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