Scribd
Upload
196 views5 pages

Malayan United Finance Berhad V Tay Lay Soon (1991)

case study

Uploaded by

Ange PJ
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
196 views5 pages

Malayan United Finance Berhad V Tay Lay Soon (1991)

case study

Uploaded by

Ange PJ
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5
Malayan Law Journal 504 26 April 1991 [1991] 1 MLy ‘The scenario has of course changed with the passing of the Amendment Act A766 especially the omnibus validation by s 5 of that Act Section 5 of the amending Act certainly has legislative effect. The appeal on the preliminary point was accord- ingly dismissed. Appeals dismissed. Solicitors: Karpal Singh & Co; Shanmugam & Co. Reported by Prof Ahmad Ibrahim Malayan United Finance Bhd v Tay Lay Soon ‘SUPREME COURT (KUALA LUMPUR) — CIVIL APPEAL NO (02-197-50 ABDUL HAMID OMAR LP, AJAIB SINGH AND JEMURI SERJAN SCJ] 29 JANUARY 1991 Land Lato — Charge — Indefeasibility of and priority over cave- «as — Land charged to appellants — Appellants commencing foreclosure proceedings — Sale of land made by registered propricior to respondent — Respondent lodged caveats — Application by ap- ‘pollant wo remove caveats — Whether purchaser has any right 12 redeem charge ~ Applicability of equi) of redemption — National Land Code 1965, ss 244, 249(1), 266(1), 326, 327 & 340 In this case the registered proprictor of certain lands in Pe- nang had charged them to the appellant to secure the repay- ment of the loan of $1,500,000 and interest. The registered proprietor having defaulted in the repayment ofthe said loan, the appellant took the preliminary steps with a view to com” mencing foreclosure proceedings to enforce the charge. It was found that two private caveats had been lodged against the land by the respondent after the registration of the charge. ‘The caveats were based on a purported agreement by the reg- istered proprietor to sell the lands to the respondent. There ‘was a dispute between them and the respondent had brought ‘an action for specific performance of the agreement. The ap- pellants applied to have the caveats removed under s 327 of the National Land Code 1965. It was argued for the appel- ants that the charge on registration was indefeasible and ranked in priority over the caveats. The learned tral judge ‘basing himself on the principles enunciated in Eng Ak Mooi Ors v Oversea Chinese Banking Corp Lid? held that the caveator hhad succeeded in showing a triable issue as between himself and the chargee and he dismissed the application. The appel- lants appealed, Held, allowing the appeal: (1) In this case the chargee had an indefeasible right by virtue of the registration of the charge and this right had priority over the caveats which were lodged five years after the registration of the charge, (2) The respondent's proposition that he has a stanstory or equitable right of discharge or redemption of a charge tunder the provisions of the National Land Code must be rejected. Itis the chargor or the borrower who has the right 10 discharge the charge and the right to tender payment before the judicial sale is specifically and exclusively granted to the A cchargot. Since the right or interests in the charged land re- ‘mains with the registered owner he has nothing to redeem. To speak of the equity of redemption or the like of it in the situation under the National Land Code is clearly technically and legally incorrect. (Bahasa Malaysia summary Di dalam kes ini tuanpunya berdafter tanah di Pulau Pinang telah mencagarkan tanah itu kepada perayu untuk menjamin pembayaran hutang sejumlah $1,500,000 dan bunga. Tu- anpunya itu telah gagal membayar hutang ita dan perayu telah mulsi mengambil tindakan untuk membawa prosiding {foreclosure bagi menguatkuasakan cagaran itu. Telah terdapat, ‘dua kaveat persendirian yang telah di serah-simpan oleh re- sponden selepas pendaftaran cagaran itu. Kaveat-kaveat itu berdaser kepada apa yang dikata perjanjian oleh tuan punya tana itu untuk menjual tanah itu kepada responden. Perkara itu telah dipertikaikan dan responden telah mengambil indakan, ‘untuk mendapat pelaksanaan tepat perjanjian itu. Perayu te- lah memohon supaya kaveat-kaveat itu dihapuskan dibawah £327 Kanun Tanah Negara 1965. Telah dibujjahkan bagi pihak perayu bahawa cagaran itu apabila didaftar tidak boleh

You might also like