Court Proceeding of Farhans & Amal Advocates & Solicitors VS Nicholas & Liew Advocates & Solicitors
Channel: FARHANS HANS
Date: 2023-01-06

Prior to the suit taken out by Bank BMCI the Plaintiff, in the Sessions Court, the Defendants,
Abdul Wahab, Abdul Wahid and Abdul Wahub were shareholders and directors of a
company known as Seberang Laut Sdn Bhd (Company No.: 1155757-T), the 1st Defendant.
By way of a Letter of Offer dated 30 January 2019, the Plaintiff granted 1st Defendant on a
facility known as Commodity Murabahah Cash Line-i for the said company’s working capital
requirements (“Facility”). In consideration of the Facility, Abdul Wahab, Abdul Wahid and
Abdul Wahub (being the 2nd, 3rd Defendant and 4th Defendant in the Sessions Court
respectively) executed a Letter of Guarantee dated 1 February 2019 as guarantors for 1st Defendant.
On 17 February 2020, 1st Defendant was subsequently wound up under Suit No. BKI28NCC-
11/2-2020. Notwithstanding that, at that material time, Abdul Wahab, Abdul Wahid and

Abdul Wahub had since resigned as a director of 1st Defendant with effect from 26 July 2019.
On or about April 2021, the Plaintiff filed the suit at the Sessions Court claiming against the
Defendants, including the 1st Defendant (through Liquidator) for inter alia the sum of
RM208,025.94 together with interest thereon.
On 3 May 2021, the Plaintiff proceeded entered Judgment in Default of Appearance against
the Defendants (hereinafter referred to as “Default Judgment”).
Sometime in August 2021, the 4th Defendant discovered that the Plaintiff had commenced
bankruptcy proceedings against him when he was served with the Bankruptcy Notice dated
23 August 2021 under BKI-29NCC-409/8-2021.
This is the application to set aside the JIDA made by the 4th Defendant. The contention from
the 4th Defendant that the JIDA was irregular as the Writ served has no endorsement of the
claim as well as the days of service was not stated hence, making the Writ a non-compliance.
The 4th Defendant also stating that the service was invalid as Sabah was placed under the
Conditional Movement Control Order (hereinafter referred to as “CMCO”) implemented.
Plaintiffs’ submit that the JIDA was regular and should stay.