AMBANK (M) BERHAD vs LUQMAN KAMIL MOHAMMED DON

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 MarsdenLR 2253

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
AMBANK (M) BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
LUQMAN KAMIL MOHAMMED DON – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Hargopal Singh ,Respondent Advocate: Murali Achan

Table of Content
1. overview of appellant's appeal and factual background. (Para 1 , 3)
2. court's final decision and conclusion on appeal. (Para 2)
3. arguments regarding liability under the guarantee. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. court's analysis of liability and interpretations of guarantee. (Para 7 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 17)
5. definition of contingent liability under letter of credit. (Para 12 , 16)

Azahar Mohamed J:

[1] This was an appeal by the appellant (the plaintiff in the High Court) against the decision of the learned judge of the Kuala Lumpur High Court given on 16.2.2009 dismissing the appellant's claim against the respondent (the defendant in the High Court).

[2] We heard the appeal on 17.2.2011, wherein at its conclusion we unanimously dismissed it with costs. We now give our reasons for so deciding.

[3] The brief antecedent facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are these. The respondent was a director of a company known as TEKNOELEKTRIK INDUSTRIES SDN BHD (the borrower). At the request and application of the borrower, the appellant offered to the borrower banking facilities. On 19.3.1997 the borrower signed a "General Agreement by Customers" (the facilities agreement) that con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 MarsdenLR 2253

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAAMBANK (M) BERHAD – AppellantVersusLUQMAN KAMIL MOHAMMED DON – Respondent

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
AMBANK (M) BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
LUQMAN KAMIL MOHAMMED DON – Respondent