Preview

Affin Bank Berhad V Precision Tube Prod

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
2572 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Affin Bank Berhad V Precision Tube Prod
Malayan Law Journal Unreported/2010/Volume /Affin Bank Berhad v Precision Tube Product (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd & Ors - [2010] MLJU 119 - 9 February 2010

[2010] MLJU 119

Affin Bank Berhad v Precision Tube Product (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd & Ors

HIGH COURT (JOHOR BAHRU)
VERNON ONG LAM KIAT, JC
GUAMAN NO (MT-1) 22-313-2005
9 February 2010

Sivapakiam Krishnan (H. M. J. Shaharom & K. S. Wee) for the plaintiff

Ng Chew Hor (Ng. Fan & Associates) for the fourth defendant

Vernon Ong Lam Kiat, JC

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
Affin Bank Berhad (the plaintiff) is suing Kumarasamy A/L Nadarajah (the 4th defendant) is on a guarantee for the sum of RM15,550,000.00 together with interests at 3.25% per annum above the Base Lending Rate on monthly rests from 1.2.2005 and costs. At the trial the plaintiff called Zakaria Bin Wan Saleh (PW1) a bank officer; the 4th defendant gave evidence in his own defence.

The facts as disclosed in the evidence
By a letter of offer dated 23.12.1999 the plaintiff granted to Precision Tube Product (M) Sdn Bhd (the 1st defendant) various banking facilities amounting to RM13,960,000.00. The banking facilities were secured by a legal charge over a factory owned by the 1st defendant, a debenture over all assets of the 1st defendant and a guarantee by its 2 directors Jamer Singh (the 2nd defendant) and Tejinder Raj Singh (the 3rd defendant). By a letter of offer dated 28.4.2000 the plaintiff granted to the 1st defendant an additional banking facility of RM1,590,000.00. By a letter of offer dated 29.6.2000 the plaintiff granted to the 1st defendant a further banking facility of RM7,450,000.00. On 23.8.2000 the plaintiff and the 1st defendant entered into a Facility Agreement relating to the aforesaid banking facilities. On 28.8.2003 the plaintiff restructured the various banking facilities granted to the 1st defendant on the security of a supplementary facility agreement which was executed on 2.9.2003. According to the Supplementary Facility Agreement the existing

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    CASE NOTE

    • 2311 Words
    • 8 Pages

    GK v Dovedeen Pty Ltd & Anor (No 3) [2011] QCAT 509 (25 October 2011)…

    • 2311 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    company law

    • 1675 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Issue: the issue about company’s constitution and whether the loan contract between ABC bank and Sambal Pty Ltd is invalid.…

    • 1675 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays
    • 1109 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Best Essays

    According to the given case, Peter is the managing director of the Waterloo Ltd merchant bank. He has intentionally appointed, Allcard, his best friend as a finance manager. Peter and Allcard misused Waterloo’s resources and managed the company’s finance badly. Waterloo is filing a case against Peter and Allcard.…

    • 1907 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    “Nicholas (Chairman of Mora Oil Ventures Lt) v. Magistrate Rambachan & Anor (Trinidad & Tobago) [2009] UKPC 1 (12 January 2009”, Accessed October 9, 2013,…

    • 12515 Words
    • 51 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Cl Summary

    • 560 Words
    • 3 Pages

    References: Law Report Case Study -United Dominions Corporation Ltd Brian Pty Ltd(1985)HCA 49;157 CLR 1(pp4,5,7)…

    • 560 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    In 29 July 1997, plaintiffs know that defendant opposition to build a food court in shopping mall, and intend to establish a “medium and high grade restaurant with comprehensive services”. At that time, plaintiffs already pay a lot of money to decorate the site. They want defendant return the deposit and to make damages, plaintiffs claim that both sides already make agreement from all provision.…

    • 2117 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    1. In consideration of M/s Bodyguard Fitness Equipment Limited residing at Aundh, Pune (hereinafter called the “Creditor”) having agreed to lend Mr. Chulbul Pandey residing at Lavasa, Pune (hereinafter called the “Debtor”) a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only), Mr. Rahul Malhotra residing at Chinchwad, Pune (hereinafter called the “Surety”) at the request of the Debtor hereby undertakes to pay to the Creditor the said amount of Rs 5,00,000/- or any part thereof remaining unpaid in case of default of payment by the Debtor to the Creditor within the time stipulated by him in the separate writing executed by the Debtor - for evidencing the said Debt, in favour of the Creditor. 2. The Surety hereby undertakes to pay the amounts due and payable under this Guarantee without any demur, merely on a demand from the Creditor stating that the amount claimed is due by default of payment by the Debtor. Any such demand made on the Surety shall be conclusive as regards the amount due and payable by the Surety under this Guarantee. However our liability under this Guarantee shall be restricted to an amount not exceeding Rs. 5,00,000/-. 3. The Surety hereby undertakes to pay to the Creditor any money so demanded not-withstanding any dispute(s) raised by the Debtor in any suit or proceeding pending before any court of Tribunal relating there-to the Surety’s liability under this present being absolute and unequivocal. The payment so made by the Surety under this bond shall be valid discharge of his liability for payment there under and the Debtor shall have no claim against the Surety for making such payment. 4. The Surety further agrees that the Guarantee herein contained shall remain in full force and effect during the period that would be taken for the repayment of the said loan and that it shall continue to be enforceable till all the dues of the Creditor have been fully paid and accordingly discharge this Guarantee. Unless a demand of…

    • 521 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Facts: Enrique Lopez, doing business under the trade name of Lopez-Castillo Sawmill, was invited by Vicente Orosa, Jr. to make an investment in the theatre business namely Plaza Theatre Inc. Lopez expressed his unwillingness to invest, however agreed to supply lumber necessary for the construction of the theatre with the assurance that Orosa would be personally liable for any account that the said construction might incur. Lopez was paid only P20, 848.50 instead P62, 255.85 which was the total cost of the materials. Persistent demand from Lopez for the payment of the amount due him caused Orosa to execute an alleged "deed of assignment" of his 420 shares of stock of Plaza Theatre Inc. in favor of the creditor. Lopez filed a complaint with the CFI of Batangas against Orosa and Plaza Theatre Inc. praying that defendants be sentenced to pay him jointly and severally the unpaid balance amounting to P41, 771.35 with legal interest. The lower court held that that defendants Vicente Orosa, Jr., and the Plaza Theatre, Inc., were jointly liable for the unpaid balance of the cost of lumber used in the construction of the building and the plaintiff thus acquired the materialman's lien over the same. Plaintiff tried to secure a modification of the decision in so far as it declared that the obligation of therein defendants was joint instead of solidary, and that the lien did not extend to the land, but same was denied by order the court.…

    • 510 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The defendant is the business adviser of the plaintiff, Marciana Canon and about the same time, Felisa Nepomuceno, the other plaintiff, had an unsecured debt due her of 500 pesos from one Marcelo Leaño. The debtor proposed to give her a deed of conditional sale to a certain tract of land in consideration of 2,000 pesos, she to be credited with 500 pesos on the purchase price and that to advance the balance of 1,500 pesos; that knowing that the defendant had in his hands that amount of money, the property of her co-plaintiff, Marciana Canon, she proposed that they make a joint investment in the land. A Deed of Conditional Sale was executed with a right to repurchase at the end of 1yr and obligating himself to make monthly payments in consideration of the right to retain the land in possession in sufficient amount to bring 17% interest per annum on Nepomuceno and Canon’s investments.…

    • 292 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Risk and Materiality Notes

    • 1632 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Discuss the legal implications and liabilities to Hamid, Krishnan & Co. as a result of the facts just described.…

    • 1632 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    5.---(1)'' As ftom the lst dayofJanuary, 1958, native customary rights may be createdin accordance with the native customarylaw of the cornmurity or conmunities concemedby any of the methods specilied subsection ifa permitis obtained in (2), urde! section10, upon Intgrio! Ar€a Land. Saveas aforesaid, without Fejudice to but the provisions hereinaftercontainedirt respectof Native Communal Reserves rights ofway, no recognitionshall be givento anymtive and customary rightsoverany landin Sarawak created afterthe lst dayof January, 1958,and if the land is Statelandany person occupation in thereofshall deemed be in unlawfuloccupation State be to of landand section shallapplythereto. 209 The methods by which native customaryrights may be At acquiredare(a) the felling of virgin jungle and the occupation the of land ahereby cleared; (b) the plantingof land with fruit trees; (c) the occupation cultivation or ofland; (d) (, the useof landfor a burial groundor shrine; any other la\{ul method: (i) until a docunentof title has beenissuedin respectthereof, such land shall coriti[ue to be Stateland and any native lawfully in occupation thereof shall be deemed hoid by liceoce to from the Government shall and not b€ .equired to pay any rent in respcctthereof unless anduntil a document ofiitle is issued him; aid to (ii) the questionwhethq any such dght has beed acquired hasbeenlost or extidguished or shall,sd[e''inso far as this Code makescontraryprovision, be determiried by the law in force immediately prior to the lst day of January, 1958. (e) the useofland ofany class foirights ofway; or Provided that-…

    • 846 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Credit App

    • 980 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Whereas pursuant to the legal/demand notices dated_____________and ______________served on us by the Cent Bank Home Finance Limited, the company has informed us about its intention to institute civil suit/action under Securitisation and…

    • 980 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The first circumstances where the aggrieved person can say that the chargee fails to meet the conditions to seek the order for sale is when the statutory notice of demand served was defective or improper. The notice can be said to be defective when the chargee included default interest which was more than the prescribed interest. In the case of Co-operative Central Bank Ltd v Meng Kuang Properties1, the 'existence of cause to the contrary' revolves around the validity or otherwise of the notice of demand sent by the solicitors of the plaintiff bank on 9 January 1988 and the subsequent statutory notice in Form 16D sent by the same party on 19 January 1988. The attacks mounted by the defendant company against the validity of the said notice of demand and the statutory notice in Form 16D are basically that (i) the sum mentioned in both the notices exceeds the actual sum owed and payable by the borrower and (ii) the plaintiff bank has not established their entitlement to default interest. In this case, the court held that the wrongful demand for payment of the default interest to which the plaintiff bank is not entitled must necessarily render the notice of demand and the Form 16D ineffectual and invalid. The notices were defective because the plaintiff demanded payment of something which the plaintiff had no right. Therefore, the plaintiff bank was not prima facie entitled to the remedies sought by them. Other than that, in the case of Multi Purpose Bank Bhd v Maimoon bt Abdul Razak2, the defendant contended that the plaintiff had without the consent from the defendant, adopted a new method of computing interest (from'1.75% above the prevailing base lending rate' to the…

    • 1335 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Multimedia Law

    • 2710 Words
    • 18 Pages

    015e.fm Page 1 Monday, March 27, 2006 11:41 AM LAWS OF MALAYSIA REPRINT Act 15 SEDITION ACT 1948 Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006 PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LAW REVISION , MALAYSIA UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE REVISION OF LAWS ACT 1968 IN COLLABORATION WITH MALAYAN LAW JOURNAL SDN BHD AND PERCETAKAN NASIONAL MALAYSIA BHD 2006 015e.fm Page 2 Monday, March 27, 2006 11:41 AM 2 SEDITION ACT 1948 First enacted … … … … … … 1948 (Ordinance No. 14 of 1948) Revised … … … … … 1969 (Act 15 w.e.f.…

    • 2710 Words
    • 18 Pages
    Powerful Essays