DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR
(BAHAGIAN SIVIL)
GUAMAN NO: D-22NCC-1490-2010
ANTARA
NL PROPERTIES SDN BHD (379217 – K)
(di bawah Penerimaan )
DAN
AMBANK (M) BERHAD (8515)
Grounds of Decision
Azizah Nawawi, JC:
...
...
PLAINTIF
DEFENDANT
The Application
[1] On 27.6.2013, the Plaintiff had filed an application to amend their
Statement of Claim, inter alia, to include the following paragraph:
“17.3 Mengikut rekod Defendan tersebut dalam bentuk dokumentasi surat-menyurat yang berkaitan, di antara Defendan dengan penerima dan pengurus tersebut dan/atau dengan pihak-pihak lain yang terlibat (termasuk peguamcara S.S.L Associates Sdn
Bhd tersebut), Defendan tersebut juga telah mengeluarkan arahan tertentu dalam hal penjualan hartanahhartanah Plaintif tersebut.”
1

[2] The grounds of the application are as follows:
“(a) Permohonan ini dibuat untuk meminda Pernyataan
Tuntutan Plaintiff atas sebab keterangan yang disimpan oleh Defendan kini dikemukakan semasa perbicaraan menunjukkan terdapat penglibatan yang nyata oleh Defendan yang telah memberikan arahan dalam hal jual-beli hartanah Plaintif berkenaan dengan perjanjian jual beli bertarikh
3.11.2006.
(b) Permohonan pindaan ini dibuat untuk menambahkan butiran hal pemberian arahan oleh
Defendan dalam transaksi jual beli tersebut dan yang adalah perkara yang defendan, dan oleh itu, ia tidak boleh membawa apa-apa prejudis kepada
Defendan.”
[3] Having heard the submission of the parties, I have allowed the application for amendment with cost. The Defendant had since filed a Notice of Appeal against the said decision.
The Salient Facts
[4] In this suit, the Plaintiff is seeking the following declaratory orders:
(i) ‘ satu deklarasi bahawa Defendan telah bertindak secara salah terhadap Plaintif disisi undang-undang.
2

(ii) ‘gantirugi untuk dibayar oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif sebagaimana yang ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah.
[5] The Plaintiff is a construction company and had secured several financial facilities from the Defendant Bank, including a term loan of RM10,000,000.00. In return, the Plaintiff had executed two
(2) debentures in favour of the Defendant.
[6] When the Plaintiff failed to make the scheduled payments under the facilities, the Defendant had issued a demand letter to recover the sum owing under the facilities. The Plaintiff was subsequently placed under receivership and the Defendant took steps to recover the amount owing. The actions of the Defendant include the selling of the charged property to S.S.L Associates Sdn Bhd by the Receiver and the Manager.
[7] The Plaintiff filed this suit against the Defendant, inter alia, on the basis that during the recovery process, the Defendant has a legal and/or equitable duty not to act in any manner that would jeopardize the Plaintiff, bring loss to him or bring loss to the
Plaintiff’s land in such a manner which would cause the Plaintiff to lose any benefit from the land or the actual value of the land.
The Plaintiff further pleads that the Defendant has a duty to ensure that the Plaintiff’s lands are not sold at an inappropriate and unreasonable price. The Plaintiff pleads that because of the
Defendant’s breach of its contractual and/or legal obligations, the
Plaintiff has suffered damages, including the housing project and the Plaintiff’s lands, and loss arising from placing the Plaintiff in a receivership and the appointment of the Receiver and Manager.
3

The Findings of the Court
[8] The guiding principle which is applicable in determining the application for amendment was laid down in the Yamaha Motor
Co Ltd v Yamaha Malaysia Sdn Bhd & Ors [1983]1 MLJ 213.
The Federal Court held that the guiding principles to consider whether injustice would or would not result lies in the following questions:
(i) whether the application was bona fide;
(ii) whether the prejudice caused to the other side can be compensated by costs; and
(iii) whether the amendments would not in effect turn the suit from one into a suit of another and inconsistent character.
[9] It is the submission of the Defendant that the Plaintiff’s case is premised on three (3) main issues:
(i) the Receivership;
(ii) Claim by WASAL; and
(iii) Sale of land to SSL Associates.
[10] Learned Counsel for the Defendant submitted that the amendment sought goes beyond the pleaded case on the
Plaintiff. The amendment sought is seeking to introduce on how the Receivership was conducted and on matters subsequent to
4

the sale of the lands to SSL Associates. These evidences are elicited during cross examination which was objected to by the
Defendant on the basis that they are not part of the pleaded case.
The Defendant further submits that the Plaintiff is seeking evidence through the defence case, when the same was not part of the Plaintiff pleaded case.
[11] However, having considered the submissions of the parties I am of the considered opinion that the re is merit in the Plaintiff’s application. When we look at paragraph 17, it is on the Plaintiff’s objection to the appointment of the Receiver and the Manager and that “penerima dan pengurus tersebut telah terus menerima arahan Defendan tersebut untuk meneruskan dengan penjualan hartanah-hartanah Plaintif yang berada di dalam proses dan kuasa penerimaan syarikat Plaintif.”
[12] It is the Plaintiff’s case they are questioning the conduct on the sale of the properties, which was concluded by the Receiver and
Manager, acting on the directions of the Defendant. In paragraph
17.1, the Plaintiff refers to the sale of 130 lots to SSL Associates for RM2.5 million. The Plaintiff submits that it does not have any copy of the Sale and Purchase Agreement or any other documents on the matter. Hence, the proposed amendment to paragraph 17.3 is to secure the productions of the documents relating to the sale of the charged lots, which are not within the knowledge of the Plaintiff, but are definitely within the knowledge of the Defendant, as the Receiver and Manager are said to be acting on the directions of the Defendant.
5

[13] As such, I do not find that the amendment will turn the suit to a different and inconsistent character. In any event, in paragraph
30 of the Statement of Defence, it is pleaded that:
“30. Perenggan-perenggan 24 dan 25 Pernyataan
Tuntutan dinafikan. Pada semua masa material,
Defendan berhak menguatkuasa haknya di bawah
Debentur bertarikh 9.4.2001. Sehubungan itu, tanahtanah yang dicagarkan di bawah Debentur bertarikh
9.4.2001 telah dijualkan oleh Penerima-penerima dan
Pengurus-pengurus setelah langkah wajar diambil oleh mereka .” (emphasis added)
[14] Therefore the issue on the actions taken by the Receiver and the
Manager has already been pleaded by the Defendant and this will include all actions taken under the Debentures. As such, it cannot be said that the proposed amendment is on a new matter which only come as a surprise during the trial.
[15] In the premise, I had allowed the Plaintiff’s application to amend the Statement of Claim.
(AZIZAH HAJI NAWAWI)
JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER
HIGH COURT
(Commercial Division)
KUALA LUMPUR
Dated: 29th November 2013
6

For the Plaintiff : Amarjeet Singh/SP Chandra
Messrs SP Chandra
For the Defendant : Andrew Chew/Kenny Ang
Messrs Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill
7