BANK ISLAM MALAYSIA BERHAD v QUANTUM MAJESTY SDN. BHD.

ka-38-14-01-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 9 December 2025 • KA-38-14-01/2025 • 19 min read
5 cases cited (0 SG, 5 foreign)

Catchwords

LAND LAW: Foreclosure – Order for Sale – Application to fix reserve price – Appeal against Senior Assistant Registrar – Valuation of land – Conflicting valuation reports – Valuation prepared for ‘Financing’ vs ‘Auction’ purposes – Reliance on cancelled Development Order – Whether valuation fundamentally flawed – National Land Code, s 257 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Execution – Appeal – Reserve price – Failure to object to previous reserve price – Acquiescence – Statutory reduction of reserve price – Whether defendant estopped from disputing lower reserve price after failing to object to higher price in previous abortive auction – National Land Code, s 259(2)(c) CIVIL PROCEDURE: Res judicata – Constructive res judicata – Abuse of process – Attempt to reopen substantive issues at execution stage – Validity of Form 16D and Shariah compliance of debt – Whether issues ought to have been raised during Originating Summons – Distinction between judgment debt and order for sale – Application of Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v Kawal Teliti Sdn Bhd – Kandiah Peter v Public Bank Bhd distinguished

Practice Areas

LAND LAW: Foreclosure

Judges (1)

John Lee Kien How @ Mohammad Johan Lee Delivered

Counsel (6)

Ahmad Farid & Associates Firm Sidek Teoh Wong & Dennis Firm Ahmad Farid Counsel Defendant Farah Sakinah Binti Paridul Adras Counsel Plaintiff Kamal Hisham Counsel Defendant Nur Aini Binti Yaakob Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (2)

BANK ISLAM MALAYSIA BERHAD Plaintiff QUANTUM MAJESTY Sdn Bhd Defendant

Case Significance

BANK ISLAM MALAYSIA BERHAD v QUANTUM MAJESTY SDN. BHD. is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated December 9, 2025 (citation: ka-38-14-01-2025). <p>Bank Islam sought to fix a fourth auction date for foreclosed land with a reduced reserve price of RM24,057,000 after three unsuccessful auctions. The defendant hotel company objected, arguing the valuation was flawed and raising Shariah compliance issues. The court dismissed the defendant's appeal, finding the objections amounted to an impermissible attempt to relitigate substantive issues at the execution stage (constructive res judicata) and the statutory reserve price reduction process wa The case was decided by John Lee Kien How @ Mohammad Johan Lee. Counsel appearing: Ahmad Farid (counsel for defendant), Farah Sakinah Binti Paridul Adras (counsel for plaintiff), Kamal Hisham (counsel for defendant), Nur Aini Binti Yaakob (counsel for plaintiff).

Summary

Bank Islam sought to fix a fourth auction date for foreclosed land with a reduced reserve price of RM24,057,000 after three unsuccessful auctions. The defendant hotel company objected, arguing the valuation was flawed and raising Shariah compliance issues. The court dismissed the defendant's appeal, finding the objections amounted to an impermissible attempt to relitigate substantive issues at the execution stage (constructive res judicata) and the statutory reserve price reduction process was properly followed.

What was the outcome of BANK ISLAM MALAYSIA BERHAD v QUANTUM MAJESTY SDN. BHD.?

<p>Bank Islam sought to fix a fourth auction date for foreclosed land with a reduced reserve price of RM24,057,000 after three unsuccessful auctions. ...

Statutes Cited

Central Bank of Malaysia Act 2009
s 56
National Land Code (Cap 828)

Cases Cited (5)

MY (5)
[1994] 1 MLJ 119 [1995] 3 CLJ 783 [2014] 11 MLJ 793 [2020] MLJU 1226 [2025] 10 MLJ 310