551. D5-22-1648-2005

Document Sample
551. D5-22-1648-2005 Powered By Docstoc
					                                            1                        D5-22-1648-2005


                                MALAYSIA
                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT KUALA LUMPUR
                         (COMMERCIAL DIVISION)
                          SUIT NO. D5-22-1648-2005
 5
                                       Between

     1.    ASEAMBANKERS MALAYSIA BERHAD
     2.    RHB BANK BERHAD
10   3.    AMBANK (M) BERHAD [dahulunya dikenali
           sebagai AmFinance Berhad, yang menerima
           segala asset, hak dan liabiliti serta perniagaan
           AmBank Berhad menurut Perintah Mahkamah
           bertarikh 18.05.2005]
15   4.    DBS BANK LTD, CAWANGAN LABUAN
           [dahulunya dikenali sebagai The Development
           Bank of Singapore Limited (Cawangan Labuan)]
     5.    ALLIANCE MERCHANT BANK BERHAD
     6.    MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD [yang menerima
20         pindahmilik keseluruhan asset dan liabiliti Mayban
           Finance Berhad yang telah diletak-hak menurut
           Perintah Mahkamah bertarikh 17.08.2004]
     7.    MALAYSIAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
           FINANCE BERHAD
25   8.    SOUTHERN BANK BERHAD
     9.    AFFIN BANK BERHAD                                … PLAINTIFFS
                                            And
     1.    GULA PERAK BERHAD
     2.    LIM SUE BENG                                     … DEFENDANTS
30
                   BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDGE
          Y.A. DATUK DR. HAJI HAMID SULTAN BIN ABU BACKER

                                                                 IN CHAMBERS

35                                   JUDGMENT

     1.   This is my judgment in respect of the 1st defendant’s application
          seeking a stay of execution of the judgment dated 29.10.2010 pending
          the disposal of the 1st defendant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal.
                                              2                         D5-22-1648-2005


     2.   The plaintiffs/ respondents object to the application on the grounds
          there are no special circumstances to warrant the stay, as advocated in
          the case of Kosma Palm Oi Mill Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Koperasi
          Serbausaha Makmur Bhd [2003] 4 CLJ 1.
 5   3.   I have dealt with the jurisprudence relating to stay in the case of KMA
          Marketing Sdn Bhd v. MBF Leasing Sdn Bhd; Kiong Huat Transport &
          Engineering Construction & Anor (Third Parties) [2008] 3 CLJ 66. I
          do not wish to repeat the same. I agree with the plaintiffs’ argument that
          on the facts of the case the 1st defendant’s application must be
10        dismissed. In addition I will say that I have given my full grounds for
          the judgment which the 1st defendant is seeking a stay. It will be
          appropriate for the 1st defendant to move the Court of Appeal under
          section44 of CJA 1964 to seek a stay.
     4.   For reasons stated above, I dismiss the 1 st defendant’s application for
15        stay with costs of RM 5,000.00.
     5.   The plaintiffs to pay the allocatur fees before extracting the order for
          costs. The order for costs can be extracted as a separate order. The
          deputy registrar to issue the certificate relating to allocatur.
     I hereby order so.
20



           (Y.A. DATUK DR. HAJI HAMID SULTAN BIN ABU BACKER)
                                   Judge
                                 High Court
25                              Kuala Lumpur

     Date: 23rd February 2011

30
                                         3                   D5-22-1648-2005


     For Plaintiff:
                   Lua Ai Siew,
                   Messrs. Soo Thien Ming & Nashrah.
                   Kuala Lumpur
 5
     For 1st Defendant:
                  Dato’ B.S.Sidhu (Sharon Sidhu with him),
                  Messrs. B.S.Sidhu & Co.
                  Selangor.
10

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:2
posted:8/26/2012
language:Unknown
pages:3