SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img




JUDGMENT

Lim Beng Choon J:

This is an application for an order for sale by public auction under s. 256 of the National Land Code by Malaysian National International Merchant Bankers Bhd., the plaintiffs, in respect of the lands held under Grant for Land No. 11263 Lot No. 52 Sek. 1, Grant for Land No. 11264 Lot No. 53 Sek. 1 and Grant for Land No. 11265 Lot No. 54 Sek. 1 all in the Village of Sungei Pelek owned by Chi Liung Holdings Sdn. Bhd., the defendants, and charged to the plaintiffs under Charge Presentation No. 2035/87 Vol. 237 Folio 131 and lands held under H.S. (D) 7036 Lot No. 7776 in the Mukim of Bukit Raja, H.S. (D) 7670 P.T. No. 21786 and H.S. (D) 8024 P.T. No. 21787 both in the Mukim of Klang again owned by the defendants and charged to the plaintiffs under Charge Presentation No. 2037/87 Vol. 2137 Folio 133 to recover the sum of RM2,129,108.37 being the outstandings due as at the 10 May 1989 together with interest thereon as from 11 May 1989 till date of full settlement. There was the usual request for an order that the Court fix a date for the said auction to be carried out, and that the Senior Assistant Registrar should fix the reserve price for the purpose of the sale.

According to the affidavit of the defendants affirmed on 10 July 1989, (encl. 2), at the request of the defendants, the plaintiffs agreed to make available to the defendants credit facilities of a principal sum of RM2,000,000. (hereinafter referred to as "The CLH Charge") and for the purpose of securing repayment of the said facilities and interest thereon, the defendants on the same day that is 5 January 1987 executed two first legal charges over the lands mentioned earlier in favour of the plaintiffs which said charge had been registered by the Pendaftar Hakmilik Selangor on the 25 February 1987 vide the two Charge Presentations I mentioned earlier. By the terms of the said two legal charges the defendants agreed to pay to the plaintiffs on demand the said facilities or such other sum for the time being owing on the loan account of the defendants with the plaintiffs together with interest thereon and together with all such other sums and moneys as are or may become payable by the defendants under the said two legal charges. Pursuant to Clause 4.5(2) of the said Supplemental Charge the plaintiffs could from time to time increase and vary the interest rate without notice to the defendants. In spite of the repeated requests by the plaintiffs to the defendants to repay the outstanding amount in full together with the interest due thereon the defendants had refused and/or neglected and/or failed to do so. Consequently on 29 May 1989 the plaintiffs through their solicitors served by A.R. Registered post two notices in accordance with the provisions of s. 254 of the National Land Code on the defendants demanding payment of the sum of RM2,122,359.80 being the outstanding moneys due and owing by the defendants to the plaintiffs together with interest thereon within 14 days from the date of service of the said notices. Since the sending of the two notices mentioned earlier, the defendants had made some payments and the outstanding sum due and owing by the defendants to the plaintiffs as at 10 May 1989 was RM2,129,108.37 together with accrued interest thereon. The relevant documents were annexed to the affidavit as exhibits to which I shall be referring to when necessary.

In opposing the application of the plaintiffs, the defendants, through their company secretary affirmed an affidavit on 2 March 1990 in which it was asserted that firstly "the notice of default with respect to a Charge served on the defendant under the National Land Code s. 254 is defective in law and does not reflect the actual sum owing to the plaintiff." Secondly the defendants asserted that "the plaintiff further claims the same sum in another matter under Originating Summons No. S6-24-1495-89 which would amount to duplication of actions seeking a claim far in excess of what the def

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top