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



JUDGMENT

Haidar Mohd Noor JCA:

This appeal is confined to only one issue. The issue is whether the appellant (second defendant) has been discharged as a guarantor by the respondent bank.

The appellant relied on a letter dated 31 January 1985 (exh. 'D3') addressed to the respondent bank by the appellant whereby the respondent bank through its then Senior General Manager/Secretary, Mazlan bin Khamis (DW1) purportedly confirmed the appellant's application to be discharged as a guarantor to the bridging loan and overdraft facilities ("loan facilities") given to Asialand Housing Development Sdn. Bhd. (first defendant) by the respondent bank.

Facts

The respondent bank provided the loan facilities to the first defendant and as at 30 June 1986 a sum of RM3,448,111.44 together with interests as set out therein was due and payable (p. 17 of the Record). The appellant together with the third, fourth and fifth defendants stood as guarantors. All of them were directors of the first defendant.

Judgment in default of appearance was entered against the first defendant on 12 February 1987 and the claim against the third and fourth defendants as guarantors was withdrawn by the respondent bank. In

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