M

MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

Organisation 18 cases

About MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD appears as a party in 18 judgments in the MY Case Law database, spanning July 2017 to December 2025. MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD appeared as appellant in 3 cases, judgment creditor in 3 cases, plaintiff in 3 cases. Cases span the High Court (14), Federal Court (3), Court of Appeal (1).

Case areas include UCP-600 (1 cases), Companies (1 cases), Administrative Law (1 cases).

How many court cases involve MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD?

MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD appears in 18 published judgments from July 2017 to December 2025. Most commonly as appellant (3 cases).

In which Malaysian courts has MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD appeared?

MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD has appeared across High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (14 cases) and Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) (3 cases) and Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) (1 cases), totaling 18 judgments.

Practice Areas

1. Bank's duty: investigate illegality in SPA. 2. Bona fide qualification under S.340(3) NLC. 3. Bank's due diligence: prior transactions. 4. Burden of proof: valuable consideration, subsequent purchasers. 5. Conflicting good faith decisions: S.340(3) NLC. 1 UCP-600 1 Companies 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Discovery of Documents- documents sought are relevant and necessary- whether the Plaintiff has exhausted or made proper attempts to obtain the documents- abuse of process or a fishing expedition- bank-customer confidentiality- public interest considerations- discovery and banking rules into prospective-Order 24 of the Rules of Court 2012 (RC 2012)-Delay and conduct of the Plaintiff for non-enforcement or lack of active monitoring of company affairs. 1 Winding Up Petition 1 Judgment Creditor’s appeal against the decision of the learned Senior Assistant Registrar- struck out the Bankruptcy Notice- Judgment Debtor had also filed an application to set aside the said BN- the learned SAR erred in striking out the BN 1 The Applicant is a Judgment Creditor, having secured a judgment against the Respondent in 2023, thereby rendering the Defendant a Judgment Debtor. To enforce the said judgment, the Judgment Creditor initiated garnishee proceedings against the Judgment Debtor’s accounts in 18 banks, pursuant to Order 49 of the Rules of Court 2012. However, these efforts proved futile when the High Court at Shah Alam, in Suit BA-37G-104-07/2024 (“Suit 104”), declined to grant the garnishee order absolute sought by the Plaintiff. The present dispute specifically concerns the Judgment Creditor and the Sixth Garnishee. Having successfully resisted the Judgment Creditor’s application for a garnishee order absolute before the Shah Alam High Court in Suit 104, the Sixth Garnishee now faces a fresh challenge 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal against decision of the SAR- stay of the garnishee proceedings- Interim Maintenance Order- Variation Application at the Family Court- relevant test for a stay of proceedings- any special circumstances- rare and compelling circumstances-Child’s welfare is off paramount importance-possibility of duplicity of action leading to unnecessary possibility of differing judgments by High Courts of concurrent jurisdiction- withdrawing funds at present might interfere with future variation arrangements. 1

Defendant (2)

Garnishee (2)

Petitioner (1)

Judgment Creditor (3)

Respondent (1)

Intervener (2)

Aggrieved Party (1)

Plaintiff (3)

Appellant (3)