JUDGMENT

1. This is an application by the plaintiff dated 20th August, 1998 (enclosure 21) for an order that judgment be entered against the defendants under O. 14 r. 1 of the Rules of the High Court 1980. The said application is supported by the Affidavit of Hii Lu Not, the branch manager of the plaintiff, affirmed on 15th August, 1998.

2. The plaintiff herein is a finance company having a branch office at Lots 170 - 172, Jalan Chan Chin Ann, Kuching, Sarawak. According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant applied for a floor stocking facility in the form of revolving advances of up to the maximum aggregate principal amount of RM800,000.00. The 1st defendant's application was duly approved by the plaintiff and as part of the terms of approval, the 1st defendant was required to enter into an [3] All-Monies Debenture Agreement with the plaintiff. Section 1.03 of the said Agreement provides that:-

"The Facility shall be used by the Dealer to provide finance for stock of new motor vehicles acceptable to DELTA."

In furtherance thereto, Section 1.04 stipulates that:-

"Pursuant to the Facility Agreement and IN CONSIDERATION of the premises the Dealer is executing this Debenture as a floating charge favouring DELTA over the stock of all the new motor vehicles particularly described in Section 2.01 hereof to secure the repayment and payment of all principal moneys interest thereon and any other moneys and liabilities whatsoever owing or payable by the Dealer to DELTA under the provisions of the Facility Agreement or otherwise intended to be hereby secured and upon the terms and conditions hereinafter contained."

3. It was the contention of the plaintiff that the floor stocking facility had been utilised by the 1st defendant to finance the purchase of 6 units of new Rover made motor vehicles. As a result, the full sum of RM800,000.00 was disbursed to the 1st defendant on 13th November, 1995. In breach of the All-Monies Debenture Agreement, the plaintiff alleged that the 1st defendant defaulted in repaying the balance of the principal sum advanced in the amount of RM556,000.00 together with overdue interest accruing thereto. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants are the guarantors of the facility granted by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant.

4. In opposing the plaintiff's application, the director of the 1st defendant, Ling Kee Hock who is also the 4th defendant herein affirmed an Affidavit In Opposition on 13th October, 1998. In paragraph 3 of the said Affidavit In Opposition, the deponent referred to the Defence of all the defendants dated 29th July, 1993 and adopted the same to form part of the evidence in this application. In addition thereto, the defendants took out a Supplementary Affidavit In Opposition affirmed by the 4th defendant on 30th October, 1998. Perusing through the Affidavit In Opposition, the Defence of the defendants and the Supplementary Affidavit In Opposition, there are, indeed, only 2 issues pertinent and germane to the application herein. [4]

5. Firstly, there is the question of the interest rate chargeable by the plaintiff, which would inevitably affect the actual amount owing by the defendant. On this point, the learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the interest rate chargeable at 15% per annum as stated in the statement of claim is higher than the alleged prescribed rate of 11.65% per annum as agreed between the parties. The defendants further alleged that no notice was ever received by the 1st defendant pertaining to the variation of the plaintiff's Base Lending Rate, if any.

6. In reply, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the 1st defendant did not at any point of time challenge the balance of the principal sum owing by the defendants. In furtherance thereto, the attention of the court was drawn to a letter dated 16th April, 1998, addressed to the plaintiff and sent by the 1st defendant, which was annexed to the Affidavit of Hii Lu Not and marked as exhibit "H-6". In disclosing the co