1. Commercial term loan facilities — Joint and several guarantees — Default in repayment — Application for summary judgment under Order 14 rule 1 Rules of Court 2012. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
Back
Next 
2026 MarsdenLR 1282
HIGH COURT (MELAKA)
RAJA SEGARAN S KRISHNAN, JC
Alliance Bank Malaysia Bhd – Plaintiff
Versus
Supreme Power Auto Sdn Bhd & Ors – Defendant
ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO MA-22NCC-9-06 OF 2023
Advocates:
Nur Hidayah bt Muzamil (J A Nathan & Co) for the plaintiff.
Hazwan Lee bin Haris Lee (Shu Yin, Ten & Taing) for the defendants.
Nur Hidayah bt Muzamil (J A Nathan & Co) for the plaintiff.
Hazwan Lee bin Haris Lee (Shu Yin, Ten & Taing) for the defendants.
A certificate of indebtedness is prima facie conclusive evidence of debt, shifting the burden to the defendant to prove 'manifest error' via objective discrepancies. Additionally, creditors may exercise concurrent remedies to sue guarantors without first exhausting available security.
Headnote:(A) Order 14 rule 1 Rules of Court 2012 - Summary Judgment - Threshold and Requirements - Plaintiff must establish a prima facie case based on admissible material, shifting the evidential burden to the defendant to show a bona fide triable issue (Para 31). A triable issue must have a real evidential and legal foundation; bare denials, vague assertions, or contentions inconsistent with contemporaneous documents are insufficient to resist summary judgment (Para 31).
(B) Certificates of Indebtedness - Conclusiveness Clauses - A certificate issued pursuant to a valid contractual clause is prima facie and often contractually conclusive evidence of the amount due, save for manifest error (Paras 34, 37). Manifest error is not a general complaint that a figure is excessive, but a demonstrable discrepancy, contradiction, or computational mistake identifiable on objective material (Para 36, 37).
(C) Guarantees and Concurrent Remedies - Section 81 Contracts Act 1950 - A creditor may pursue multiple remedies simultaneously, including an action on the debt and enforcement against security (Para 40). The existence of security does not extinguish the personal liability of a guarantor, and where a guarantee is joint and several, the creditor may proceed against the guarantors without first exhausting recourse against the borrower (Paras 39, 41).
(D) Contractual Interest - Where interest rates are clearly stipulated in commercial banking documents, the court will enforce the bargain unless the clause is unlawful, penal, or contrary to public policy (Para 42).
Facts of the case:
A financial institution granted term loan facilities to a borrower, which were secured by a joint and several guarantee from two other parties. Following a default in repayment, the institution issued a certificate of indebtedness and commenced legal action for the outstanding sum. The defendants opposed the application for summary judgment, contending that the amount claimed was not properly established, the certificate contained manifest error, the action was premature as the institution should have first realized the charged security, and the contractual interest was excessive.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiff established a prima facie case through signed commercial documents and the certificate of indebtedness. The defendants failed to provide specific, objective discrepancies to prove manifest error, rendering their challenge to the quantum insufficient. The prematurity objection was rejected as the law and the contract allowed for concurrent remedies. The challenge to the interest rate was viewed as mere dissatisfaction with the contractual consequences of default.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff established the threshold for summary judgment; whether the certificate of indebtedness was sufficient to establish the debt; whether the plaintiff was required to exhaust security before proceeding against guarantors; and whether the challenge to contractual interest raised a triable issue.
Ratio Decidendi: A certificate of indebtedness shifts the evidential burden to the defendant to prove manifest error via objective documentary evidence. In commercial banking, creditors are entitled to concurrent remedies, allowing them to sue guarantors and the borrower regardless of available security. Summary judgment is appropriate when the defense relies on general denials that are contradicted by the written contractual instruments.
Result: Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment allowed; judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and severally.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- banking law
- contract law
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over debt quantum — Validity of certificate of indebtedness — Prematurity of action against guarantors — Excessiveness of contractual interest. (Para 14 )
3. Evaluation of Order 14 threshold — Effect of conclusiveness clauses on evidential burden — Validity of concurrent remedies — Enforceability of commercial interest rates. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 )
4. A contractually valid certificate of indebtedness shifts the evidential burden to the defendant to prove manifest error through specific, objective documentary discrepancies. (Para 34 , 35 , 37 )
5. Application for summary judgment allowed — Judgment entered against defendants jointly and severally with contractual interest and costs. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 )
6. What is the legal effect of a certificate of indebtedness issued under a valid contractual conclusiveness clause?
It operates as adjectival law, excusing the plaintiff from proving the debt in the ordinary manner and shifting the evidential burden to the defendant to disprove the amount claimed. (Para 34 , 35 , 37 )
7. How is manifest error interpreted when challenging a certificate of indebtedness?
Manifest error is not a general complaint that a figure is high, but a demonstrable discrepancy, contradiction, or computational mistake identifiable through objective documentary material. (Para 36 , 37 , 49 )
8. Must a creditor exhaust security or remedies against a borrower before proceeding against guarantors?
No. A creditor may pursue multiple remedies, including debt actions and security enforcement, simultaneously or successively; the existence of security does not extinguish the personal liability of the guarantor. (Para 40 , 41 , 51 )
9. What is the threshold for a defendant to resist summary judgment under Order 14?
The defendant must show a bona fide triable issue with a real evidential and legal foundation; bare denials or vague assertions inconsistent with contemporaneous documents are insufficient. (Para 30 , 31 )
10. Under what conditions will a court enforce contractual interest rates in commercial banking documents?
Courts will ordinarily enforce the bargain if the rate is clearly stipulated, unless the clause is unlawful, penal in the legal sense, or contrary to public policy. (Para 42 , 52 )
Raja Segaran S Krishnan JC:
GROUNDS OF DECISIONA. INTRODUCTION
[1]This is the Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment under Order 14 rule 1Rules of Court 2012
[2]The action was commenced by writ. Appearance was entered. A defence was filed. The present application was thereafter filed on the footing that the claim rests on formal banking instruments, the debt has crystallised following default, and the materials before the Court disclose no bona fide triable issue warranting a full trial.
[3]The case therefore falls within a well-settled area of commercial litigation. The Court is not concerned at this stage with the broad merits in the abstract, but with a narrower and more exact inquiry. The question is whether, upon the pleadings, affidavits and contemporaneous documents, the Defendants have shown a real defence in law or fact, or whether the objections raised remain insufficient to displace the Plaintiff’s prima facie case.
[4]Although the issues arise in a familiar banking context, the present application also requires careful consideration of three related matters of continuing doctrinal importance, namely the effect of a certificate of indebtedness, the threshold required to resist summary judgment under Order 14
[5]It is in that context that the Court now sets out its grounds.
B. BACKGROUND FACTS
[6]The Plaintiff, Alliance Bank Malaysia Berhad, granted to the First Defendant, Supreme Power Auto Sdn Bhd, four term loan facilities pursuant to a Letter of Offer dated 24 August 2011. The facilities were subsequently embodied in and governed by a Facilities Agreement dated 16 February 2012.
[7]The facilities were commercial in nature. The total financing made available under the four term loans was RM7,359,292.00. The repayment tenure was 264 months. The prescribed interest was BLR minus 2.30% per annum, subject to a minimum of 4.00% per annum at all times. The facility documents also provided for late payment interest at 1.0% per annum above the prescribed rate.
[8]On 16 February 2012, the Second and Third Defendants executed a Joint and Several Guarantee in favour of the Plaintiff securing the liabilities of the First Defendant under the facilities. The guarantee formed part of the security package supporting the lending transaction.
[9]The loan proceeds were thereafter disbursed and utilised. The case is therefore not concerned with a facility that remained unperformed or unutilised. It is an action on facilities already granted and enjoyed. That factual feature is material because it places the controversy squarely within the law governing recovery of an accrued banking debt.
[10]The First Defendant subsequently defaulted in repayment. The Plaintiff’s factual chronology shows that the balances under the four term loans were calculated as at 31 March 2023 and that notices of demand dated 26 April 2023 were issued to all Defendants. Those notices required payment of the outstanding indebtedness.
[11]The indebtedness as at 1 June 2023 was stated at RM6.299,107.22. The statement of claim was filed on 6 June 2023. The writ and statement of claim were served on the Defendants on or about 8 June 2023. Appearance was entered on 3 July 2023. A statement of defence was subsequently filed, and the pleadings were later closed following the filing of the reply.
[12]On 21 October 2024, the Plaintiff issued a Certificate of Amount Owing or Certificate of Indebtedness in respect of the facilities. That certificate was later relied upon in support of the present application.
[13]The application for summary judgment was filed on 1 November 2024. The supporting affidavit was followed by an affidavit in reply from the Second Defendant, and thereafter a reply affidavit from the Plaintiff. Written submissions and reply submissions were filed, together with bundles of authorities.
[14]The defence, as it emerges from the pleadings, affidavits and written materials, may fairly be reduced to four central propositions. First, the amount claimed is said not
