S

SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD

Organisation 12 cases

About SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD

SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD appears as a party in 12 judgments in the MY Case Law database, spanning October 2018 to November 2025. SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD appeared as plaintiff in 5 cases, appellant in 2 cases, defendant in 2 cases. Cases span the High Court (10), Court of Appeal (2).

Case areas include Civil procedure (3 cases), Insolvency (1 cases), Practice and procedure (1 cases).

How many court cases involve SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD?

SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD appears in 12 published judgments from October 2018 to November 2025. Most commonly as plaintiff (5 cases).

In which Malaysian courts has SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD appeared?

SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD has appeared across High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (10 cases) and Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) (2 cases), totaling 12 judgments.

Practice Areas

Civil procedure 3 Estate Agency agreement; registered estate agent; estate agency fee; Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981 (Act 242); Valuers, Appraisers, rule 92(1) of the Estate Agents Rules 1986 (PU(A) 64/1986); effective cause of sale. 2 Bankruptcy 1 Foreclosure Application- The Plaintiff granted several Islamic financing facilities- secured by two legal charges over the same property- The Defendant defaulted in its payment obligations-“cause to the contrary” within the meaning of section 256(3) of the NLC- Whether the Form 16D was duly served- denial of service is not supported by evidence- Whether the Form 16D is invalid for combining multiple facilities-The law does not require the chargee to issue separate notices for each charge where the property charged is the same- Whether the pending Kuala Lumpur action constitutes “cause to the contrary”- foreclosure proceedings are statutory remedies in rem- The pendency of another civil suit does not prevent the chargee from enforcing its security concurrently- the existence of a parallel proceeding is irrelevant- Defendant has not shown any of the limited grounds that would amount to “cause to the contrary” under section 256(3)- Plaintiff has complied with all statutory preconditions under sections 254 to 257 of the NLC- Plaintiff’s application for an Order for Sale of the charged property is allowed. 1 Insolvency 1 Practice and procedure 1 Interlocutory application 1 Issues: a. Whether there are bona fide serious question to be tried?; b. Whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the injunction? c. Whether damages are an adequate remedy?; 1

Applicant (1)

Judgment Creditor (1)

Defendant (2)

Plaintiff (5)

Appellant (2)

Respondent (1)