , 64) |
| 11. non-applicability of holder in due course due to involvement. (Para 43 , 46) |
| 12. estoppel and implications of knowledge of forgery. (Para 62) |
| 13. conclusion of the court on the appeal. (Para 66 , 69) |
[1] Majuikan Sdn Bhd ("Majuikan"), the appellant in this appeal, was the 2nd defendant in the court below. Barclays Bank Plc ("Barclays"), the respondent, was the plaintiff. Majuikan is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lembaga Kemajuan Ikan Malaysia ("LKIM"),
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
