SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD v GAIA PLAS SDN. BHD.

ba-24mfc-477-04-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 10 November 2025 • BA-24MFC-477-04/2025

Catchwords

Foreclosure Application- The Plaintiff granted several Islamic financing facilities- secured by two legal charges over the same property- The Defendant defaulted in its payment obligations-“cause to the contrary” within the meaning of section 256(3) of the NLC- Whether the Form 16D was duly served- denial of service is not supported by evidence- Whether the Form 16D is invalid for combining multiple facilities-The law does not require the chargee to issue separate notices for each charge where the property charged is the same- Whether the pending Kuala Lumpur action constitutes “cause to the contrary”- foreclosure proceedings are statutory remedies in rem- The pendency of another civil suit does not prevent the chargee from enforcing its security concurrently- the existence of a parallel proceeding is irrelevant- Defendant has not shown any of the limited grounds that would amount to “cause to the contrary” under section 256(3)- Plaintiff has complied with all statutory preconditions under sections 254 to 257 of the NLC- Plaintiff’s application for an Order for Sale of the charged property is allowed.

Practice Areas

Foreclosure Application- The Plaintiff granted several Islamic financing facilities- secured by two legal charges over the same property- The Defendant defaulted in its payment obligations-“cause to the contrary” within the meaning of section 256(3) of the NLC- Whether the Form 16D was duly served- denial of service is not supported by evidence- Whether the Form 16D is invalid for combining multiple facilities-The law does not require the chargee to issue separate notices for each charge where the property charged is the same- Whether the pending Kuala Lumpur action constitutes “cause to the contrary”- foreclosure proceedings are statutory remedies in rem- The pendency of another civil suit does not prevent the chargee from enforcing its security concurrently- the existence of a parallel proceeding is irrelevant- Defendant has not shown any of the limited grounds that would amount to “cause to the contrary” under section 256(3)- Plaintiff has complied with all statutory preconditions under sections 254 to 257 of the NLC- Plaintiff’s application for an Order for Sale of the charged property is allowed.

Judges (1)

Raja Rozela binti Raja Toran Delivered

Parties (2)

GAIA PLAS Sdn Bhd Respondent SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD Applicant

Case Significance

SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD v GAIA PLAS SDN. BHD. is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated November 10, 2025 (citation: ba-24mfc-477-04-2025). The case was decided by Raja Rozela binti Raja Toran.

What was the outcome of SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD v GAIA PLAS SDN. BHD.?

SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD v GAIA PLAS SDN. BHD. is a High Court decision dated November 10, 2025. The case was heard by Raja Rozela binti Raja Toran. See the full judgment for details.