MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD v SARASWATHI A/P NADARAJAN

pa-24mfc-130-04-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 18 September 2025 • PA-24MFC-130-04/2025

Catchwords

Application for order for sale under s.256(3) of the National Land Code (NLC) by chargee bank – chargor applied to strike out the same under Order 18 rule 9 and Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 - court under a duty to grant order for sale unless “cause to the contrary” shown - cogent explanations given by chargee bank to justify differences between the amounts shown in the statement of accounts by chargee bank as opposed to the on-line bank statements of chargor - valuation report of property not required under Order 83 Rule 3(2) - any subsequent payments by chargor that do not cover the defaulted amount and / or the accrued interest is not a basis to say the statements of account inaccurate or that there is a cause to the contrary – in the absence of manifest error, statements of accounts are conclusive evidence of the indebtedness of the chargor to charge bank by virtue of Clause 7.18 of the Charge Annexure – allegation of breach of contract by chargee (while it may give rise to an independent action in personam) is insufficient per se to defeat the ad rem rights of a chargee under his registered charge to an order for sale

Practice Areas

Application for order for sale under s.256(3) of the National Land Code (NLC) by chargee bank

Judges (1)

Wendy Ooi Su Ghee Delivered

Parties (2)

MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD Applicant Saraswathi a/p Nadarajan Respondent

Case Significance

MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD v SARASWATHI A/P NADARAJAN is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated September 18, 2025 (citation: pa-24mfc-130-04-2025). The case was decided by Wendy Ooi Su Ghee.

What was the outcome of MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD v SARASWATHI A/P NADARAJAN?

MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD v SARASWATHI A/P NADARAJAN is a High Court decision dated September 18, 2025. The case was heard by Wendy Ooi Su Ghee. See the full judgment for details.