S
Sheela a/p George
Person 1 case
Sheela a/p George appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:
ba-22ncvc-529-12-2024
SHEELA A/P GEORGE v 1. ) RADZALI BIN AHMAD KOLDI 2. ) MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD
MYHC 2 July 2025
See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.
About Sheela a/p George
Sheela a/p George appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning July 2025 to July 2025. Sheela a/p George appeared as plaintiff in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).
How many court cases involve Sheela a/p George?
Sheela a/p George appears in 1 published judgment from July 2025 to July 2025. Most commonly as plaintiff (1 cases).
Practice Areas
The Plaintiff, who is the administratrix of her late father’s estate, has a valid grievance in commencing the present action. The Plaintiff’s late father, through a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 2 March, 2000 bought a house from the 1st Defendant for the sum of RM92,000.00. 1 To partially finance the purchase, the Plaintiff’s late father obtained a loan from the 2nd Defendant in the sum of RM25,000.00, with an additional RM463.00 imposed for takaful charges. The agreed repayment period was 15 years, with monthly instalments of RM245.00. By a letter dated 4 May 2018, the 2nd Defendant informed the Plaintiff’s late father that the loan had been fully settled and invited him to meet with the bank to discuss the release of the original title to the house. 1 To date, the title remained in the name of the vendor, namely the 1st Defendant, prompting the Plaintiff to commence the present action in seeking for the title of the house to be registered in the Plaintiff’s name. The Plaintiff has named two Defendants, Radzali bin Ahmad Koldi (the vendor) and Maybank Islamic Berhad (the lender) as the 1st and 2nd Defendants respectively. 1 This decision concerns a Notice of Application in Enclosure 12, that is, the 2nd Defendant’s application for the Plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim against it to be struck out pursuant to Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012. 1 The predominant issue is whether this is a proper case for this Court to exercise it discretion to strike out the Plaintiff Amended Statement of Claim against the 2nd Defendant. 1