L
Lok Peng Chuan)
Person 1 case
Lok Peng Chuan) appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:
cb-22ncc-8-09-2025
1. ) TAN SRI DATO PHENG YIN HUAH 2. ) DATO PHENG CHIN KIAT v 1. ) LOK PENG CHUAN (Disaman dalam kapasiti sebagai Penerima dan Pengurus Mentakab Star Mall Sdn Bhd (Dalam Penerimaan)) 2. ) JASMIN BEGUM BINTI JAFFAR KHAN (Disaman dalam kapasiti sebagai Penerima dan Pengurus Mentakab Star Mall Sdn Bhd (Dalam Penerimaan)) 3. ) UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (MALAYSIA) BHD 4. ) MENTAKAB MALL SDN BHD (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai TYS Land & Development Sdn Bhd)
MYHC 30 November 2025
See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.
About Lok Peng Chuan)
Lok Peng Chuan) appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning November 2025 to November 2025. Lok Peng Chuan) appeared as defendant in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).
How many court cases involve Lok Peng Chuan)?
Lok Peng Chuan) appears in 1 published judgment from November 2025 to November 2025. Most commonly as defendant (1 cases).
Practice Areas
The Plaintiffs were directors and shareholders of Mentakab Star Mall Sdn Bhd (“MSMSB”) and personal guarantors of banking facilities granted by United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Bhd (“UOB”). MSMSB defaulted, and receivers and managers were appointed pursuant to a debenture securing a commercial property known as Mentakab Star Mall (“the Mall”). After several failed attempts to dispose of the Mall, the receivers entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement with the 4th Defendant for RM33 million. 1 Contending that the sale price was grossly undervalued compared with earlier valuations, the Plaintiffs commenced proceedings seeking, inter alia, to restrain completion of the sale pending trial. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was initially granted. The receivers and the purchaser applied to set aside the injunction. 1 The Plaintiffs argued that there were serious issues to be tried regarding breach of duty by the receivers, that damages were inadequate, that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo, and that they could provide an undertaking as to damages. 1 The Defendants contended that the receivers acted within their contractual powers, that the Plaintiffs lacked locus standi, that any loss was purely monetary, that the transaction was substantially completed, and that the Plaintiffs had failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts, including prior proceedings involving the same subject matter. 1 Held, dismissing the application for interim injunction and setting aside the ex-parte and ad-interim orders, with costs: 1 (1) The Plaintiffs failed to establish any bona fide serious issue to be tried. Clause 11.4.4 of the debenture conferred absolute discretion on the receivers to deal with and dispose of the charged asset. The evidence showed multiple prior unsuccessful sale attempts and that the RM33 million price reflected the highest offer available and aligned with a contemporaneous valuation. 1 (2) The Plaintiffs’ alleged loss was purely financial and quantifiable. The Statement of Claim itself pleaded damages based on the alleged difference between market value and sale price, amounting to an admission that damages were an adequate remedy. Accordingly, the second limb of the American Cyanamid test was not satisfied. 1 (3) The balance of convenience favoured the Defendants. The SPA had been completed, substantial consideration paid, possession delivered, and commercial and financing arrangements put in place. Granting an injunction would disrupt a concluded commercial transaction and cause significant prejudice to an innocent purchaser, whereas the Plaintiffs’ prejudice was limited to a monetary claim. 1