United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd V Aluminex M Sdn Bhd 1993

The approach adopted by her ladyship followed closely the guidelines set by the supreme court in united malayan banking corporation bhd v.

United malayan banking corporation bhd v aluminex m sdn bhd 1993. This is so even if the floating charge was created and registered first and the creditor who has a fixed charge has knowledge of the floating charge united malayan banking corporation bhd v aluminex m sdn bhd 1993. Lat kee tee ors 2009 1 clj 663 fc refd ronex properties v. If there is a fixed charge and a floating charge on the same property the fixed charge is in priority. Banking securities for advances charge 1 1404 banking securities for advances floating charges 1 1433 banking securities for advances priorities 1 1520 companies and corporations debenture priorities 3 77.

John laing 1983 1 qb 398 refd tasja sdn bhd v. Based on the supreme court decision in united asian bank bhd v. In bensa sdn bhd in liquidation v malayan banking bhd anor 1993 1 mlj 119 the high court held that a memorandum of deposit in respect of money in a fixed deposit was a secured debenture as it contained the elements of obligation covenant undertaking or guarantee to pay and it was duly registered as a charge under section 108 3 a of the act. Aluminex however could readily be distinguished from the present appeal.

Tai soon heng construction sdn bhd 1993 2 clj 31 at page 37 it was held that a customer of the bank only needs to prove on a balance of probabilities that the signature on the cheque is forged. This is because when a. Golden approach sdn bhd 2011 3 clj 751 fc refd tio chee hing ors v. George barker transport ltd v eynon 1974 1 all er 900 ca emar sdn bhd under receivership v aidigi sdn bhd and another appeal 1992 2 mlj 734 united malayan banking corporation bhd v aluminex m sdn bhd anor 1993 3 mlj 587 company can create a fixed charge over same assets.

Bandar builder sdn bhd 2 ors v. United malayan banking corp bhd v aluminex m sdn bhd anor 1993 3 mlj 587. The supreme court in united malayan banking corporation bhd v aluminex m sdn bhd anor held that the constructive notice only applied as to the existence of such prior charge but not the content of it including the restrictive clause. Another important matter has been raised by the appellant in.

United malayan banking corporation sdn bhd 159 jln ss2 24 ss2 47300 petaling jaya petaling jaya selangor 47300 malaysia petaling jaya selangor darul ehsan 60378753210.