UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (MALAYSIA) BHD. v SATHIYATHAI A/P GOVINDASAMY

wa-24fc-891-12-2022 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 24 June 2025 • WA-24FC-891-12/2022

Catchwords

Application to set aside order for sale order. Foreclosure proceedings. Cause to the contrary. The defendant applied to set aside an order for sale granted under sections 256 and 257 of the National Land Code 1965, alleging procedural irregularities, defective service of notices and prejudice from the plaintiff’s handling of an insurance claim. The court held that the originating summons was validly constituted, statutory notices were properly served and the insurance claim dispute amounted only to a contractual issue outside the narrow scope of section 256(3) of the National Land Code 1965. The application was dismissed with costs.

Practice Areas

Application to set aside order for sale order. Foreclosure proceedings. Cause to the contrary. The defendant applied to set aside an order for sale granted under sections 256 and 257 of the National Land Code 1965, alleging procedural irregularities, defective service of notices and prejudice from the plaintiff’s handling of an insurance claim. The court held that the originating summons was validly constituted, statutory notices were properly served and the insurance claim dispute amounted only to a contractual issue outside the narrow scope of section 256(3) of the National Land Code 1965. The application was dismissed with costs.

Judges (1)

Ahmad Shahrir b. Mohd Salleh Delivered

Parties (2)

UNITED OVERSEAS BANK BHD Applicant Sathiyathai a/p Govindasamy Respondent

Case Significance

UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (MALAYSIA) BHD. v SATHIYATHAI A/P GOVINDASAMY is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated June 24, 2025 (citation: wa-24fc-891-12-2022). The case was decided by Ahmad Shahrir b. Mohd Salleh.

What was the outcome of UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (MALAYSIA) BHD. v SATHIYATHAI A/P GOVINDASAMY?

UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (MALAYSIA) BHD. v SATHIYATHAI A/P GOVINDASAMY is a High Court decision dated June 24, 2025. The case was heard by Ahmad Shahrir b. Mohd Salleh. See the full judgment for details.