Date and Time: Monday, 17 June, 2019 12:59:00 PM MYT

Job Number: 91040284

Document (1)

1. Gale Force Sdn Bhd v Ling Yun Yoke (Malayan Banking Bhd, intervener) [2012] MLJU 1
Client/Matter: -None-
Search Terms: Consolidate
Search Type: Natural Language
Narrowed by:
Content Type Narrowed by
MY Cases -None-

| About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2019 LexisNexis
 Gale Force Sdn Bhd v Ling Yun Yoke (Malayan Banking Bhd, intervener)
[2012] MLJU 1
Malayan Law Journal Unreported

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)

LEE SWEE SENG JC
APPLICATION FOR EXECUTION NO 36–11 OF 2010
3 January 2012

Liang Chong Beng (Nga Hock Cheh & Co) for the judgment debtor.
Ooi Huey Ling (Ahmad Shahriza and Helen Lim with her) (Ranjit Ooi & Robert Low) for the judgment creditor.
TM Eng (Celestina Chin with him)(Jal & Lim) for the intervener.

Lee Swee Seng JC:

THE JUDGMENT OF JUDICIAL COMMISSIONERPrologue

This case raises an interesting question on the respective rights of the unsecured judgment creditor vis-a-vis that of
a secured chargee and that of the judgment debtor/chargor. There is nothing preventing a judgment creditor from
selling by way of a prohibitory order and subsequent public auction pursuant to an execution process a piece of
land charged to the chargee bank provided of course the chargee gets the first bite. Problem arises when the
chargee wanted a bigger first bite by consolidating some accounts of the judgment debtor with it to the detriment
of the judgment creditor. The judgment debtor was in favour of consolidation though disputing the sum with
respect to one of the accounts. When really can consolidation of accounts by the chargee be done vis-a-vis the
rights of the judgment creditor, taking into consideration the rights of the judgment debtor.

Parties

The judgment creditor (JC), Gale Force Sdn Bhd (GFSB) had obtained a judgment pursuant to a summary
judgment application for the balance monies owing to it by the judgment debtor (JD), Ling Yun Yoke. The JC then
proceeded to obtain a prohibitory order (PO) against the JD's property on 20 July 2010. It then proceeded to file an
application in Enclosure 7 seeking, inter alia, directions for the sale of the property.

On or about 22 December 2010, Malayan Banking Berhad (MBB) filed Enclosure 14 seeking to intervene and to set
aside the PO on the grounds, inter alia, that MBB is a secured creditor of the JD and that MBB had on 22
November 2010, obtained an order for sale of the same property (MBB Order for Sale) in the exercise of its right as
a secured chargee for the purpose of satisfying the JD's indebtedness to MBB under 2 accounts (the JD's 2
accounts).

By consent of the parties, MBB was allowed on or about 1 December 2010 to intervene in the proceedings. On or
about 30 December 2010, the JD applied vide Enclosure 20 to strike out the JC's Enclosure 7. Enclosures 7,14 and
20 were heard by the learned Judicial Commissioner.

Preliminaries

On 31 January 2011 the learned Judicial Commissioner made the following orders with respect the Enclosures 7,14
and 20:
a) Enclosure 7 - the property was ordered to be sold by way of public auction to be held on 17 March 2011 at
a reserve price of RM 3.8 million upon the terms and conditions contained in Enclosure 46 (the GFSB's
Order for Sale);
b) Enclosure 14 was dismissed with no order as to costs and
c) Enclosure 20 was dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00 to be paid by the JD to the JC.
 Page 2 of 7
Gale Force Sdn Bhd v Ling Yun Yoke (Malayan Banking Bhd, intervener) [2012] MLJU 1

is MBB appealed to the Court of Appeal against the decision in Enclosure 14 but withdrew the appeal subsequently
on 28 April 2011. MBB did not appeal against the GFSB's Order for Sale. The JD did not appeal against the GFSB's
Order for Sale or the decision in Enclosure 20.

On or about 9 March 2011, MBB filed an application vide Enclosure 33 20 seeking, inter alia, to set aside the
GFSB's Order for Sale and a stay of the public auction of the property fixed on 17 March 2011.

The learned Judicial Commissioner on 16 March 2011 ordered vide Enclosure 55 that GFSB do proceed with the
public auction of the property on 17 March 2011 as scheduled on terms, inter alia, as follows:
(a) MBB shall undertake to make payment from the proceeds of sale all payments set out in minute 10 of the
GFSB's Order for Sale (minute 3 of Enclosure 55) and
(b) MBB shall not effect any payment under minutes 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5 until MBB and GFSB obtain further
directions by order of court as to the actual sums payable to MBB (minute 4 of the Order dated 16 March
2011 in Enclosure 55).

The JD filed an appeal against the decision of the High Court in Enclosure 55 but subsequently withdrew the
appeal.

At the auction held on 17 March 2011 (the GFSB's Auction) pursuant to the GFSB's Order for Sale, the property
was successfully auctioned to one 20 Aishah Khatoon Binte Rahim Khan (the Successful Bidder) for RM 3.8 million.

Problem

It must be highlighted that the MBB Order for Sale for the property to be sold by way of public auction was for the
amount outstanding under the JD's 2 accounts. The amount outstanding under the JD's 2 accounts amounted to
RM 1,341,381.83 (Account No.414329200112) and RM 10 292,155.90 (Account No. 414329200105) as at 17
March 2011. These combined amounts are less than the reserve price of RM3.8 million fixed by the High Court
under the GFSB's Order for Sale.

By Enclosure 33, MBB sought to include, as part of the debt secured by the Charge, 3 additional accounts (the
Initial Additional Accounts) comprising the following corporate accounts for which the JD is a Guarantor:

a) Borrower: Sparrows & Arrows Sdn Bhd

Account No.: 414570-202078

Facility: Loan Facility of RM 1.2 million

Guarantors: Ling Yun Yoke and Chew Nee Hee

b) Borrower: The H.S. Dunamis Corporation Sdn Bhd

Account No.: 412231801418 and 512231517065

Facility: i) Overdraft of RM 264,000.00

ii) Term Loan of RM 264,000.00

Guarantors: Ling Yun Yoke and Chew Nee Hee

MBB had obtained judgments against the JD in respect of the Initial Additional Accounts in 2008 and 2009
respectively and these judgments remain unsatisfied. The JD wrote by letter dated 22 February 2011 to MBB for
MBB to apply the proceeds of sale to the MBB's Order for Sale towards settlement of the JD's 2 accounts and the
Initial Additional Accounts. MBB by its letter dated 9 March 2011 to the JD, purported to consolidate the Initial
Additional Accounts with the JD's indebtedness to MBB under the JD's 2 accounts.

As a consequence of MBB's purported consolidation aforesaid, the combined amount due and owing under the
JD's 2 accounts and the Initial Additional Accounts far exceeded the proceeds of sale of the property under the
GFSB's Order for Sale, leaving no surplus available to GFSB as the JC. The details are as follows:
 Page 3 of 7
Gale Force Sdn Bhd v Ling Yun Yoke (Malayan Banking Bhd, intervener) [2012] MLJU 1

1) JD's 2 Accounts 414329200112 RM 1,341,381.83

414329200105 RM 292,155.90

2) Initial Additional Accounts 414570-202078 RM 2,700,016.96

512231-517065 RM 649,307.33

412231-801418 RM 320.963.74

Total RM 5.303.825.76

To have the upperhand and to secure maximum benefit to itself, MBB thought it best to amend the Order for Sale
which it had earlier obtained in the MBB Order for Sale (the MBB Amended Order for Sale). The MBB Order for
Sale was amended to include therein 2 out of the 3 Initial Additional Accounts. The 2 Initial Additional Accounts
were Accounts No.512231-517065 and 412231-801418 in relation to the Borrower The Dunamis Corporation Sdn
Bhd totalling about RM 1 million (the Revised Additional Accounts). MBB obtained the Amended Order of Sale on
21 July 2001 about 2 months after it had realised the full proceeds of sale from the JC's Auction aforesaid. The
reason why finally MBB left out the Account of Sparrows & Arrows Sdn Bhd was because of a dispute over the
actual amount outstanding under that The JC cried foul! With the MBB Amended Order for Sale, MBB was claiming
the total sum of RM 2,673,432.80 from the proceeds of sale of the property pursuant to the GFSB's Order for Sale.
Of this sum, GFSB as the JC does not dispute MBB's entitlement as secured creditor to the amount owing to MBB
in respect of the JD's 2 Accounts totalling RM 1.6 million. Based on MBB's revised claim aforesaid, there is thus a
surplus of about RM 1 million only from the proceeds of sale from the auction pursuant to the GFSB's Order for
Sale.

Prayer

Unhappy with this state of affairs where GFSB as the JC perceived that MBB was conveniently increasing its pool
of entitlement to the proceeds of sale of the property over which MBB was the Chargee to the diminution of the
GFSB, GFSB filed this application vide Enclosure 59 for directions of is this Court for the determination of the actual
sums payable out of the proceeds of sale to the Intervener MBB under the charge to the property sold under
GFSB's Order for Sale dated 31 January 2011 pursuant to a PO obtained.

Principles

Whether the Charqee MBB can consolidate Additional Accounts into the MBB's Order for Sale bv the MBB
Amended Order for Sale made after the JC's Order for Sale.

The critical and crucial question for determination in this contest of competing claims over the booty must surely be
when is the latest time for the Chargee to consolidate the other accounts with that which is covered by its Order for
Sale. Granted the powers of consolidation are so wide as to be able to consolidate accounts not in the name of
the Chargor/JD but that to which the Chargor/JD is merely a Guarantor. Both the JC and the Chargee/MBB are not
disputing this. Indeed GFSB had by an order of Court become vested with the rights of a chargee/lender by virtue of
an absolute assignment of the amount outstanding from MBB to GFSB though the loan was a completely different
loan, the borrower being The Rock Corporation Sdn. Bhd. What GFSB is pursuing against the JD who is a
Guarantor for the loan is for the balance sum outstanding after realising the proceeds of sale from the auction of
another property. I am of the view that once the rights of the JC have crystallised with its (GFSB) Order for Sale vis-
a-vis that of the Chargee/MBB, MBB does not have the right anymore, even with the consent of the Chargor/JD to
consolidate the Additional Accounts of the JD as to do so would militate against, erode away and indeed infringe
the accrued rights of the JC. Any consolidation has to be effected before GFSB's Order for Sale of 31 January
2011.

In fact in Public Finance Bhd v Hock Seng Housing Development Sdn Bhd [1992] 1 MLJ 442 at page 447 his
Lordship Abdul Malek J (as he then was) opined as follows:
 Page 4 of 7
Gale Force Sdn Bhd v Ling Yun Yoke (Malayan Banking Bhd, intervener) [2012] MLJU 1

"However, my considered view is that it (the consolidation of the accounts) ought to be before any action is taken for the
foreclosure of any of the charges for the accounts to be consolidated. The plaintiffs here had exercised their right to
consolidate a little too late considering their earlier action to foreclose one of the two charges, taking into consideration the
fact that the order for sale was made three years before, and the first auction date one month before, the notice to
consolidate. As such, on the purported date of the notice of consolidation, there was in fact only one charge remaining to
foreclose. What was there to consolidate?...."

The Amended Order for Sale of MBB was applied for on 22 April 2011 which was after the hearing on 31 January
2011 when the Court after hearing all the parties, granted the JC the Order for Sale pursuant to Enclosure 7 and
fixed the public auction on 17 March 2011. At the same time the Court also dismissed MBB's application to set
aside the PO under Enclosure 14. At no material time did MBB raise the issue of consolidation in the hearing of
Enclosure 7 and Enclosure 14. Indeed when MBB obtained an order for directions in respect of the MBB's Order for
Sale on 2 March 2011 it was with respect to the chargor/JD's 2 Accounts. MBB's argument is of course a clever
one. MBB amended its Order of Sale of 22 November 2010 on 21 July 2011 to include the following consolidated
accounts and then argued that like all amendments it relates back to the 10 date of the original MBB's Order for
Sale and hence it now takes precedence and has priority over the GFSB's Order for Sale:

Account No. Outstanding Amount

41432900112 RM 1,381,005.83

41432900105 RM 292,155.90

512231517065 RM 649,307.33

412231801418 RM 320,963.74

Add Legal Fees for Accounts RM 30,000.00

512231517065& 412231801418.

Total Consolidated as at 22 November RM 2,673,432.80

2010 the date of MBB Order for Sale.

Whilst one may not dispute the power of a bank to consolidate accounts of its borrower and even that of its
guarantor, one has to limit the effect of such a consolidation to the rights of the parties inter se in the banker-
customer relationship and that such a consolidation should not and cannot affect the accrued rights of the JC that
had already crystallised. That is so even allowing for those cases that established that any amendments would
revert back to the date of the original pleading. See Sio Koon Lin & Anor v SB Mehra [1981] 1 MLJ 225, Dato Tan
Heng Chew v Tan Kim Hor & Ors [2008] 7 MLJ 184 and Simetech (M) Sdn Bhd v Yeoh Cheng Lian Construction
Sdn Bhd [1992] 1 MLJ 11. As expected the JD consented to this consolidation. The effect of such an exercise was
to diminish the entitlement of the JC to the proceeds of sale if possible to denude it altogether if not for the dispute
between MBB and the JD as to the amount outstanding on Account No. 414570-202078 which borrower is
Sparrows & Arrows Sdn Bhd. It was a kind of consolidation that sought to erode the entitlement of the JC. Indeed
the unsecured debt of MBB in the Revised Additional Accounts had now become a secured debt to the detriment of
the JC without MBB having to obtain a PO. I am quite certain the learned Judge who granted the consolidation of
the Revised Additional Accounts would not have so granted the Amended MBB's Order for Sale had the application
been served on GFSB as the JC and had the JC had the opportunity to object to the amendment. At any rate the
amendment must 5 be confined to the express purpose which is to regulate the indebtedness between MBB and
the JD and it has no bearing on the competing claims to priority on the proceeds of sale.

It makes a lot of sense for the Chargee to decide on consolidation before commencing an order for sale action.
The correct Form 16D or Form 16E under the National Land Code has to be issued and served on the Chargor.
The Chargor has a right to object under 'cause to the contrary' under section 256(3) of the Code if it can be shown
that it would be inequitable for the Chargee to have consolidated accounts that are not of the same borrower but
merely because the Chargor happened to be a Guarantor. JC proceeding with a PO against the same property
 Page 5 of 7
Gale Force Sdn Bhd v Ling Yun Yoke (Malayan Banking Bhd, intervener) [2012] MLJU 1

would be able to weigh and consider if it is worth pursuing with such a mode of execution as the secured chargee
would have the first bite and only the balance if any would be the entitlement of the unsecured JC. If the JC as in
this case knows at the outset that the Chargee was proceeding with the consolidation of the JD's 2 Accounts with
the 3 Additional Accounts or the 2 Revised Additional Accounts such that there is nothing left for the unsecured JC
to participate in, the JC in GFSB might not have proceeded with PO and thereafter to obtain an Order for Sale
which it did on 31 January 2011. Why would the JC want to go for an order for sale following a PO only to find out
that all its

effort has been an exercise in futility and indeed merely doing the Chargee Bank a favour with nothing from the
proceeds of sale to share in? I therefore hold that the contest for competing claims of the proceeds of sale and the
issue of priority can be and should be resolved based on the principle of accrued rights. The rights of the JC
accrued and indeed have crystallised with the granting of the Order for Sale on 31 January 2011 vis¬a-vis that of
MBB's Order for Sale of 22 November 2010 and any subsequent interference with the rights of the parties inter se
cannot be countenanced especially when it would be to the detriment of the JC and indeed to its dimunition in its
entitlement to the proceeds of sale.

Whether the Court is functus officio with respect to both the GFSB Order for Sale and the MBB Order for Sale

Learned counsel for the JC submitted that the Court is functus officio with respect to both the proceedings. In
support of that learned counsel referred to the Federal Court case of Hock Hua Bank Bhd v Sahari Bin Murid [1981]
1 MLJ 143 where at the High Court the learned Judge had made an order for sale in the foreclosure proceeding.
The headnotes summarised the facts of the case as follows:

"The order was made after hearing all the parties and was made despite a claim of non est factum and allegations of fraud
and forgery by the respondent. The order was drawn up and perfected. There was no appeal against it. The respondent
applied to set aside the judgment and this application was refused. Subsequently the Respondent applied to set aside the
previous orders. The learned judge thereupon set aside his order. The appellant appeared."

The Federal Court speaking through his Lordship Chang Min Tat FJ said at page 144 as follows:

"Clearly the court has no power under any circumstance in the same action to alter vary or set aside a judgment regularly
obtained after it has been entered or an order after it is drawn up, except under the slip rule in Order 28 rule 11 Rules of the
Supreme Court 1957 (Order 20 rule 11 Rules of the High Court 1980) so far as is necessary to correct errors in expressing
the intention of the court: Re St. Nazaire Co 12 Ch.D.88, Kelsey v Doune [1912] 2 KB 482, Hession v Jones [1914] 2 KB
421, unless it is a judgment by default or made in the absence of a party at the trial or hearing. But if a judgment or order
has been obtained by fraud or where further evidence which could not possibly have been adduced at the original hearing
is forthcoming, a fresh action shall lie to impeach the original judgment: Hip Foong Hong v Neotia & Co [1918] AC 888 and
Jonesco v Beard [1930] AC 298. The hearing of the action will in a proper case be expedited: Smith vPeizer 65 S.J.607."

There is some merits in the JC's contention that MBB's attempt to squeeze in the amounts due in respect of the
Additional Accounts (the propriety of which is questionable) is tantamount to a "back door" attempt by MBB to
improve its position to the impoverishment and prejudice of the JC. The MBB Order of Sale was obtained in a
separate proceeding from the current proceeding to which GFSB is not a party and which, in any event, had been
determined in favour of MBB without reference to the Additional Accounts. As for the GFSB's Order for Sale, that
has been heard and determined in favour of GFSB.

MBB is in effect attempting to vary both the MBB Order for Sale and the GFSB Order for Sale in circumstances
where the Court is already functus officio.

Whether MBB is estopped from raising the issue of consolidation of Initial Additional or Revised Additional
Accounts.

In applying for and obtaining the GFSB Order for Sale, GFSB had relied on the fact that MBB itself had represented
to the Court, both in respect of MBB's foreclosure proceeding leading to the MBB Order for Sale and in this
proceeding in its opposition to the PO, that the indebtedness due under the Charge was in respect of the JD's 2
Accounts. The sums owing to MBB in respect of the JD's 2 Accounts were significantly less than the reserve price
 Page 6 of 7
Gale Force Sdn Bhd v Ling Yun Yoke (Malayan Banking Bhd, intervener) [2012] MLJU 1

for the property. The MBB Order for Sale and the subsequent summons for direction taken out by MBB on 2 March
2011 do not make reference to any other accounts other than the 2 Accounts of the JD.

At the hearing on 16 March 2011 of Enclosure 33 filed by MBB to set aside the GFSB Order for Sale and to stay the
public auction fixed on 17 March 2011, the Court had ordered (vide Enclosure 33) that GFSB do proceed with the
public auction fixed. The Amended MBB Order for Sale was applied for on 22 April 2011 and was obtained only on
21 July 2011 after the successful auction of the property on 17 March 2011. Further MBB did not give GFSB any
prior notice of MBB's application to amend the MBB Order for Sale though it very well knew that GFSB's rights
would be affected by the Amended MBB Order for Sale. MBB, had by its own admission, received the full proceeds
of sale from the successful bidder at the GFSB Auction on 26 May 2011. The Amended MBB Order for Sale was
obtained only on 21 July 2011. The 2 civil suits commenced by MBB against the JD in respect of the Additional
Accounts culminating in the judgments being entered against the JD were commenced in 2005 and 2006
respectively and the judgments entered thereon were before the MBB Order for Sale was granted. In fact the
Judgment in respect of the Additional Account under Account No. 414570-202078 was obtained on 2 April 2008
which was way before the commencement of MBB's foreclosure proceeding leading to the granting of the MBB's
Order for Sale. All these while, MBB did nothing to consolidate the Additional Accounts until 9 March 2011 when it
notified the JD of its intention to do so.

MBB had submitted that it did not consolidate the Additional Accounts earlier as the JD had not made such a
request until 22 February 2011 when the JD wrote to MBB about the consolidation of the Additional Accounts.
However a close scrutiny of the clause on consolidation suggests that such a stand is spurious as MBB's exercise
of its power to consolidate does not require the prior consent of or proposal from the JD. MBB could have
exercised such a right earlier but chose not to. If one takes into account the 2 Additional Accounts, MBB will get
about RM 162.6 million and the JC will get the balance RM1 million. Without the consolidation MBB's share of the
proceeds of sale is only about RM1.6 million with the balance being the entitlement of the JC. Clearly the rights and
entitlement of GFSB as the JC would suffer from its dimunition to its detriment. What MBB was trying desperately to
do was to steal a march on the JC to secretly gain an advantage over the JC. The result is to get the upper hand
and have a bigger share of the proceeds of the sale and if possible the whole of it. This is a fit case for the
application of the doctrine of estoppel. In the Federal Court case of Boustead Trading (1985) Sdn Bhd v Arab-
Malaysian Merchant Bank Berhad [1995] 4 CLJ 283 his Lordship Gopal Sri Ram JCA (later FCJ) at page 297
explained:

"Before we conclude on the law upon the subject at hand, there are two elements of the doctrine of estoppel which we think
require clarification and re-statement. The first concerns the effect which the representation or encouragement had upon
the mind of the person relying upon the estoppel: the second has to do with the requirement that such a person should
have acted to his detriment. The traditional view adopted by jurists of great learning is that a litigant who invokes the
doctrine must prove that he was induced by the conduct of his opponent to act in a particular way. However, having
undertaken a careful examination of the authorities, we are of opinion that this requirement is not an integral part of the
doctrine. All that a representee (which term includes one who has received encouragement in the sense we have discussed
earlier) need do is to place sufficient material before a Court from which an inference may fairly be drawn that he was
influenced by his opponent's actings.Further, it is not necessary that the conduct relied upon was the sole factor which
influenced the representee. It is sufficient that "his conduct was so influenced by the encouragement or representation...
that it would be unconscionable for the representor thereafter to enforce his strict legal rights." (Per Robert Goff J. in
Amalgamated Investment (supra) at page 105 of the report.) Taking now the requirement of detriment, it is quite apparent
that in the early development of the doctrine, there are to be found in the judgments of eminent judges statements
'indicating that one who relies upon an estoppel must prove that he relied upon his opponent's conduct and in consequence
acted to his detriment. And this view had found its way into the equity jurisprudence of Malaysia. (See, for example, Wong
Juat Eng v. Then Thaw Eu [1965] 1 LNS 201.) As has been seen, the former requirement, namely, that there ought to have
been reliance was exploded by the decisions in Amalgamated Investment, in Taylor Fashions in Societe Italo-Belge (sub.
nom.The Post Chaser') and Lim Teng Huan (supra).

We take this opportunity to declare that the detriment element does not form part of the doctrine of estoppel. In other words,
it is not an essential ingredient requiring proof before the doctrine may be invoked. All that need be shown is that in the
particular circumstances of a case it would be unjust to permit the representor or encouragor to insist upon his strict legal
rights. In the resolution of this issue, a judicial arbiter would, when making his assessment of where the justice of the case
lies, be entitled to have regard to the conduct of the litigant raising the estoppel. This may, but need not in all cases, include
the determination of the question as to whether the particular litigant had altered his position, although such alteration need
not be to his detriment."
 Page 7 of 7
Gale Force Sdn Bhd v Ling Yun Yoke (Malayan Banking Bhd, intervener) [2012] MLJU 1

Issues raised bv the Judgment Debtor

The main quarrel of the JD from both the affidavit filed and the submission of learned counsel for the JD seems to
be a dispute as to the sum which is payable or ought to be paid to MBB. The position taken by MBB is that the sum
owed is RM2,673,432.80 from the consolidation of the Revised Additional Accounts (2 out of the 3 Accounts)
leaving out the Sparrows & Arrows Sdn Bhd's Account as the amount due under that Account is being disputed in
the court in NCvC 6 in 22NCvC-314-2011. MBB in its application for stay of the auction had maintained that the
sum due was RM 5,165,175.82. In the application to vary the MBB Order for Sale, MBB had in the Amended MBB's
Order for Sale amended it to RM 2,673,432.80. The JD is now saying that even that figure is wrong.

However if the issue raised is on the correct amount due to MBB, then the JD ought to have raised the matter in the
proper forum. The correct forum would be the forum where MBB's Order for Sale had been obtained or amended as
the case may be and not his forum where the JC is seeking directions from the Court as to how and in what
proportion the proceeds of sale is to be paid to who.

The JD wanted the amount outstanding in the Sparrows & Arrows Sdn Bhd's Account to be consolidated as well
but based on its correct figure and not the figure said to owe by the MBB. As there is a dispute as to the correct
sum be owing under this Account, the Chargee has a right to refuse the request of the JD to consolidate. That
being the case finally the equation is between the JC being entitled to the balance sum after minusing the amount
due under the JD's 2 Accounts of RM 1,633,537.73 (RM 1,341,381.83 and RM 292,155.90) or that under the
Revised Additional Accounts of RM 2,673,432.80. As the sums due under the original 2 JD's Accounts or under the
Revised Additional Accounts are sums derived from an Order of Court or Judgment of Court respectively, the
objection of the JD on the correctness of these figures have to be addressed not at this forum but at the forum
where the various MBB Order of Sale and the civil suit judgment had been obtained.

Pronouncement

Based on the above, I directed under Enclosure 59 that the proceeds of the auction is to be paid out in accordance
to the prayers in paragraph 10.1 of Enclosure 46 which is the Order for Sale of the JC dated 31 January 2011 (Quit
Rent and Assessment of RM3.381.96) and paragraph 10.2 (Auctioneer bill of RM3,389.20 and Court Commisssion
and costs under Enclosure 46 for an order to register the transfer in name of successful bidder which costs is
RM3.310.00). As for paragraph 10.3 it is to be based on the accounts disclosed in the Order for Sale of the
Chargee/MBB dated 22 April 2010 which accounts are 414329200112 and 424329200105 for the sum of RM
1,633,537.73 and as for paragraph 10.4, to follow the amount as found in Enclosure 36 Exhibit LMM being the
amount due to the JC which amount is RM3,022,624.75 as at 17 March 2011. The balance if any shall be
distributed as per the prayer in paragraph 10.5 to the JD.The above payments are to be made out within 14 days
from date of this order. In the event of any dispute on any costs referred to in Enclosure 46, the parties shall refer
the matter to taxation.

I also awarded costs of this Encolsure 59 to the JC from JD and Chargee/MBB to be taxed.

End of Document