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…!
Thameez Nisha Hasseem v. Maybank Allied Bank Berhad (2023) – The Federal Court clarified that the limitation period for mortgage charge actions under Section 21(1) of the Limitation Act 1953 begins from the date of default in repayment, not from the date of failure to remedy. This decision aligns with prior case law and overrules earlier principles such as those in Jigarlal Doshi, emphasizing that charges can be enforced via sale after proper notices and that the limitation period is six or twelve years depending on the circumstance. ["
CIMB BANK BERHAD vs CHANDRASEGARAN ARJUNAN & ANOR - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur
"], ["ZULIAHA SELAMAT & ANOR vs MAJLIS AMANAH RAKYAT & ANOR - 2023 MarsdenLR 683
"]Legal Principles on Notices and Sale Procedures – The Court held that 16D notices can only be issued following a default in repayment, and that sale of land via public auction is permissible once the court issues an order for sale, provided proper notices are served. The Court also reaffirmed that the right to apply for an order for sale remains valid despite any delays or prior procedural issues, as long as the proper notices are issued beforehand. ["
SELVARAJ SANDOSHOM & ANOR vs ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur
"], ["DATO MOHAMAD AMIN MD HASHIM & ANOR vs DATO TAN BING HUA & ORS - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur
"], ["CHAMPION SCORE SDN BHD vs MOHD SOBRI CHEW ABDULLAH - Court of Appeal Putrajaya
"]Application to Land Office Auctions – The Court's decision supports that land can be sold through public auction under court orders, even if delays or procedural issues occurred, as long as the sale is conducted in accordance with legal requirements and proper notices are served. The Federal Court emphasized that the enforcement of charges and sale procedures must adhere to the principles of public policy, particularly protecting the rights of homebuyers and ensuring fair process. ["
Adzhar bin Mohd Nordin (Menyaman sebagai Pentadbir kepada Estet Mohd Nordin bin Yaakob) vs Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat & Ors and another
"], ["CIMB BANK BERHAD vs CHANDRASEGARAN ARJUNAN & ANOR - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur
"], ["CHAMPION SCORE SDN BHD vs MOHD SOBRI CHEW ABDULLAH - 2025 MarsdenLR 125
"]Public Policy and Consumer Protection – The Court highlighted the importance of public policy in safeguarding homebuyers’ rights, especially under the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 and related regulations, which emphasize protecting purchasers from unjust deprivation. This reinforces that land and property sales under court orders should be conducted transparently and fairly, respecting the rights of all parties involved. ["
CHAMPION SCORE SDN BHD vs MOHD SOBRI CHEW ABDULLAH - 2025 MarsdenLR 125
"], ["CHAMPION SCORE SDN BHD vs MOHD SOBRI CHEW ABDULLAH - Court of Appeal Putrajaya
"], ["CHAMPION SCORE SDN BHD vs MOHD SOBRI CHEW ABDULLAH - Court of Appeal Putrajaya
"]Impact of the Federal Court Decision – The ruling confirms that limitation periods and sale procedures are strictly governed by law, and that any sale of land via auction following a charge is valid provided procedural requirements are met. It disapproves earlier conflicting principles and underscores that courts will uphold enforcement actions if they align with statutory provisions and public policy considerations. ["
CIMB BANK BERHAD vs CHANDRASEGARAN ARJUNAN & ANOR - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur
"], ["ZULIAHA SELAMAT & ANOR vs MAJLIS AMANAH RAKYAT & ANOR - 2023 MarsdenLR 683
"], ["KUALA IBAI DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD vs DATO CHANG JONG YU & ORS - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur
"]The Federal Court's decision in Thameez Nisha Hasseem affirms that land sales through public auction following a mortgage charge are lawful when conducted in accordance with statutory procedures, notices, and court orders. The case clarifies the starting point of limitation periods, emphasizes the necessity of proper notices (such as 16D notices), and underscores the importance of protecting homebuyers' rights under public policy. This ruling provides legal certainty for banks and land offices when executing land auctions, reinforcing that procedural compliance is key to valid enforcement actions.
In the dynamic world of Malaysian property transactions, land office auctions often attract investors seeking bargains. However, a lingering question arises: Does the decision in Thameez Nisha Hasseem v Maybank Allied Bank Berhad 2023 4 MLRA 492 apply to land office auctions? This ruling from the has significant implications for the on properties, particularly when come into play. For buyers, sellers, banks, and land offices, understanding this case is crucial to avoid pitfalls in auction processes.
This article breaks down the core findings, explores its relevance to auctions, and integrates insights from related cases. Note that this is general information and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
The in Thameez Nisha Hasseem v Maybank Allied Bank Berhad clarified critical principles on land charges under the and . At its heart, the decision addresses when charges become unenforceable due to time bars and the court's authority to intervene.
Key points include:- Courts can determine the validity of land interests by , including canceling under
.- The limitation period under applies to charge enforcement actions, starting from the or failure to repay—not from a notice
.- Charges not enforced within this period lose legal force, undermining titles or interests derived from them
.
As Abang Iskandar FCJ noted: We cannot but agree with the above observation because the 16D notice can never be issued without there being a default in repayment first
. This underscores that limitation runs from the breach itself.
Land office auctions typically involve properties with potential like charges from banks or lenders. The Thameez Nisha principles directly apply here. If a charge over auctioned land has lapsed due to the limitation period, it becomes unenforceable. Courts, per , may declare such interests invalid or cancel the charge, potentially derailing the auction or clouding the purchaser's title.
For instance, in auctions, properties are sold subject to existing interests. A time-barred charge means the chargeholder (e.g., Maybank) cannot enforce it, allowing courts to nullify it by . This safeguards buyers but requires due diligence to verify charge statuses
.
Under s 21(1) , chargeholders generally have 12 years from default to act—though specifics vary. The Thameez Nisha ruling emphasizes: the clock starts at default, not later notices
. Post-lapse, enforcement suits may fail, as seen where claims were barred by limitation and
.
In practice:- Banks must initiate foreclosure or sale orders timely.- Failure risks charge cancellation, affecting auction proceeds or validity.
This aligns with the court's role in upholding statutory timelines to prevent stale claims.
The Thameez Nisha decision has overruled prior precedents like , influencing charge enforcement across contexts. For example:
In moneylender cases, demands breaching the create '' under , denying sale orders—now reinforced post-Thameez overruling Jigarlal
. One ruling stated: A licensed moneylender's demand for payment computed in breach of the Moneylenders Act disentitles the moneylender to an of the charged property
.
bars relitigation of merged causes, with limitation from breaches rendering suits unsustainable
.
These cases highlight Thameez Nisha's broader impact: timely, compliant enforcement is paramount, especially for auction-bound properties.
While not all sources directly address auctions, they reinforce that invalid charges (time-barred or non-compliant) taint land interests, mirroring auction risks.
The ruling isn't a blanket invalidation:- Applies only post-limitation expiry without enforcement.- Court's s 340(4)(b) discretion is fact-specific
.- Moneylender breaches add layers but don't override limitation
.
In auctions:- Verify charge dates and defaults via land searches.- Purchasers may challenge post-auction via court if issues surface.
To navigate this:- Land offices/auctioneers: Disclose potential ; verify enforceability.- Chargeholders (banks/lenders): Enforce within limits; compute demands compliantly
.- Buyers: Conduct thorough title checks; consider indemnity.- Courts: Exercise s 340(4)(b) judiciously.
Yes, Thameez Nisha Hasseem v Maybank Allied Bank Berhad generally applies to land office auctions, emphasizing that risk cancellation under NLC, protecting valid titles but urging vigilance.
Key takeaways:- Limitation from default date—act promptly
.- Courts can void unenforceable charges
.- Overrules lax precedents, tightening enforcement
.
Stay informed on evolving land law to secure transactions. For tailored advice, engage legal experts.
References:1. Thameez Nisha Hasseem v Maybank Allied Bank Berhad 2023 4 MLRA 492
.2. Related rulings on limitation and moneylenders
. #MalaysiaLandLaw #PropertyAuction #ChargeLimitation
[See the Federal court case of Thameez Nisha Hasseem v. Maybank Allied Bank Berhad; [2023] 4 MLJ 145; [2023] 5 CLJ 874]. ... [26] However, in a very recent decision by the Federal court in Thameez Nisha Hasseem (As the Administrator of the Estate of Bee Fathima @ dll, Deceased) v. ... May....
[29] The correct legal position has been well settled by the Federal Court in the case of Thameez Nisha Hasseem v. ... Maybank Allied Bank Berhad [2023] 4 MLRA 492; [2023] 4 MLJ 145, where Abang Iskandar FCJ held as follows: "We cannot but agree with the above observation because the 16D notice can never be issued without there being a default in repayment first. .......
[29] The correct legal position has been well settled by the Federal Court in the case of Thameez Nisha Hasseem v. ... Maybank Allied Bank Berhad; [2023] 4 MLJ 145, where Abang Iskandar FCJ held as follows: "We cannot but agree with the above observation because the 16D notice can never be issued without there being a default in repayment first. ... Wan Mohd Wan Ngah....
[39]The Federal Court case of Thameez Nisha Hasseem (as Administrator of the Estate of Bee Fathima @ DLL, deceased v Maybank Allied Bank Berhad section 21(1) [111] We cannot but agree with the above observation because ... [41]Premised on the case of Thameez Nisha Hasseem (supra) the Plaintiff con....
Thameez Nisha Hasseem v. ... Maybank Allied Bank Berhad [2023] 4 MLRA 492; [2023] 4 MLJ 145; [2023] 5 CLJ 874 (FC), it was held- "[32] The LA 1953 is therefore a law of general application, regulating the limitation period for commencing a cause of action - generally at either six or twelve years. ... [18] In the case of Credit Corp (M) Bhd v. ... of ....
However, this principle in Jigarlal Doshi has since been disapproved and overruled by Thameez Nisha Hasseem v. Maybank Allied Bank Berhad [2023] 4 MLRA 492; [2023] 4 MLJ 145; [2023] 5 CLJ 874 (FC) para 111. ... Whilst reference is made to Jigarlal K Doshi in Hap Seng Credit Sdn Bhd, I observed that such reference was made at a time when Thameez #HL_S....
However, this principle in Jigarlal Doshi has since been disapproved and overruled by Thameez Nisha Hasseem v. Maybank Allied Bank Berhad [2023] 4 MLRA 492; [2023] 4 MLJ 145; [2023] 5 CLJ 874 para 111. ... Whilst reference is made to Jigarlal K Doshi in Hap Seng Credit Sdn Bhd, I observed that such reference was made at a time when Thameez Ni....
However, this principle in Jigarlal Doshi has since been disapproved and overruled by Thameez Nisha Hasseem v. Maybank Allied Bank Berhad [2023] 4 MLRA 492; [2023] 4 MLJ 145; [2023] 5 CLJ 874 para 111. ... Whilst reference is made to Jigarlal K Doshi in Hap Seng Credit Sdn Bhd, I observed that such reference was made at a time when Thameez Ni....
There are legal authorities that affirm the barring of suits that breached the time limitation to discourage plaintiffs from sleeping on their actions - Credit Corp (M) Sdn Bhd v. Fong Tak Sin, [1991] 1 MLJ 409; [1991] 1 CLJ Rep 69; [1991] 2 CLJ 871 and Thameez Nisha Hasseem v. ... Maybank Allied Bank Berhad; [2023] 4 MLJ 145; [2023] 5 CLJ 874 [14] This Court also note....
Thameez Nisha Hasseem v. Maybank Allied Bank Berhad [2023] 4 MLRA 492; [2023] 4 MLJ 145, Sivadevi's (supra) case was revisited and the Federal Court held that CIMB Bank Bhd v. Sivadevi Sivalingam [2020] 1 MLRA 95; [2020] 1 MLJ 583; [2020] 2 CLJ 151. ... Pearl Island Resort Development Sdn Bhd [2017] 5 MLRA 382; [2017....
He can only lead evidence as a witness on behalf of the principal and depose the facts within his knowledge, which would be admissible in evidence. Further, the defendant seriously disputed her signature in Ext.3. Pleadings in paragraph-4 of the plaint clearly discloses that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to execute the sale deed and required some time (6 to 8 months) to arrange the money. This view gets support from the decision in the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indu....
From the full text of the said decision, following paragraphs need to reproduced:- "A new contention is advanced by learned advocate for the appellant that Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, is amended by Gujarat Act 7 of 1982, which makes the instruments which purport or operate to effect any contract for transfer of immovable property compulsorily registrable by adding Clause (aa) therein. and others reported in 1987(1) GLH (U.J.) 22, relied on by learned advocate Shri Nanavati is req....
Referring to this aspect, in a recent decision in District Registrar and collector, Hyderabad and another v. Canara Bank etc. Such right can be affected only by fair and reasonable procedure as held in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
The same is the case with the last decision [Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank (supra)] referred to by Mr Nayyar. The points for consideration as noted by the Supreme Court were as under:- “(1) The points for consideration before the Supreme Court clearly show that context of the said decision was entirely different.
8. The preliminary objection raised by the respondent bank with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition against the respondent bank on the count that the same is not an agency or instrumentality of the State is no more res-integra. The question with regard to status of a Land Development Bank came up before this court in the case of Pukh Raj Choudhary v. Pali Zile Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., Pall & Anr. bearing SBCWP No. 3928/2001 decided on 27.11.2002 . In th....
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
