GOLDEN ROCK SDN BHD v MAYBAN FINANCE BERHAD

j-02ncvcw-855-05-2022 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 9 January 2025 • J-02(NCvC)(W)-855-05/2022 • 13 min read

1 cases cited (0 SG, 1 foreign)

Catchwords

Land charged to the Bank – 3rd party chargor for a revolving credit facility granted to a borrower – borrower defaulted the credit facility – foreclosure action taken - order for sale granted – borrower liquidated – issue raised was whether Form 75 which did not state the indebtedness of the borrower and that there was a surplus of money in the said account therefore the chargor owes no liability to the Bank.

Practice Areas

Land charged to the Bank

Judges (3)

Choo Kah Sing Delivered Faizah binti Jamaludin Coram Mariana binti Haji Yahya Coram

Counsel (7)

Gunaseelan & Associates Firm Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill Firm Hoi Jack S'ng Counsel Respondent Keshvinjeet Singh Counsel Appellant Kumaradevan Rajadevan Counsel Appellant T. Gunaseelan Counsel Appellant Tiffany Low Jia Qi Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

GOLDEN ROCK Sdn Bhd Appellant MAYBAN FINANCE BERHAD Respondent

Case Significance

GOLDEN ROCK SDN BHD v MAYBAN FINANCE BERHAD is a Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) decision dated January 9, 2025 (citation: j-02ncvcw-855-05-2022). <p>Golden Rock Sdn Bhd, a third-party chargor, challenged a foreclosure order on its properties charged to Mayban Finance Berhad for a revolving credit facility after the borrower was wound up. The key issue was whether a surplus in the liquidators' Form 75 meant the borrower no longer owed the bank. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Form 75 did not reflect the complete financial position and the trial judge correctly found the chargor's interpretation was misconceived.</p> The panel comprised Choo Kah Sing, Faizah binti Jamaludin and Mariana binti Haji Yahya, with Choo Kah Sing delivering the judgment. Counsel appearing: Hoi Jack S'ng (counsel for respondent), Keshvinjeet Singh (counsel for appellant), Kumaradevan Rajadevan (counsel for appellant), T. Gunaseelan (counsel for appellant), Tiffany Low Jia Qi (counsel for respondent).

Summary

Golden Rock Sdn Bhd, a third-party chargor, challenged a foreclosure order on its properties charged to Mayban Finance Berhad for a revolving credit facility after the borrower was wound up. The key issue was whether a surplus in the liquidators' Form 75 meant the borrower no longer owed the bank. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Form 75 did not reflect the complete financial position and the trial judge correctly found the chargor's interpretation was misconceived.

What was the outcome of GOLDEN ROCK SDN BHD v MAYBAN FINANCE BERHAD?

<p>Golden Rock Sdn Bhd, a third-party chargor, challenged a foreclosure order on its properties charged to Mayban Finance Berhad for a revolving credi...

Statutes Cited

Companies Act 2016 (Cap 777)

Cases Cited (1)

MY (1)

[2006] 2 MLJ 685