COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
LIM HUI JIN – Appellant
Versus
CIMB BANK BERHAD & ORS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for release of funds (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. statutory basis for freezing orders (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 11) |
| 3. issues of legal interpretation under amlatfa and amlatepua. (Para 4 , 10) |
| 4. validity of expiration of orders (Para 9 , 19 , 22) |
| 5. conflict between statutes addressing freezing orders. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. requirements for seizure validity (Para 14 , 16 , 40) |
| 7. court rules on expiration of legal orders. (Para 15 , 24) |
[1] In the court below the appellant by Originating Summons prayed for the following orders against the respondents:
(a) the release of all monies together with all accrued interest in his CIMB Bank Account No. 25164 ("the appellant's account") held/ frozen and seized by the respondents;
(b) costs and other reliefs.
[2] At the conclusion of the hearing, the learned High court Judge dismissed the appellant's application on the ground that he failed to prove his case on the balance of probabilities, hence the present appeal before us. Having heard arguments by both sides, we reserved judgment to a date to be fixed. We have now reached a unanimous decision and this is our judgment.
[3] First, the salient facts. Pursuant to a freezing order issued by th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.