JUDGMENT

RK Nathan J:

Facts

The plaintiff bank sued the defendant based on various credit facilities granted to the defendant at the defendant's request. In its defence the defendant, amongst others, contended that the plaintiff had no cause of action. It was further averred in the defence that on 18 February 1991 OCBC Singapore, a company incorporated in Singapore and being a different corporate entity from the plaintiff advanced the defendant credit facilities amounting to RM500,000 which the defendant accepted and utilised. On 18 November 1991 the same OCBC Singapore gave the defendant additional facilities amounting to RM1.1 million which again the defendant accepted and utilised. Subsequently the same OCBC Singapore further granted a revolving credit facility of a sum of RM5 million. When the plaintiff bank gave facilities in October 1996 the additional facilities were as follows:

(a) overdraft (additional) 400,000

(b) LC Facility (new) 500,000

900,000

In January 1998 the plaintiff reduced the loan facility by a sum of RM2 million. This effectively meant that the loan facility available was solely the facility granted by OCBC Singapore.

The plaintiff took out an O. 14 applicat