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



JUDGMENT

Tee Ah Sing J:

In this originating summons Choo Meng Chiong is the 1st defendant and the official assignee, is the 2nd defendant.

In para. 3 of the affidavit of Chieng Huo Hie affirmed on 19 February 1998, it was averred that by a memorandum of charge dated 10 June 1997 executed by the defendant and the plaintiff and registered as Instrument No. L.6746/97 at the Sibu Land Registry Office on 11 June 1997 the defendant charged his land mentioned in the schedule thereto to the plaintiff as security for the repayment of the sum of RM60,000 advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant.

The amount outstanding and due to the plaintiff including interest as at 30 November 1997 was RM63,272.14.

Before the hearing commenced, the representative from the official assignee raised an objection. He submitted that in view of s. 8(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 ("the BA") and in view of the High Court decision of Malayan Banking Berhad v. The Official Assignee (Receivers of the estate of Velu Marimuthu (bankrupt)) [1993] 2 AMR 48, the official assignee need not be named as a party for the foreclosure action but only the official assignee need to be extended a copy of such proceeding. The q

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top