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

2011 MarsdenLR 1389

MAH WENG KWAI
LIM LEK YAN @ LIM TECK YAM – Appellant
Versus
YAYASAN MELAKA – Respondent



Bankruptcy notices must state exact amounts due; claims for interest must comply with statutory limitations, and counterclaims must be quantified and proven to be valid.

Headnote:(A) Bankruptcy Act 1967 - Rule 95 of the Bankruptcy Rules 1969 - Limitation Act 1953 - Claim of RM9.2 million with 8% interest for bankruptcy notice - Appeals from denial to set aside bankruptcy notice based on improper service and quantum objection - Issues on entitlement to interest exceeding 6 years and counterclaims raised by the debtor were evaluated. (Paras 1.1, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6)

(B) Bankruptcy notices must state exact amounts due; any claim must be clearly quantifiable to be valid and avoid ambiguity. (Paras 2.4.5, 2.4.6)

(C) Post-judgment interest can be claimed within 6 years from the date of judgment, while pre-judgment interest merges into the judgment debt and follows the judgment date. (Paras 2.5.4, 2.5.5)

(D) Counterclaims or set-offs must be explicitly stated with quantifiable evidence to be recognized in bankruptcy proceedings. (Paras 2.6(a)(i), 2.6(b), 2.6(c))

LIM LEK YAN @ LIM TECK YAM vs YAYASAN MELAKA - 2011 MarsdenLR 1389
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
whatsapp-icon Back to top