Maybank Finance Berhad V Aquarion Film Technologies Sdn Bhd Dan 3 Lagi

  

Download PDF Here

MALAYSIA

 

IN THE HIGH COURT IN KUALA LUMPUR COMMERCIAL TRIAL NO. D2-22-2036-1998

 

Between

 

MAYBANK FINANCE BERHAD … PLAINTIFF

 

And

 

AQUARION FILM TECHNOLOGIES … DEFENDANT

 

SDN BHD & 3 LAGI

 

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER Y.A. DR. HAJI HAMID SULTAN BIN ABU BACKER

 

IN OPEN COURT

 

JUDGMENT

 

This is my judgement in respect of the plaintiff’s claim against the 4th defendant, as personal guarantor in respect of Hire Purchase Agreement and the defendant’s counterclaim for breach of the said Hire Purchase Agreement. This matter was part heard before another judge and parties have agreed to the matter continuing before and pronouncement of the judgment by me. Parties have agreed that in

 

1

 

respect of the counterclaim it is sufficient if I deal with the issue of liability first and the issue as to quantum can be referred to Deputy Registrar for assessment.

 

1. Parties have informed me that the defendant has been wound up on 13.06.2002, the 2nd defendant was made a bankrupt on 27.10.2005 and the 3rd defendant was made a bankrupt on 20.06.2002.

 

2. The 4th defendant did not give evidence and only the 2nd defendant gave evidence for the defendants.

 

3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff takes strong objection in the defendants’ counsel’s attempt to take respective sanctions from the Official Receiver and Official Assignee at this stage, as trial had proceeded and no actual sanction was obtained at the beginning of the trial.

 

Brief Facts

 

4. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant had executed a Blanket Hire Purchase Agreement for the purchase of machinery equipments etc. The 2nd to 4th defendants are guarantors. The claim is in respect of 6 separate Hire Purchase Agreements executed thereafter in which the 2nd to 4th defendants are guarantors. The 1st defendant breached the said agreements and with the consent of the 1st defendant the machineries and

 

2

 

equipment were sold and the balance of the plaintiff’s claim amounts to

 

RM7, 919,579.74. The defendants in the defence say the Blanket Hire

 

Purchase Agreement and the subsequent 6 Hire Purchase Agreement is

 

not valid in law and also asserts that various provision of Hire Purchase

 

Act 1967 (HPA 1967) was not complied with, namely: sections

 

4(c)(i)(a); 4(d), 34, etc; In addition, the defendants allege there was

 

misjoinder of causes of action and there was no nexus between the

 

agreements. The defendants had mounted a counterclaim for damages in

 

the sum of RM1, 570,000.00 on the basis that the plaintiff did not

 

provide facilities as per the agreed terms.

 

The Agreed facts read as follows:

 

“Plaintif adalah merupakan sebuah syarikat kewangan berlesen yang diperbadankan di Malaysia dan menjalankan perniagaannya di 120, Jalan Pudu, 55100 Kuala Lumpur.

 

Defendan Pertama merupakan sebuah syarikat yang diperbadankan di Malaysia dan Defendan-defendan Kedua sehingga Keempat merupakan individu-individu yang mempunyai alamat untuk penyampaian di No. 24, Lorong Datuk Sulaiman Satu, Taman Tun Dr Ismail, 60000 Kuala Lumpur dan/atau di Suite 5A-2, Resort Business, Suite Pearl Court, 61, Jalan Thamby Abdullah, 50470 Kuala Lumpur.

 

Defendan Kedua dan Ketiga masing-masing mempunyai alamat tambahan di 31, Persiaran Burhanuddin Helmi, Taman Tun Dr Ismail, 60000 Kuala Lumpur dan 64, Jalan Datuk Sulaiman Empat, Taman Tun Dr Ismail, 60000 Kuala Lumpur.

 

Melalui suatu Perjanjian Sewa Beli Menyeluruh bertarikh 22.05.1997 Plaintif telah bersetuju untuk memberikan suatu kemudahan pinjaman sewa beli berjumlah RM6,300,000.00 (“Kemudahan Pinjaman tersebut”) kepada Defendan Pertama dan sebagai balasan untuk kemudahan

 

3

 

pinjaman tersebut, Defendan-defendan Kedua sehingga Keempat telah menandatangani suatu Perjanjian Jaminan pada bertarikh 22.05.1997.

 

Kemudahan pinjaman tersebut telah digunakan (“utilized”) melalui 6 Perjanjian Sewa Beli Berasingan dan pada masa yang sama, sebagai balasan Defendan Kedua sehingga Keempat telah menjamin pembayaran jumlah terhutang oleh Defendan Pertama melalui Perjanjian Jaminan berasingan:-

 

i. Perjanjian Sewa Beli “A” bertarikh 26.11.1997 dan Jaminan bertarikh 26.11.1997 oleh Defendan Kedua sehingga Keempat;

 

ii. Perjanjian Sewa Beli “B” bertarikh 09.01.1998 dan Jaminan bertarikh 09.01.1998 oleh Defendan Kedua sehingga Keempat;

 

iii. Perjanjian Sewa Beli “C” bertarikh 09.01.1998 dan Jaminan bertarikh 09.01.1998 oleh Defendan Kedua sehingga Keempat;

 

iv. Perjanjian Sewa Beli “D’’bertarikh 09.01.1998 dan Jaminan bertarikh 09.01.1998 oleh Defendant Keuda sehingga Keempat;

 

v. Perjanjian Sewa Beli “E”bertarikh 24.01.1998 dan Jaminan

 

bertarikh 09.01.1998 oleh Defendant Keuda sehingga Keempat;

 

vi. Perjanjian Sewa Beli “A”bertarikh 24.01.1998 dan Jaminan bertarikh 09.01.1998 oleh Defendant Keuda sehingga Keempat;

 

Melalui Perjanjian-perjanjian Sewa Beli Berasingan tersebut, Defendan Pertama telah menyewaperalatan perindustrian (“Industrial Equipment”) seperti menurut terma-terma yang telah dipersetujui dan diantaranya adalah:-

 

i. pembayaran sewa secara ansuran bulanan pada tarikh kena

 

dibayar tanpapermintaan;

 

ii. Faedah lewat 13.25% setahun atas asas harian akan dikenakan jika terdapatnya apa-apa tunggakan dibawah mana-mana Perjanjian-perjanjian Sewa Beli Berasingan;

 

iii. jika plaintif mengambil apa-apa tindakan guaman terhadap Defendan Pertama dalam menguatkuasa mana-mana Perjanjian-perjanjian Sewa Beli Berasingan tersebut, Defendan Pertama akan bertanggungjawab untuk membayar kos kepada Plaintif atas dasar anakguam dan peguamcara.

 

4

 

Defendant Pertama telah ingkar membayar jumlah ansuran bulanan dibawah Perjanjian-perjanjian Sewa Beli Berasingan tersebut yang mana adalah dipertikaikan oleh Defendan-defendan.

 

Plaintif telah menurut jumlah tuntutan terhadap kesemua Defendan-defendan melalui surat tuntutan peguamcaranya bertarikh 25.04.1998 dan 14.05.1998. ”

 

The issues to be tried read as follows:

 

a) Adakah Perjanjian-perjanjian Sewa Beli “A ”, “B ”, “C ”, “D ”, “E ” dan “F” tertakluk dibawah Akta Sewa Beli, 1967.

 

b) Adakah Defendan-defendan berhutang kepada Plaintif jumlah tuntutan.

 

c) Adakah Plaintif mungkir dibawah Perjanjian-perjanjian Sewa Beli“A”, “B”, “C”, “D”, “E” dan “F”.

 

d) Adakah Plaintif bertanggungjawab untuk membayar jumlah tuntutan dibawah Tuntutan Balas Defendan-defendan.

 

e) Adakah Plaintif telah salah cantum(“misjoinder”) pelbagai kausa tindakan dalam tuntutan Plaintif?

 

f) Adakah perjanjian-perjanjian dan Jaminan-jaminan tersebut

 

mempunyai perkara subjek (“subject matter”) khusus dan tidak mempunyai kaitan (“nexus ”) diantara satu dengan yang lain?

 

g) Adakah Plaintif telah memasukki suatu Perjanjian Sewa Beli Menyeluruh Sekaligus (“Blanket Hire Purchase Facility”) (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Kemudahan tersebut”) bertarikh 31.01.1997 berhubung dengan barang-barangan tersebut yang dirujuk dalam perenggan-perenggan 5 ,8, 11, 14, 17 dan 20 Tuntutan Plaintiff serta jaminan-jaminan yang dirujuk dialam perenggan-perenggan 7, 10, 13, 16, 19 dan 22 Tuntutan Plaintiff berhubung dengan barang-barangan tersebut?

 

h) Adakah benar bahawa setelah Plaintif bersetuju untuk memberikan kemudahan tersebut kepada Defendan-defendan, Plaintif teleh bertindak secara satu pihak (“unilaterally”) dan gagal, enggan dan/atau cuai untuk memberikan kemudahan tersebut dan menyebabkan “kesusahan ”, kerugian dan/atau perbelanjaan kepada Defendan-defen dan?

 

5

 

Preliminaries

 

5. One witness gave evidence for the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant gave evidence for the defendants. The 4th defendant did not give evidence. No sanction was obtained from the relevant authorities at the commencement of the trial for the defendant’s counsel to prosecute the counterclaim. The statement of agreed facts will show that the 4th defendant have abandoned much of the defence.

 

6. I have read the evidence, read the witness statements, notes of proceedings, document, submission etc. I do not think it is necessary to go into details in respect of the evidence and submission which I think has been adequately dealt by both the learned counsels. I take the view that the defendant’s counterclaim must be dismissed and the claim against the 4th defendant must be allowed. My reasons are as follows:

 

(a) At the commencement of trial no sanction was obtained by the learned counsel to appear on behalf of 1st to 3rd defendants. In consequence the learned counsel has no locus standi to appear on behalf of them. I have dealt with this area of law in the case of Naspu Bin Daud v. Affin Bank [2008] 1 CLJ 723. I do not wish to repeat the same here.

 

(b) There is no merit in the defendant’s claim that the HPA1967 has been breached. I agree with the plaintiffs submission that the items under the Hire Purchase Agreement do not fall within the

 

6

 

respective schedule of HPA1967. Further the agreed facts also lean toward the submission of the plaintiff.

 

(c) In this case, the 4th defendant did not appear to contest the claim, and the 2nd defendant in law has no locus to represent anybody and/or has produced any authority to represent any of the defendants. In consequence, I have very little choice but to enter judgment in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the 4th defendant notwithstanding the fact that the learned counsel for the defendants Mr. Sukhdev Singh Randhawa had taken efforts to put a submission on behalf of all the defendants. Unfortunately legal technicalities had strewed on the path of the defendants.

 

8. For reason stated above, I allow the plaintiffs claim against the 4th defendant as prayed. The 4th defendant to pay the plaintiffs cost. The getting up fees in respect of the 4th defendant which is limited to only the personal guarantee shall not exceed RM30,000.00. If costs cannot be agreed the plaintiff is at liberty to tax cost. The defendant’s counterclaim is dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

I hereby order so.

 

(Y.A. DR. HAJI HAMID SULTAN BIN ABU BACKER)

 

7

 

Judicial Commissioner High Court (Commercial Division)

 

KUALA LUMPUR

 

Date: 03rd June 2009

 

For the Plaintiff: Mr. Balraj Singh; Messrs Shahrizat Rashid & Lee

 

For the Defendant: Mr. Sukhdev Singh Randhawa; MessrsAzlan Shah &

 

Sukhdev

 

8

PDF Source: http://kl.kehakiman.gov.my