Lim Beng Choon J:

[1] This is an application by the plaintiff bank for an order that the defendant company do show cause why the land held under Geran 30088 Lot No 452 Mukim of Hulu Kelang, District of Gombak (hereinafter referred to as "the charged land") registered in the name of the defendant company and charged to the plaintiff bank should not be sold by public auction under the direction of this Court for the recovery of the sum RM15,477,187.99 only being principal, interest and other dues on the said charge as at 8 January 1988. In the supporting affidavit affirmed by the assistant general manager of the plaintiff bank on 2 March 1988 it was stated inter alia that the charge was executed by the defendant company in favour of the plaintiff bank to secure the repayment of monies up to the sum of RM12 million only advanced as secured loan to one Dato' Seri Mohd Adib bin Mohd Adam (hereinafter referred to as "the borrower") with interest at the rate of 15% per annum on monthly rests payable on demand. As at 8 January 1988 the borrower was indebted to the plaintiff bank in the sum of RM15,477,187.99 together with interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum on monthly rests. As from 9 January 1988 a default interest at the rate of 20% per annum was imposed by the plaintiff bank on the amount in excess of the approved limit till the date of realization. By letter dated 9 January 1988 the plaintiff bank through their solicitors notified the defendant company that the borrower had defaulted in repayment and demanded payment of the sum of RM15,477,189.99 with interest accrued thereon but the defendant company failed to settle the same or any part thereof within the stipulated period mentioned in the letter. Again by letter dated 19 January 1988 the plaintiff bank through their solicitors sent by AR registered post a statutory notice in Form 16D demanding the defendant company to pay the sum of RM15,477,189.99 within seven days of the service of the statutory notice failing which they would apply for a Court order for the sale of the charged land. The defendant company had failed to comply with the said notice.

[2] On 5 August 1988, the assistant general manager (credit) of the plaintiff bank affirmed a supplementary affidavit (encl 6) in which he gave particulars of the amount outstanding as at 10 August 1988. As the defence, counsel was relying on certain particulars appearing therein to contend that the plaintiff bank's claim was misconceived, it is appropriate to set out those particulars that were being challenged. The said particulars are as follows:

[3] On 9 August 1988, the director of the defendant company affirmed an affidavit (encl 7) alleging that:

(a) the plaintiff bank's claim was misconceived as the plaintiff bank had not established the sum said to be due from the borrowers;

(b) the claim was bad in law as the plaintiff bank charged interest upon interest at the rate of 20% per annum which was contrary to s 11 of the Civil Law Act 1956;

(c) there was no agreement to charge default interest and consequently the plaintiff bank's claim as framed in the proceeding was bad in law. Alternatively the plaintiff bank had not established their entitlement to such default interest.

[4] Apparently to show that the outstanding accounts of the borrower had been correctly computed the assistant general manager of the plaintiff bank affirmed a second supplementary affidavit on 6 September 1988 (encl 8). Annexed to the said affidavit in encl 8 are two statements of account of the borrower as at 8 September 1988. The first statement of account (Exhibit 'SJ2' annexed to encl 8) shows that the loan amount with normal interest and default interest was, as at 1 January 1988 RM15,406,369.74. The loan amount with normal interest and default interest as at 1 January 1988 was confirmed by the duly appointed receiver of the plaintiff bank by his supplementary affidavit affirmed on 28 June 1989 (see Exhibit 'HAK- 1' and 'HAK-2' annexed to t