Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
In litigation, especially disputes involving financial claims, parties often rely on bank statements to prove or disprove transactions. But what happens if a claimant fails to produce their own bank accounts to support allegations against a defendant? Does this automatically allow the court to draw an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950? This is a common question in Malaysian courts, where evidence rules play a pivotal role in outcomes.
This article breaks down the legal principles, drawing from key judicial interpretations. Note that this is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Section 114(g) empowers courts to presume the existence of certain facts under specific circumstances. Illustration (g) specifically allows an adverse inference against a party who withholds or suppresses material evidence. However, courts have repeatedly stressed its limited scope to prevent misuse.
The provision does not apply to mere non-production; it requires proof of deliberate withholding of important and relevant evidence. As one ruling clarifies: Adverse inference under that illustration can only be drawn if there is withholding or suppression of evidence and not merely on account of failure to obtain evidence. It may be drawn from withholding not just any document, but material document by a party in his possession, or for non-production of not just any witness but an important and material witness to the case. M & A SECURITIES SDN BHD vs NG CHI KWONG - 2011 MarsdenLR 2019M & A SECURITIES SDN BHD vs KOK CHEK LIANG - 2011 MarsdenLR 715HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD vs NG WEE HEONG - 2005 MarsdenLR 2219HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD vs NG WEE HEONG - 2005 MarsdenLR 3427
Consider a scenario where a plaintiff sues a defendant for money owed but neglects to submit their own bank records showing the alleged transaction or payment. The defendant argues this omission warrants an adverse inference under Section 114(g), presuming the claim is false.
The answer is no—not automatically. Courts hold that simply failing to produce bank accounts does not justify invoking Section 114(g). The accounts must be:
If the claimant provides alternative evidence (e.g., receipts, witness testimony) or explains the absence (e.g., records destroyed, privacy concerns), no inference arises. The burden lies on the party seeking the inference to show significance and suppression. M & A SECURITIES SDN BHD vs NG CHI KWONG - 2011 MarsdenLR 2019HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD vs NG WEE HEONG - 2005 MarsdenLR 3427
Malaysian courts have consistently narrowed Section 114(g) to curb overreach. In multiple decisions:
For bank accounts in claims against defendants, judges examine:
Without these, invoking 114(g) is unwarranted, preserving fairness.
Bank accounts often surface in debt recovery, loan disputes, and commercial claims. While Section 114(g) governs evidence withholding, related banking litigation highlights evidentiary burdens.
In debt recovery under frameworks like India's Recovery of Debts Due to Banks Act (analogous principles apply), defendants cannot be forced into counterclaims or suit transfers against their will. A defendant in an application, having an independent claim against the Bank, cannot be compelled to make his claim against the Bank only by way of a counter-claim. Nor can his claim by way of independent suit in a court having jurisdiction, be transferred to a Tribunal against his wishes. Bank Of Rajasthan Ltd. VS VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd. - 2022 Supreme(SC) 1140Prime Cottex Pvt Ltd VS Bank of Baroda - 2019 Supreme(Guj) 901Hassad Food Company Q. S. C. VS Bank of India - 2018 Supreme(Del) 2000Amrit Jal Ventures Private Limited VS SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited
Here, failing to produce bank records might weaken a counterclaim, but without materiality, no automatic adverse inference. For instance, in a case involving bank guarantees and cargo delays, courts demanded proof of actual losses before allowing invocations. A party claiming damages must provide evidence of the actual loss suffered, and a bank guarantee can only be invoked if there is a breach of contract and the liability of the party providing the guarantee has been established. Adithyaa VS Food Corporation of India - 2013 Supreme(Mad) 3958
These cases underscore that in banking suits, non-production of accounts (e.g., to rebut loan recoveries) requires demonstration of suppression for inferences—mirroring 114(g) caution.
Adverse inferences may apply if:
Courts warn against misuse: The courts have cautioned against overreach and misuse of Section 114(g), emphasizing its limited scope to material evidence. Even then, inferences are discretionary.
To avoid pitfalls:
Judges should verify criteria before applying 114(g), ensuring justice over presumption.
Failing to adduce your own bank accounts does not automatically permit Section 114(g) invocation. It hinges on materiality, relevance, and suppression—principles enshrined in precedents. M & A SECURITIES SDN BHD vs NG CHI KWONG - 2011 MarsdenLR 2019M & A SECURITIES SDN BHD vs KOK CHEK LIANG - 2011 MarsdenLR 715HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD vs NG WEE HEONG - 2005 MarsdenLR 2219HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD vs NG WEE HEONG - 2005 MarsdenLR 3427
Key Takeaways:- Mere non-production ≠ adverse inference.- Prove withholding of material evidence.- Use alternatives to strengthen cases.- In banking disputes, evidentiary rigor is paramount, as seen in recovery and guarantee cases.
Stay informed, but seek professional advice tailored to your situation. Understanding these nuances can significantly impact your litigation strategy.
#Section114g #AdverseInference #EvidenceLaw
In that case the learned trial judge held that as there were certain persons not called to give evidence for the appellants and no reason given for the failure to do so, it was inevitable for him to invoke s. 114(g) of the Evidence Act. ... To my mind this failure on the defendant's part leaves me no choice but to invoke s. 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 against him. The Supreme Court in the case of Guthrie Sdn. Bhd. V. Trans-malaysian Leasing Cor....
To my mind this failure on the defendant's part leaves me no choice but to invoke s. 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 against him. ... In that case the learned trial judge held that as there were certain persons not called to give evidence for the appellants and no reason given for the failure to do so, it was inevitable for him to invoke s. 114(g) of the Evidence Act. ... Bhd. [1990] 1 MLRA 532; [1991] 1 MLJ 33; [1991] 1 CLJ 155 upheld the trial ju....
To my mind this failure on the defendant's part leaves me no choice but to invoke s. 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 against him. The Supreme Court in the case of Guthrie Sdn. Bhd. V. Trans-malaysian Leasing Corp. ... In that case the learned trial judge held that as there were certain persons not called to give evidence for the appellants and no reason given for the failure to do so, it was inevitable for him to invoke s. 114(g) of the Evidence Ac....
one Mr Anthony Fernandes to mention on his behalf.However the defendant failed to produce him as a witness in Court.To my mind this failure on the defendant's part leaves me no choice but to invoke s. 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 against him. ... In that case the learned trial judge held that as there were certain persons not called to give evidence for the appellants and no reason given for the failure to do so, it was inevitable for him to invoke s. 11....
Ps failure to produce the said witnesses, therefore, necessitated an adverse inference being drawn under s. 114(g). ... In this regard, D/C sought to invoke s. 114 (g), EA against P for failing to call them as witnesses. PW1 conceded that these were the persons who could testify accurately on the facts in dispute pertaining to these accounts and that no steps had been taken by P to trace their whereabouts. ... Failure to produce this vital piece of e....
Ps failure to produce the said witnesses, therefore, necessitated an adverse inference being drawn under s. 114(g). ... In this regard, D/C sought to invoke s. 114 (g), EA against P for failing to call them as witnesses. PW1 conceded that these were the persons who could testify accurately on the facts in dispute pertaining to these accounts and that no steps had been taken by P to trace their whereabouts. ... Failure to produce this vital piece of e....
I am of the view that this is a proper case for the Court to invoke the adverse inference under Section 114 (g) against the Defendant. ... The Defendant did not dispute the Plaintiff's claim until the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim were filed. g) The Defendant was at all material times fully aware of the share transactions carried out on his 2 Accounts as he had authorised them. ... the scope of s. #HL_STA....
P's failure to produce the said witnesses, therefore, necessitated an adverse inference being drawn under s 114(g). ... In this regard, D/C sought to invoke s 114(g), EA against P for failing to call them as witnesses. PW1 conceded that these were the persons who could testify accurately on the facts in dispute pertaining to these accounts and that no steps had been taken by P to trace their whereabouts. ... Failure to produce this vital piece of evi....
This was a matter exclusively within the knowledge of DW1 and his failure to adduce evidence on this issue was ground to invoke an adverse inference under s 114 (g), Evidence Act, 1950 . In Takako Sakao (f) v. Ng Pek Yuen & Anor, Court to invoke s 114(g), EA to draw an adverse inference against DW1 to the effect that evidence of the actual source of these funds if produced would be unfavourable to DW1. ... The total amount of the transactions based o....
To my mind this failureon the defendant's part leaves me no choice but to invoke s 114(g)Evidence Act 1950 The Supreme Court in the case of GUTHRIE Sdn Bhd v Trans-Malaysian Leasing Corp Bhd [1991] 1 MLJ 33 RAHIMAH HUSSAIN J:The plaintiff's claim in this suit is for professional negligence against the defendant, a firmof Advocates & Solicitors of the High Court of Malaya, which represented him in a suit in the Kuantan High Court Civil Suit No 57 of 1981 ... In the said suit, the plaintiff was sued by hi....
The defendant will then have to approach the civil court in respect of such excluded counter claim as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to try any independent claim against a bank/financial institution. A defendant in an application, having an independent claim against the Bank, cannot be compelled to make his claim against the Bank only by way of a counter-claim. Nor can his claim by way of independent suit in a court having jurisdiction, be transferred to a Tribunal against his wishes.
The defendant will then have to approach the civil court in respect of such excluded counter claim as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to try any independent claim against a bank/financial institution. Nor can his claim by way of independent suit in a court having jurisdiction, be transferred to a Tribunal against his wishes. A defendant in an application, having an independent claim against the Bank, cannot be compelled to make his claim against the Bank only by way of a counter-claim.
A defendant in an application, having an independent claim against the bank, cannot be compelled to make his claim against the bank only by way of a counterclaim. Nor can his claim by way of independent suit in a court having jurisdiction, be transferred to a tribunal against his wishes.” The defendant will then have to approach the civil court in respect of such excluded counterclaim as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to try any independent claim against a bank/financial institution.
Nor can his claim by way of independent suit in a court having jurisdiction, be transferred to a tribunal against his wishes. Even the bank, in whose application the counterclaim is made, has the option to apply to the Tribunal to exclude the counterclaim of the defendant while considering its application. A defendant in an application, having an independent claim against the bank, cannot be compelled to make his claim against the bank only by way of a counterclaim.
Therefore, the Trial Court erred in allowing the counter claim. The learned counsel submitted that the Trial Court erred in allowing the counter claim filed by the defendant-M/s.Adithyaa, and the bank guarantee was invoked rightly by the plaintiff-Corporation, as the defendant failed to act according to the terms of Exs.A.1 and A.4, and, as per the terms of the bank guarantee, the plaintiff-Corporation is entitled to invoke the bank guarantee in the event of any failure on the part of the defendant-M/s.Adithyaa. The learned counsel for the Food Corporation of India, also co....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
