Yankong Stainless Sdn Bhd v 1. ) Latex Form Sdn Bhd (BL-A72NCvC-325-07/2024)

LATEX FORM SDN BHD [No. Syarikat: 199501018141 (347344-M)

SARAVANA KUMAR A/L NARAYANAN [No. K/P: 650908-07-5243]

KONG MUK WENG [No. K/P: 730104-14-5293]

Setelah meneliti keterangan saksi-saksi, dokumen dan hujahan bertulis kedua-dua pihak, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa Plaintif telah berjaya membuktikan tuntutannya terhadap kesemua Defendan di atas imbangan 16/10/2025 13:03:29 BL-A72NCvC-325-07/2024 Kand. 60 S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g kebarangkalian. Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa tuntutan Plaintif adalah dibenarkan dengan kos mengikut skala. RINGKASAN KES PLAINTIF [1] Plaintif ialah sebuah syarikat yang menjalankan perniagaan dalam bidang pembekalan keluli tahan karat. [2] Defendan Pertama merupakan pelanggan kepada plaintif, manakala Defendan Kedua dan Ketiga ialah pengarah serta penjamin peribadi Defendan Pertama. [3] Pada 22.8.2021, Defendan Pertama telah memohon kemudahan kredit daripada Plaintif, dan permohonan tersebut diluluskan dengan had sebanyak RM400,000 serta tempoh pembayaran 60 hari. [4] Berdasarkan kemudahan tersebut, Plaintif telah membekalkan barangan keluli tahan karat kepada Defendan Pertama antara November 2021 hingga April 2022 dengan jumlah invois keseluruhan sebanyak RM628,446.50. [5] Defendan Pertama telah membuat beberapa bayaran secara berperingkat, namun masih terdapat baki tertunggak sebanyak RM49,477.87, iaitu caj faedah lewat pembayaran pada kadar 1.5% sebulan. S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g [6] Plaintif menafikan dakwaan Defendan bahawa faedah lewat telah diketepikan, dan menyatakan bahawa persetujuan hanya dibuat berhubung penjadualan semula pembayaran. [7] Setelah Defendan Pertama gagal melunaskan baki hutang tersebut, Plaintif telah menuntut bayaran daripada Defendan Kedua dan Ketiga selaku penjamin berdasarkan Borang Jaminan Persendirian yang ditandatangani oleh mereka. [8] Plaintif menuntut supaya kesemua Defendan, secara bersama dan berasingan, membayar kepada plaintif jumlah RM49,477.87 beserta faedah dan kos tindakan. RINGKASAN KES DEFENDAN [9] Defendan-defendan mengakui bahawa Defendan Pertama telah membuat beberapa pesanan pembelian dan bahawa plaintif telah mengeluarkan nota penghantaran serta invois. Namun, Defendan-defendan mempertikaikan kandungan dan butiran invois serta jumlah yang dituntut Plaintif. [10] Mengenai caj faedah lewat pembayaran sebanyak RM49,477.87 yang dituntut Plaintif, Defendan-defendan menegaskan bahawa jumlah tersebut adalah meragukan kerana Plaintif gagal menjelaskan asas pengiraan dan tempoh yang digunakan. S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g [11] Defendan-defendan juga menyatakan bahawa pada atau sekitar Oktober 2022, satu perbincangan telah diadakan antara wakil plaintif (termasuk seorang individu bernama Encik Chin) dan Defendan Ketiga selaku wakil Defendan Pertama. Dalam perbincangan tersebut, Defendan Ketiga telah mencadangkan agar Defendan Pertama melunaskan semua invois tertunggak berjumlah RM419,225.50 secara ansuran melalui enam keping post-dated cheques, dengan syarat bahawa faedah lewat bayaran akan diketepikan. [12] Adalah dikatakan bahawa Plaintif telah bersetuju dengan cadangan tersebut dan menerima keenam-enam cek berkenaan sebagai penyelesaian penuh dan muktamad terhadap keseluruhan invois tertunggak. [13] Defendan-defendan menyatakan bahawa persetujuan tersebut turut disahkan melalui e-mel Defendan Pertama kepada Plaintif bertarikh 26.7.2023, yang menegaskan bahawa faedah lewat bayaran telah diketepikan. Oleh itu, Plaintif dikatakan terhalang daripada menuntut semula jumlah tersebut. [14] Defendan-Defendan mengakui bahawa Defendan Kedua telah menandatangani Borang Permohonan Kredit bagi pihak Defendan Pertama dan bahawa Defendan Kedua serta Defendan Ketiga telah menandatangani satu Borang Jaminan Persendirian. Namun, Defendan-Defendan menegaskan bahawa Borang Jaminan tersebut telah ditandatangani di bawah paksaan pihak Plaintif tanpa sebarang penjelasan berhubung terma dan kandungannya. S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g [15] Defendan-defendan selanjutnya mendakwa bahawa borang jaminan tersebut tidak disetemkan dan oleh itu adalah tidak sah dan tidak mengikat Defendan Kedua serta defendan ketiga [16] Defendan Kedua dan Ketiga turut menegaskan bahawa sekiranya borang jaminan persendirian dianggap sah (yang dinafikan), liabiliti mereka sebagai penjamin hanya timbul apabila Defendan Pertama gagal membayar jumlah yang dibuktikan sah kepada Plaintif. PERBICARAAN KES [17] Bicara Penuh telah berlangsung selama 2 hari iaitu pada 19 dan 20 Mei 2025 secara fizikal. 1 saksi Plaintif dan 1 saksi Defendan telah dipanggil untuk memberikan keterangan. SP1: Chin Wai Kah – Penyata Saksi – PSP1 SD1: Kong Muk Weng – Penyata Saksi – PSD1 [18] Pihak-pihak telah merujuk kepada ikatan-ikatan seperti berikut: i. Ikatan Pliding - Bundle A ii. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama B &C - Bundle B iii. Ikatan Dokumen Plaintif 2 - Bundle C [19] Isu-isu untuk dibicarakan yang telah difailkan adalah seperti berikut:

Sama ada Defendan Pertama telah gagal membayar invois-invois Plaintif dalam tempoh masa 60 hari. S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g

1.1. Sekiranya jawapan kepada soalan 1 adalah positif, sama ada Defendan Pertama telah memungkiri Surat Kelulusan Kredit bertarikh 02.11.2021 (“Surat Kelulusan Kredit”).

Sama ada Plaintif berhak mengenakan faedah lewat pembayaran dalam jumlah RM49,477.87 terhadap Defendan Pertama.

Sama ada Defendan Ke-2 dan Defendan Ke-3 telah dipaksa menandatangani Borang Jaminan Persendirian bertarikh 22.08.2021 tanpa penjelasan material daripada Plaintif?

Sekiranya jawapan No. 3 ialah ya, sama ada Borang Jaminan Persendirian tersebut adalah tidak sah dan terbatal?

Sama ada liabiliti Defendan Ke-2 dan Defendan Ke-3 sebagai penjamin hanya terbit selepas Defendan Pertama gagal memenuhi obligasi pembayaran sebagai penghutang prinsipal (“principal debtor”) kepada Plaintif (sekiranya ada).

Sama ada faedah lewat bayaran sebanyak RM49,477.87 telah diketepikan selepas jumlah prinsipal RM419,225.50 dijelaskan Defendan Pertama hasil daripada persetujuan antara Plaintif dengan Defendan Ke- 3 selaku wakil bagi Defendan Pertama pada sekitar Oktober 2022.

Sama ada faedah pra-penghakiman dan faedah penghakiman boleh dikenakan ke atas faedah lewat bayaran sebanyak RM49,477.87 yang dituntut oleh Plaintif.

Sama ada Defendan-Defendan secara bersesama dan berasingan bertanggungjawab untuk membayar jumlah RM49,477.87 selaku faedah lewat pembayaran kepada Plaintif. S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g

Sama ada Borang Jaminan Persendirian tersebut yang disetemkan selepas pemfailan tindakan ini adalah sah dan boleh dipakai dalam tindakan ini. [20] Mahkamah akan membincangkan isu untuk dibicarakan seperti yang difikirkan relevan oleh Mahkamah. Jika terdapat isu-isu yang bertindih, maka, mengambil kira fakta-fakta yang telah diplidkan oleh pihak-pihak, isu-isu yang bertindih dan berkaitan akan diamati dan dibincangkan secara bersama oleh Mahkamah dan mengikut perkaitan (relevancy) dalam kes ini. [21] Berkenaan dengan dokumen-dokumen yang telah ditandakan sebagai ID (jika ada) dan belum ditukarkan kepada eksibit semasa perbicaraan, Mahkamah merujuk kepada Akta Keterangan 1950 yang menyatakan seperti berikut:

Admissibility of documentary evidence in civil cases, etc.

In any civil proceedings, the court may at any stage of the proceedings, if having regard to all the circumstances of the case it is satisfied that undue delay or expense would otherwise be caused, order that such a statement as is mentioned in subsection (1) shall be admissible as evidence or may, without any such order having been made, admit such a statement in evidence—

notwithstanding that the maker of the statement is available but is not called as a witness; and

notwithstanding that the original document is not produced, if, in lieu thereof, there is produced a copy of the original document or of S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g the material part thereof certified to be a true copy in such manner as may be specified in the order or as the court may approve, as the case may be.

Court to decide as to admissibility of evidence.

When either party proposes to give evidence of any fact, the court may ask the party proposing to give evidence in what manner the alleged fact, if proved, would be relevant; and the court shall admit the evidence it if thinks that the fact, if proved, would be relevant, and not otherwise. [22] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes RNS Oil and Gas Sdn Bhd v. Norhayati Ahmad Kamal (2016) 1 LNS 1113 di mana Mahkamah Tinggi telah memutuskan seperti berikut: “More pertinently, even though this letter was also not converted to a trial exhibit, the Court has discretion, and certainly the power under the Evidence Act 1950, considering the circumstances of the case, including the testimony of the respondent, to nevertheless accept the evidence “ID” marked documents, like was done in the instant case.” [23] Mahkamah kemudian merujuk kes Pembinaan SPK Sdn Bhd v Conaire Engineering Sdn Bhd-LLC [2022] 1 LNS 106 yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan seperti berikut: “[73] In relation to the evidential effect of a document that has not been properly proved the Defendants made reference to the principle expounded by the learned judge, Abdoolcader J (as he S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g then was) in Public Prosecutor v. Datuk Haji Harun Bin Haji Idris & Ors [1977] 1 LNS 24; [1977] 1 MLJ 180 at p183 (“PP v. Datuk Harun”) where he spoke of the evidential effect of a document which has not been properly proved: “It is necessary to refer to certain exhibits which have been put in the course of these proceedings for identification but have not in fact been proved as they should have been and are accordingly not exhibits in the strict sense and cannot therefore form part of the record in this case, namely, D41 and D43 which were both put in for identification only and which are the audited accounts and annual report of the Bank for the years 1973-1974 and 1972 respectively. As these two exhibits have not been proved and properly admitted as such, they must in the ultimate analysis be discounted and I shall accordingly disregard references to them and also all oral testimony as well adduced in relation thereto... “ [74] In deciding that the trade licences which were originally marked as ID document should be admitted into evidence, the LJ found it instructive to refer to the decision of Ramly Ali, JC (as he then was) in Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi (Malaysia) Bhd v. Sim Lim Holdings Bhd & Ors [2001] 2 CLJ 474 HC (“Sim Lim Holdings”) where the Court held: (p. 485- 486): “The counsel for the 2nd and 3rd defendants also submitted that all those documents are only marked as “ID” and thus only for identification purposes and are not admissible evidence. I cannot agree with the counsel on that point. From the records of the proceedings, it seems that the plaintiff had attempted to produce all those documents as evidence but was objected to by the counsel for the 2nd and 3rd defendants. Thus, the court had to decide on the S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g admissibility of all those documents at the end of the trial after hearing all the relevant circumstances of the case. At that stage of the proceedings, all those documents have to be marked as “ID” first, but it does not stop the court from deciding on their admissibility at the end of the trial ie, during submissions stage. Section 73A(2) of the Evidence Act 1950 empowers the court to do so. The said subsection provides for the exercise of the power “at any stage of the proceedings, having regards to all the circumstances of the case”. There is nothing to say that those documents cannot be admitted as evidence under s. 73A(2) just because they have only been marked as “ID”. [75] We do not find any plain error in the LJ’s concluding remark on the issue at hand that in view of all the circumstances alluded to above, that there is no prejudice to the defendants and secondly, it is only fair, just and proper that pursuant to Section 73A(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act 1950, the trade licences ID (1) and ID (2) be received as evidence and they are hereby admitted as “P1” and “P2” respectively. Second, that the trade licences were a necessary source document to enable the translator to elicit the correct name of D1 and D2 (per the 4th translation). [76] Neither was it a flaw for the LJ to view the trade licence as a sort of formal document and is akin to the search result from the Companies Commission of Malaysia and that there is nothing sinister about the trade licences having noted that the defendants had themselves alluded to their trade licences and confirmed that the trade licences expired in 2013. It was justified for the LJ to accept PW1’s evidence that the trade licences were available online and could be printed. S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g [77] We have noted that the 2 trade licences in question were initially marked as identification [“ID”] documents only but subsequently converted to and marked as Exhibit P1 and P2 because, as observed by the LJ, the Defendants themselves had observed that the Defendants themselves had alluded to their trade licenses and confirmed that the trade licenses expired in 2013. And according to PW1, the licences are available online and can be printed. A correct approach was taken by the LJ in determining whether to admit or to reject the trade licences by looking at this issue in totality and not in isolation under the circumstances of this case. Various authorities were referred to by the LJ and the governing law: Section 73A(1) and (2) of the EA before concluding ID1 and ID2 should be admitted into evidence as there was no prejudice occasioned to the Defendants. Hence, we see no basis in the Appellants’ contention that the LJ had erroneously decided this issue and disregard the principles governing admission of documentary evidence.” [24] Merujuk kepada kes-kes yang dinyatakan di atas, Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa dokumen yang ditandakan sebagai ID boleh dipertimbangkan untuk diterima oleh Mahkamah setelah meneliti semua keadaan yang berkaitan dengan kes selepas perbicaraan penuh. Mahkamah juga semasa membuat keputusan harus mempertimbangkan adakah selamat untuk membenarkan dokumen yang tidak dibuktikan untuk diterima sebagai bukti untuk dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah dalam membuat keputusan. Jadi, dokumen-dokumen bertanda ID yang dikemukakan oleh pihak-pihak adalah diteilti satu per satu dan setiap penerimaan atau penolakan akan dibincangkan apabila tiba di isu yang berkaitan dengan dokumen tersebut. S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g BEBAN PEMBUKTIAN [25] Sebelum Mahkamah meneruskan dengan analisa isu-isu yang menentukan liabiliti Plaintif, Mahkamah terlebih dahulu ingin menyatakan berkaitan dengan beban pembuktikan. Adalah satu undang-undang yang mantap di mana beban pembuktian adalah pada sesiapa yang menimbulkan satu fakta tersebut yang harus membuktikan tuntutannya. Seksyen 101 Akta Keterangan 1950 memperuntukkan seperti berikut: “101. (1) Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability, dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.

When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. ILLUSTRATIONS

A desires a court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed. A must prove that B has committed the crime.

A desires a court to give judgment that he is entitled to certain land in the possession of B by reason of facts which he asserts and which B denies to be true. A must prove the existence of those facts.” Seksyen 103 Akta Keterangan 1950 memperuntukkan seperti berikut: S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g “103. The burden of proof as to any particular facts lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie in any particular person. ILLUSTRATIONS

A prosecutes B for theft and wishes the court to believe that B admitted to the theft to C. A must prove the admission.

B wishes the court to believe that at the time in question he was elsewhere. He must prove it.” [26] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Mahkamah Persekutuan di mana prinsip ini menjadi panduan utama Mahkamah dalam menilai sama ada Plaintif telah berjaya membuktikan tuntutannya berdasarkan imbangan kebarangkalian, Hong Yik Trading v Liziz Plantation Sdn Bhd [2017] 5 MLJ 398 yang telah memutuskan seperti berikut: “[12] It is settled law that the burden of proof rests throughout the trial on the party who asserts that the facts exist (s101 of the Evidence Act 1950). Where a party on whom the burden of proof lies has discharged that burden, then the evidential burden shifts to the other party. However, if the party whom the burden of proof lies fails to discharge it, the other party need not call any evidence.” S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g [27] Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada kes Lim Jen Hsian & Anor v Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara [2017] 8 CLJ 412 oleh Mahkamah Rayuan yang memutuskan bahawa: “[33] It is a well-established principle of law that he who asserts must prove. This is particularly so in respect of facts which are within the appellants’ knowledge. The burden of proof is on the appellants to established on the balance of probabilities that the second appellant “was not born a citizen of any country”. Such rule of evidence is enunciated in s, 103 of the Evidence Act 1950 which provides: The burden of proof as to any particular facts lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie in any particular person. [34] In the case of Ong Boon Hua & Anor v. Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Ors [2008] 5 CLJ 42, it was held that the burden is on the applicant to prove his citizenship stats by the relevant documents, the absence of which would be fatal to prove his claim. [35] The burden of proof would only shift to the respondent to prove positively that the second appellant was born a citizen of a foreign country once the appellant has established a prima facie case. (Refer to Toh Whye Teck v. The Happy World Ltd [1953] 1 LNS 115; [1953] 19 MLJ 171). Mother who is a Thai national. The second appellant’s biological mother named Rai-Putta Thippawan (“Rai Putta”) is a citizen of Thailand. (exh. A of S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g encl. 10) (Refer to Foo Toon Aik v. Ketua Pendaftar Kelahiran dan Kematian, Malaysia [2012] 4 CLJ 613; [2012] 9 MLJ 573.” [28] Di dalam kes Abu Bakar bin Pangis & Ors v Tung Cheong Sawmill Sdn Bhd & Ors [2014] 5 MLJ 384 Mahkamah Rayuan telah memberikan satu penjelasan terperinci berkenaan beban pembuktian dan fungsi imbangan kebarangkalian dan Mahkamah merujuk dan mengguna-pakai panduan ini dalam membuat keputusan. “BURDEN OF PROOF AND BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES [21] Be that as it may, the law itself is fundamentally fair and just. It is just that the burden is upon a plaintiff to prove his claim. It is fair that he has to prove the facts in support of his claim not beyond reasonable doubt but only upon a balance of probabilities. [22] Objectively speaking, the nature of proof of a claim is not about believing one party or witness and not the other. Otherwise, justice in civil litigation falls prey to the uncertainty of who and what is believed or not by whoever presides in the court. It is to avoid this and to put the matter of proof upon an objective basis that the two fundamental concepts of the burden of proof and proof upon a balance of probabilities were developed. [23] But all this would come to nought if, in arriving at its conclusion and decision, the court erred (a) in the application of these two fundamental concepts of burden of proof and balance S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g of probabilities, and/or (b) in the appreciation of the facts of the case. [24] To appreciate how burden of proof functions, it is necessary to bear in mind the process of determination of facts in civil litigation:

a plaintiff relying upon a cause of action carries the burden of proving the facts in support of it. He does so by setting out such facts in his pleadings, thereby giving the other party notice and an opportunity to check and verify that those facts are true and correctly stated, and the other party may, to enable him to do so, require further and better particulars;

in respect of those facts in support:  (i) if not disputed by the defence, it is deemed to have been accepted and it is not necessary to prove it;  (ii) if a fact in support is disputed and the plaintiff had disclosed the nature of the evidence relied upon, then if conceded by the defence it is deemed to have been proved, and no further proof is necessary;  (iii) S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g if a fact in support is disputed and the plaintiff had disclosed the nature of the evidence relied upon, and it remained disputed by the defence, but if after discovery and or interrogatory it was conceded by the defence, it is deemed to have been proved, and no further proof is necessary.

if not conceded, a disputed fact in support proceeds to trial stage where:  (i) if as to a disputed fact no evidence is produced by the plaintiff in the form of oral testimony of a witness or documentary evidence in support thereof, then it is held to have been not proved;  (ii) if as to the disputed fact evidence is produced in the form of oral testimony of a witness or documentary evidence, and such evidence is not challenged in cross-examination, then it is held to have been proved;  (iii) if as to the disputed fact evidence is produced in the form of oral testimony of a witness or documentary evidence produced, and such evidence is not S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g demolished during cross-examination, and no evidence to support the cross-examination is adduced, or if adduced failed to support the basis of cross-examination, then the evidence is held to remain unshaken and the disputed fact have been proved;  (iv) if as to the disputed fact evidence is produced in the form of oral testimony of a witness or documentary evidence, and cross-examination succeeds to demolish that evidence, then the disputed fact is held to be not proved; and  (v) if as to a disputed fact evidence is produced in the form of oral testimony of a witness or documentary evidence, and despite cross-examination the version is maintained, it is for the court to assess what weight is to be given to such evidence in proof of the disputed fact. [25] Unless so provided by law or agreement, it is rare that any evidence produced is conclusive proof of a disputed fact. More often than not the evidence tend to support each party. This in fact is the bona fide cause of dispute between the parties. S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g Hence, the concept of proof upon a balance of probabilities had been adopted to resolve the dispute. It functions in this manner:

it starts with a disputed fact in support of the plaintiff's case being just his version of a fact;

this version gains probability when some evidence is produced by the plaintiff as the party upon whom the burden of proving that disputed fact lies; and

if the other party produces no evidence to contradict that evidence or to support its own version of the disputed fact, then the party upon whom the burden lies is held to have proved its version of the disputed fact upon a balance of probabilities; but

if the other party produces some evidence to contradict that evidence or to support its own version of the disputed fact, that other party is said to have placed its evidence upon 'the balance of probabilities', and depending upon the weight given to the evidence of each party, the trial court determines in whose favour that balance of probabilities points in respect of that disputed fact. [26] So much for burden of proof and proof upon a balance of probabilities in respect of a disputed fact. S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g [27] A conclusion and decision in a civil suit as to whether a plaintiff has proved his claim upon a balance of probabilities, is arrived at by application of law to the totality of the facts (a) not disputed, (b) facts conceded, agreed and (c) findings of fact found to be proved upon a balance of probabilities as explained above.” ANALISA DAN DAPATAN MAHKAMAH [29] Sebelum Mahkamah meneruskan dengan analisa dan dapatan Mahkamah, adalah ditekankan di sini bahawa, pihak-pihak adalah terikat dengan pliding. [30] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes IMPACT ELITE GOLF ACADEMY SDN BHD v MINES EXCELLENCE GOLF RESORT BERHAD [2020] MLJU 487 yang telah memutuskan seperti berikut: “[177] It is trite law that a party is bound by its pleadings. The Court of Appeal in The Carbon Co Sdn Bhd & Anor v Ng Lee Hoon (conducting under ‘Forest Wood Flooring’) [2017] 4 MLJ 791; [2017] 6 CLJ 189 reiterated the settled principle that parties are bound by their pleadings: “[36] Pleadings play an important role in civil litigation, as parties are bound by their respective pleadings. This is trite. The facts pleaded in the pleadings will define the parameters of each party’s case and serve as a clear notice to the adverse party the case that will be adjudicated so as to prevent either party from being taken by surprise during trial. Pleadings too will serve a guide to the court in determining the issues to be tried.” S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g [178] It is a settled principle of litigation that it is not the function of the Court to build a case for the litigants, inconsistent with the pleadings. The Supreme Court in Yew Wan Leong v Lai Kok Chye [1990] 2 MLJ 152;; [1990] 1 CLJ 1113;; [1990] 1 CLJ Rep 330 held as follows: “In disposing of a suit or matter involving a disputed question of fact, it is not proper for the court to displace the case made by a party in its pleadings and give effect to an entirely new case which the party had not made out in its own pleadings. The trial of a suit should be confined to pleas on which the parties are at variance.” ISU PERTAMA - Sama ada Plaintif berhak mengenakan Faedah Pembayaran Lewat (“FPL”) terhadap Defendan Pertama. [31] Mahkamah merujuk kepada dokumen-dokumen berikut:

Borang Permohonan Kredit bertarikh 22.8.2021 [Bundle B, M/S 28];

Surat Kelulusan Kredit bertarikh 2.11.2021 [Bundle B, M/S 35];

Pesanan-Pesanan Penghantaran [Bundle B, M/S 52-69];

Invois-Invois Plaintif [Bundle B, M/S 70-84];

Nota-nota Debit [Bunlde B, M/S 85-95, 110-111]; dan

Penyata Akaun [Bundle B, M/S 119- 120] [32] Mahkamah kemudian merujuk kepada keterangan SD1 semasa Pemeriksaan Balas. S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g Okay, thank you, Mr. Kong. I will refer you to page 35, bundle B. Same bundle. All right, this is a plaintiff's credit approval letter, approved D1's application to purchase the stainless steel by credit. Is that correct? Okay, Mr. Kong, I refer you to 2nd paragraph, start from based on our credit application form. Okay, I just read it to the Court. “Based on our credit application form and personal guarantor form dated 22nd August 2021, the management has approved credit limit amount to 400,000 and credit tenure 60 days with the others standard sales and purchase terms and conditions remain.” Okay, and then I cross refer you 4th paragraph starting from, by accepting. Okay, I’ll just read it to the Court. “By accepting our offer, you are further agree to accept monthly 1.5% late payment interest on long overdue charge by our company without dispute.” Sorry correction, is 1.5 percent, not 1.25. Is that correct? Alright Mr. Kong, I refer to the signature column same page as well, right hand side, the buyer. The buyer side. Okay, Can I confirm that, this is sign by D2? Okay, Beside the signature there is company cop, which is D1’s company cop. Is that correct? S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g Mr. Kong, can I confirm with you after this credit approval letter, D1 place order with plaintiff, issued the purchase order. If I can assist the purchase order, I will refer you to bundle B, page 36 to 51. Is that correct? Okay, Mr. Kong, can I confirm with you again, this is a purchase order issued by D1? Mr. Kong, can I confirm with you that D1 never disputed to the credit approval letter in page 35? SD1 Setuju. Mr. Kong, can I suggest that by signing this letter, same page, 35, D1 accepts all the terms stated in this letter and are bound to it after you signed, D2 signed this letter? SD1 Setuju. Alright. Next one, Mr. Kong, I will refer you to bundle B page 52 to 69. Okay, Mr. Kong, can you confirm that this is plaintiff delivery orders? Mr. Kong, can I confirm with you that D1 signed this delivery order and put D1's company cop on the delivery order? Puan, sorry to clarify, is it the certain pages or all the DO that plaintiff that referring? S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g Most of the pages. PD Puan. Just to clarify that. Okay, Mr. Kong? JB You mean, most of the pages? Yes, Mr. Kong has go through all he DO from pages 52 to 59 correct just now? SD1 Kebanyakan ada tandatangan dan stamp D1. Mr. Kong, can I confirm with you that D1 received all the DO? You can go through page 52 until 59 one by one. Mr. Kong, can you refer to, I'll just take one, page 52. Okay, down there. I'll just read it to the Court. “Any claims or complaints must be put in writing and received within 5 days from delivery date.” Okay, Mr. Kong, and then down there as well. Interest at the rate of 1.5% PM, PM stand for per month, will be charged on all overdue account until full settlement of payment, correct? Mr. Kong, since you have confirmed that D1 received all the DOs, do you agree that D1 never make any claims or complaint to the plaintiff regarding this DO or the goods received from the plaintiff? S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g Since Mr. Kong said that D1 has confirmed received all the DO, Mr. Kong agreed that D1 never make any claims or complaints to the plaintiff regarding DO and the goods delivered to the defendant? JB Regarding the goods delivered? Delivered, yeah. SD1 Setuju. Mr. Kong, since there is no any claims or complaints made to the plaintiff, I suggest to you that D1 do not have any issues with the DO and also the goods delivered. Do you agree? No issue. SD1 Setuju. PP Okay, Mr. Kong, I would then refer you to the same bundle, bundle B, page 70 to 84. 70 to 84. Okay, Mr. Kong, can you confirm that these are the invoices issued by the plaintiff? SD1 Walaupun ianya adalah invoices yang dikeluarkan oleh plaintif, tetapi dari segi kuantiti dan harga saya tidak pasti, saya kena rujuk kepada DO berkenaan. If that is the case Mr. Kong, do you agree that D1 never raise any dispute regarding the amount stated in the invoice? Mr. Kong, do you agree that since you mention that you are not sure whether the amount tally with the PO, do you raise any issue or concern to the plaintiff regarding the content of the invoice? SD1 Saya boleh semak PO saya sendiri, Puan Majistret. Never mind Mr. Kong, you can leave your explanation to your counsel later. Mr. Kong, my question is that, can you confirm that this invoice is issued by the plaintiff? It is very simple. S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g Okay Mr. Kong, can I refer you to the payment terms. I believe is the right-hand side of the invoice. Okay, 60days, is Mr. Kong follow? Mr. Kong, then can you refer to down there, invoice, “we reserve the right to charge an interest of 1.5% per month on all overdue accounts.” Do you follow? If I can assist is second last sentence. Mr. Kong, refer to payment terms, 60 days and 1.5% per month on all overdue account. Do you agree or not if Latex is late in paying this invoice, meaning exceeded 60 days, 1.5% per month interest will be incurred on the outstanding sum? SD1 Saya tidak setuju, saya bagi pihak syarikat saya tidak setuju. Mr. Kong, this is referring to the document invoice. The payment terms said 60 days, any outstanding will incur 1.5% per month. Do you agree? SD1 Saya tidak setuju kepada apa yang tertera di dalam invois ini. Mr. Kong, D1, D2 or D3 ever disputed to the invoices? SD1 Ada. Mr. Kong, you said you have disputed to the invoices right? So, can you show us in bundle B or any part of the bundle that you have ever disputed to the invoices received by the plaintiff. SD1 Di dalam email kami yang berada di dalam ikatan dokumen, kami telah meluahkan pendapat bahawa kami tidak setuju dengan faedah yang dikenakan. S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g Mr. Kong, just now you mentioned you are not agreeable to the interest, but I'm asking the principal amount in the invoice. This invoice is not interest, this is principal sum. SD1 Kami tiada apa-apa bantahan terhadap principal sum yang tertera di dalam invoices. Mr. Kong, just now you mentioned that you are not agreeable on behalf of D1 on the terms in this invoice, correct? SD1 Saya tidak setuju. Mr. Kong, have you ever disputed to the terms of this invoice when you receive it? Have you ever disputed to any of the terms when you receive the invoice from the plaintiff? SD1 You mean the terms stated at the bottom of the invoices? No, I mean the terms stated in the invoices. No, I don't refer to bottom. I refer to any of the terms, yes, overall. SD1 The amount tally with the PO, jumlah yang tertera di dalam invoice, tally dengan dalam PO, saya tiada masalah. Terms of payment sebanyak 60 hari juga saya tiada bantahan. Hanya saya bantah kepada faedah yang dikenakan sebanyak 1.5% secara bulanan. Okay, Mr. Kong, the question is very simple. Since you mentioned this 1.5, 60 days, my question is very simple. When you receive these invoices, have you ever disputed to the plaintiff? Do you make any complaint? SD1 Ada saya menelefonnya. Mr. Kong, can you show us, show to the Court whether you have produced any document or records in the bundle which shows that S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g you have actually called to plaintiff to dispute to the invoice when you receive it? SD1 Tiada. … Mr. Kong, can you also agree or not that, defendant actually realized that the late payment interest of 1.5% per month will be incurred on all the outstanding amount from the invoices? Do you agree? SD1 Setuju. Cuma tak tahu berapa digunakan. [33] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Pos Logistics Bhd. v Kumpulan Perubatan Smarthealth Sdn. Bhd. [2019] MLJU 981 yang telah memutuskan seperti berikut: “[21] I am of the view that the Plaintiff is entitled to charge Late Fee Interest because there exists a course of business dealing between the Plaintiff and Defendant wherein the Defendant has agreed to pay Late Fee Interest (Course of Business Dealing). The Course of Business Dealing is proven by the following evidence and reasons:  (1)the Invoices had expressly stated that, among others, the Invoiced Sums should be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff within 14 days from the date of the Invoices and if the Invoiced Sums were not paid within the stipulated time period, Late Fee Interest would be imposed;  (2)the following conduct of the Defendant supports the Course of Business Dealing - S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g o (a)after the Plaintiff had first imposed Late Fee Interest in the Invoice, the Defendant should have objected to the Late Fee Interest and the Defendant’s employees should have refused to seek further Services from the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant’s employees continued to seek the Services without any objection to the Late Fee Interest by the Defendant; and o (b)the Defendant’s Part Payments had been made without any protest against the Late Fee Interest. The Defendant’s aforesaid conduct is relevant under s 8(2) EA which provides as follows - “8(2) The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding in reference to that suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant if the conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.” (emphasis added); and  (3)the Course of Business Dealing was not brief. Instead, the Course of Business Dealing took place over a period of two years and ten months [Services were provided by the Plaintiff to the Defendant from 1.2.2013 until 30.11.2015 (Termination of Services)].” S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g [34] Mahkamah meneliti dokumen-dokumen yang dikemukakan oleh plaintif termasuk Borang Permohonan Kredit bertarikh 22.8.2021, Surat Kelulusan Kredit bertarikh 2.11.2021, Pesanan Penghantaran, Invois, Nota Debit dan Penyata Akaun. Berdasarkan dokumen tersebut, Mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa terdapat hubungan kontraktual antara Plaintif dan Defendan pertama bagi pembelian barangan jenis stainless steel secara kredit. [35] Surat Kelulusan Kredit yang ditandatangani oleh Defendan Kedua bagi pihak Defendan Pertama dengan jelas memperuntukkan had kredit sebanyak RM400,000 dengan tempoh pembayaran selama 60 hari, serta syarat bahawa faedah lewat pembayaran sebanyak 1.5% sebulan akan dikenakan terhadap jumlah tertunggak. Defendan Pertama tidak pernah menafikan kewujudan surat tersebut dan mengesahkan tandatangan pada dokumen itu semasa pemeriksaan balas. [36] Mahkamah turut mengambil maklum bahawa semua pesanan penghantaran (delivery orders) telah diterima oleh Defendan Pertama dan ditandatangani serta dicop oleh wakil syarikat Defendan. Defendan pertama tidak pernah mengemukakan sebarang aduan bertulis atau bantahan terhadap kuantiti atau kualiti barangan yang diterima sebagaimana dikehendaki dalam terma penghantaran. Ini menunjukkan penerimaan tanpa syarat terhadap barangan yang dibekalkan. [37] Berhubung invois-invois yang dikeluarkan oleh plaintif, keterangan SD1 menunjukkan bahawa Defendan Pertama tidak pernah membantah jumlah prinsipal yang dinyatakan, dan hanya menyatakan ketidaksetujuan S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g terhadap kadar faedah lewat pembayaran. Tiada bukti dokumentari dikemukakan bagi menunjukkan sebarang bantahan rasmi dibuat terhadap invois-invois tersebut atau terhadap syarat faedah yang terkandung di dalamnya. [38] Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa kegagalan Defendan untuk membantah secara konsisten terhadap terma faedah lewat pembayaran semasa transaksi berlangsung, serta tindakan terus membuat pesanan dan menerima bekalan pada ketika terma itu telah termaktub di dalam dokumen, menunjukkan bahawa Defendan telah secara tersirat menerima dan terikat dengan syarat tersebut. Prinsip ini disokong oleh keputusan dalam kes Pos Logistics Bhd v Kumpulan Perubatan Smarthealth Sdn Bhd [2019] MLJU 981, di mana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa kewujudan amalan perniagaan berterusan (course of business dealing) yang melibatkan penerimaan invois dengan terma faedah lewat pembayaran tanpa bantahan membolehkan plaintif mengenakan faedah tersebut secara sah. [39] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa Plaintif berhak mengenakan Faedah Pembayaran Lewat (“FPL”) terhadap Defendan Pertama pada kadar 1.5% sebulan sebagaimana diperuntukkan dalam dokumen-dokumen yang telah dirujuk di atas. ISU KEDUA Sama ada kaedah pengiraan Faedah Pembayaran Lewat (FPL) oleh Plaintif dibuktikan. S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g [40] Mahkamah mengambil maklum bahawa saksi Plaintif (SP1) tidak dapat memberikan keterangan berhubung kaedah pengiraan Faedah Pembayaran Lewat (FPL), dan tiada saksi lain dipanggil bagi menerangkan butiran pengiraan tersebut. Mahkamah turut mencatat bahawa walaupun Butiran Pengiraan Faedah Pembayaran Lewat telah dilampirkan bersama hujahan Plaintif yang dilabelkan sebagai Lampiran A, dokumen tersebut tidak dikemukakan sebagai eksibit semasa perbicaraan dan oleh itu tidak boleh diberi berat probatif sepenuhnya. [41] Walau bagaimanapun, Mahkamah mendapati kadar FPL sebanyak 1.5% sebulan serta tempoh pembayaran 60 hari telah dinyatakan secara jelas dalam invois-invois yang dikemukakan oleh Plaintif. Terma itu sendiri telah menyatakan cara pengiraan. Defendan melalui saksi SD1 turut mengesahkan pengetahuan berhubung FPL tersebut, dan tidak pernah membangkitkan sebarang bantahan terhadap pengiraan faedah sebelum tindakan ini difailkan. Mahkamah juga mendapati Defendan tidak memberikan sebarang bantuan atau cadangan pengiraan alternatif bagi menentusahkan jumlah sebenar faedah yang dipertikaikan, walaupun menyedari bahawa faedah lewat pembayaran sememangnya dikenakan berdasarkan terma yang telah dipersetujui. [42] Oleh itu, walaupun tiada keterangan langsung mengenai formula pengiraan yang digunakan dan jadual pengiraan tidak dikemukakan sebagai bukti formal, Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa asas tuntutan faedah telahpun dibuktikan melalui dokumen invois dan pengetahuan Defendan akan faedah yang dikenakan. Mahkamah dengan itu S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g membenarkan tuntutan faedah sebanyak RM49,477.87 sebagaimana dinyatakan dalam invois-invois Plaintif. ISU KETIGA Sama ada Plaintif telah melepaskan haknya untuk menuntut Faedah Pembayaran Lewat (FPL). [43] Defendan berhujah bahawa terdapat persetujuan di antara pihak-pihak untuk mengenepikan FPL semasa perbincangan yang telah diadakan pada atau sekitar Oktober 2022. Defendan mendakwa Plaintif telah bersetuju untuk mengenepikan FPL selepas menerima 6 post-dated cheques daripada Defendan Pertama. [44] Mahkamah merujuk kepada keterangan SD1 semasa Pemeriksaan Balas dan Pemeriksaan Semula. Pemeriksaan Balas Alright Mr Kong, yesterday we were talking about debit notes. I refer you to refer Bundle B page 85-95. If you remember Mr Kong, yesterday I asked you whether do you agree that Defendants never disputed the debit notes, your answer is setuju. I then asked you whether Defendants realize late payment interest of 1.5% will be imposed on the outstanding invoices, and your answer is setuju cuma tidak tahu berapa akan dikenakan. I put it to you that the first Defendant is liable to the debit notes. SD1 Disagree. S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g Mr Kong, during the meeting in October 2022, this is your witness statement answer 6(A), page 5 in paragraph 2-4. During the meeting in October 2022, you and Plaintiff’s representative discussed about the outstanding sum and this is your case, that the Plaintiff agreed that the amount of RM419225.50 settled by instalment and also the late payment interest during that meeting. SD1 At that time that’s what we discussed during that meeting. Yes, and that’s the Defendants’ case, right? JBC What do you mean? Because this is his witness statement. SD1 This is the fact. Mr Kong, during the meeting, how many months instalments part disagreed? SD1 6 months. After the meeting Mr Kong, did you confirm in writing the settlement terms? SD1 Is that I need to do elaboration or just answer yes or no? Just answer yes or no. Mr Kong, can you please refer to Bundle B page 96. This is a whatsapp conversation between you and Mr Chin. Please refer to message on 02/11/2022. I’ll just read it to you. S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g ‘Hi Jordon, we have no discount to your company. Kindly arrange the payment to us latest by next week as promised split into 4 months instalment. Hope to hear from you soon’. My question is that, did you dispute when Mr Chin say no discount? SD1 Can I make any explanation? I will require yes or no answer. SD1 There’s a telephone call. Can you show did you produce any documents or records in any bundle before the Court recording that there is a phone call after this message? SD1 Because that is just a phone call. So of course there’s no any records. Mr Kong, this is your case that the Defendants paid 6 post-dated cheque after the meeting. Correct? Since you didn’t confirm the settlement terms in writing after the meeting and you never dispute to Mr Chin message on 02/11/2022, I put it to you that the D1 pay the outstanding sum based on D1’s preference and not what was agreed during the meeting. Puan, objection. That’s too general on the question. Because Plaintiff did not set up what was agreed during the meeting beforehand to the witness, then this one is a bit general to ask the witness to answer, based on D1’s preference and what was agreed during the meeting. S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g I believe Defendant’s witness can answer on behalf of the first Defendant because as per his witness statement and answer yesterday, he said he understands the first Defendant’s action’s and decisions. Puan, I just repeat the question that asked by my learned friend. Beforehand, witness been asked that do you agree that first Defendant has paid 6 PD cheque on outstanding sum of RM419225.50, saksi says agreed. Then the last question that put forward by my learned friend is, since you didn’t confirm settlement in writing, you never dispute to Mr Chin’s message, I put it to you that D1 pay the outstanding based on D1’s preference and utterly not what was agreed during the meeting. But had not put forward what terms of agreement during the meeting beforehand. Puan, I will just rephrase my question to be more specific. Thank you. Okay. Mr Kong, since you never confirm in writing and you didn’t disputed to Mr Chin’s message on 02/11/2022, sorry I rephrase again. Mr Chin’s message on 02/11/2022 says that payment supposed to be split into 4 months instalments. And you agreed that this message is after the meeting in October 2022. Correct? SD1 After the meeting and after I render my cheque to them, then I received this message. Based on Mr Chin’s message on 02/11/2022 which happened after the meeting, I put it to you that when first Defendant hands over the S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g 6 post-dated cheque, it is not as per what was agreed during the meeting. SD1 Disagree. Just now you explained a bit on background of Mr Chin’s message on 02/11/2022. You explained that this message happened after the meeting on October 2022 and after D1 hand over post-dated cheque. That’s when Mr Chin sent the message to Jordon, no discount. This is after Plaintiff receive post-dated cheque. SD1 Yes, this is the thing that the first post-dated cheque has been back-in, then, I received this message. Since you said you received this message after you hand over 6 post-dated cheque to the Plaintiff, and our client said ‘no discount’, I suggest to you that the 6 post-dated cheque are not in a full sum and did not include the late payment interest. SD1 Disagree. I put it to you that Plaintiff has never agree to waive interest during that meeting. SD1 During that meeting, because we had agreed all the terms and conditions in the meeting, then I issued 6 post-dated cheque on the same day and hand over to them. But on the day of first cheque has been bank in, then I received this message after 5pm. It shows that the Plaintiff, he has agreed to receive 6 post-dated cheque. If he refuse to that terms and conditions, why he still collect the post-dated cheque from me? If he refuse on these terms he should not collect any cheque from me but why he still do this? S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g Mr Kong, you can address this to your counsel later. Can you please refer to Bundle B page 97, Mr Chin’s email dated 3rd August 2023, from Vernon Chin. I just read it to you. “During the meeting on month October 2022, Mr Jordon didn’t request to waive the interest and latex agreed to pay the interest as stated in your opening account from.” Mr Kong, can I conclude that this email says that you never request to waive the interest during meeting on October 2022? SD1 Disagree. I have do such request. Mr Kong, do you have any proof to show to the Court that you have said so in the meeting? SD1 The 6 post-dated it would be as an evidence for this. If there is disputes on this, why they still collect the cheque from me? But Mr Kong, you do not have any proof to show that you actually request or did not request to waive the interest during that meeting. Do you agree? SD1 I disagree. There’s 6 post-dated cheque would as an evidence. Mr Kong, since you do not have any proof to show to the Court that you actually request or did not request to waive the interest, in your witness statement, you said Plaintiff agreed to waive the interest, so I put it to you that your witness statement is unreliable. Your answer in 6 (A), paragraph 3 & 4. JBC Again your question? Mr Kong, first I refer you to your witness statement 6 (A), paragraph 3 & 4 at page 5. You said that Plaintiff has agreed to waive interest, S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g but you do not have any proof to show to the Court that you have actually request or not request to waive interest. I put it to you that your witness statement in answer 6(A), paragraph 3 & 4 is unreliable. SD1 Disagree. This is a fact. I put it to you that you have never request to waive interest during the meeting. SD1 Disagree. This question already asked many times. I put it to you that Plaintiff has never agreed to waive interest during the meeting. SD1 Disagree. Mr Kong I refer you to page 97 Bundle B, Mr Kumar’s email dated 4th August 2023. Mr Kong, please go through this email. If you need an interpretation, then you can ask from your translator. SD1 Okay. Mr Kong, agree or not, in this email, this is the second Defendant’s email, never disputed Mr Chin’s statement down there ‘Mr Jordon didn’t request to waive interest and latex agreed to pay the interest as stated in your opening account from’. Do you agree? SD1 It already stated in July, this is the continuous email. We have already say this in July but this thing come out in the month of August. Mr Kong, I’m referring you to Mr Kumar’s email dated 4th August 2023, not in July. Can you point out in anywhere in this email Defendant actually disputed to Mr Chin’s down there? S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g SD1 Why you ask again this question? He already mentioned in July. Mr Kong, I will be really appreciate if you can show me on email dated 4th August 2023. The rest of your explanation you can leave it to your counsel. SD1 In this email. No. Sorry Puan, translator sorry. In this day or in this email? Because in Chinese is in this day. JBC In this day, no. Okay. Okay Mr Kong, I put it to you therefore you have never request to waive the interest. Agree? SD1 Disagree. Mr Kong, I therefore put it to you that the Plaintiff has never agreed to waive the interest. Do you agree? SD1 Disagree. He already agreed in the meeting in October. That’s why he collects the cheque from me. Pemeriksaan Semula Mr Kong, just now you were being asked by my learned friend. You receive this message after you handed over the 6 PD cheque. I believe you as the Defendant has handed over the 6 PD cheque. Plaintiff’s counsel suggests to you that the 6 PD cheque is not in full sum and didn’t include the late payment interest and you disagree. Can you explain further to the Court why you disagree? S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g SD1 Because 6 post dated cheque was issued after the discussion about the interest will be waive. After he/she collect the cheque…. After the first post-dated cheque bank in, then he sent a message to me. [] Mahkamah kemudian merujuk kepada keterangan SP1 semasa Pemeriksaan Balas, Mr. Chin, can you please explain to the Court that any discussion during the meeting in October 2022? SP1 Yes. Can you explain what was being discussed? SP1 Chasing the debt, chasing the outstanding. The amount that you are unsure, correct? SP1 Correct. We only chasing the outstanding, when it’s going to be paid. But you are not sure what are the exact amount that being discussed during the meeting, correct? SP1 At that point of time I know but now you asking me the matter of figure aspect I don’t know lah. Okay Mr. Chin, agree or not that after the meeting parties had agreed to fully settle the principal sum by 6 post-dated cheques? After the meeting in October 2022. SP1 Disagree. Mr. Chin, refer to page 16 of the Pleading. Bundle A. Paragraph 19, there’s a table regarding the 6 post-dated cheques. Based on S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g this paragraph, agree or not that the 1st Defendant has passed the 6 post-dated cheques to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff has collected it? SP1 Agree. Mr. Chin, agree or not that the 6 post-dated cheques mentioned in paragraph 19 is correspond to the outstanding principal sum? SP1 I can’t remember. … SP1 Subtraction, Yes. So Mr. Chin, I suggest to you that once the Plaintiff received the 6 PD cheques by the 1st Defendant which correspond to the outstanding principal sum, the Plaintiff have agreed to waive the late payment interest? SP1 Disagree. Mr. Chin, if you disagree, what is the interest amount that is being discussed or agreed by the parties if the late payment interest is not waived? During the meeting in October 2022. SP1 Client never discuss interest with me. So Mr. Chin, I put it to you that during the meeting in October 2022, parties is only discussed on the outstanding principal sum? SP1 Disagree. Mr. Chin, so as a reasonable businessman, would you agree if an interest were intended to be paid it would include in the agreed instalment and discussed during the meeting in October 2022? S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g SP1 Agree. So Mr. Chin, if it will to include in the agreed instalment, what is the exact amount? Interest, not the principal. SP1 Depends on when they are paying. Mr. Chin, do you have the actual figure to be discussed during the meeting? Interest. SP1 I can’t recall. Mr. Chin, I put it to you., I suggest to you that upon received and clearance of the 6 post-dated cheques by the Plaintiff, it is consider as full and final settlement? SP1 Disagree. Mr. Chin, I refer you to page 96 of Bundle B. There’s a message in 2nd of November 2022. You have state in your message ‘Hi jordon, we have no discount to your company’ . I refer you to the 1st sentence. I suggest to you that the message in 2nd November 2022 is referring to no discount on the principal sum? Agree? SP1 Agree. Mr. Chin, I put to you that the late payment is incurred has actually been waived by both parties during the meeting in October 2022 after the 1st Defendant has passed the 6 PD cheques to the Plaintiff? SP1 Disagree. … S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g Mr. Chin, this email in page 97 is sent by you to the 1st Defendant and also the 2nd and 3rd Defendant, correct? On 3rd of August 2023. SP1 Correct. Mr. Chin, in the email, you have mentioned in the 5th sentence. ‘we do not agreed to waive the interest because we need to bear the late charge from the bank’. Correct? SP1 Correct. Mr. Chin, do you have any proof in the Bundle in front of this Court to show the Plaintiff need to bear the late charge from the bank? SP1 In Bundle, No. I suggest to you that the interest has actually been waived by the parties? Agree or disagree? SP1 Disagree. I suggest to you that since there’s no proof in the Bundle of Document in this Court to show that the Plaintiff need to bear the late charge from the bank., so I put it to you that your assertion is untrue? SP1 Disagree. Mr. Chin, agree or not that there’s no response given by the Plaintiff after receiving the email from the 2nd Defendant on 4th August 2023 referring in page 97 of Bundle B? SP1 Agree. … S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g Pemeriksaan Semula Next question, Mr. Chin, you were pushed to this question by my learned friend that the meeting in October 2022, was to discuss the outstanding sum, you were then asked what is the amount due so to be discussed during the meeting okay? You answered that, I cannot remember, can you explain why do you say you cannot remember to that? SP1 So during the discussion on 2022, so the amount was, the amount was actually mentioned at that time, but it was some time back already, that’s why I can’t remember, but we did discussed about the total amount and as for the interest, it is based on when the repayment was done. Then only there will be an additional charges on the interest. So, if you ask me now, I can't really give an actual, exact answer. … Thank you, Mr. Chin. So, the next question Mr. Chin, you were referred to your email at bundle B, page 97. The 3rd line, 3rd sentence from the above, we do not agree to waive the interest because we need to bear the late charge from the bank, you were referred by the defendant's counsel this sentence just now. And you said “yes” when you referred to this sentence, can you explain why you say yes, plaintiff needs to bear the late charge from the bank? SP1 Because the cost for stainless steel industry is very high. So, the credit we gave out is actually, usually higher than our cash flow, so we always, it is always, it is often that we actually borrowed money to do our rolling from the bank. S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g [46] Mahkamah kini merujuk kepada suatu perbualan WhatsApp di antara wakil Plaintif dan Defendan Ketiga bertarikh 2.11.2022 di Bundle B, muka surat 96. Perbualan tersebut menunjukkan bahawa Plaintif memaklumkan Defendan tiada diskaun yang diberikan kepada Defendan. Perbualan ini adalah sejurus selepas Plaintif menerima 6 post-dated cheque daripada Defendan. [47] Emel bertarikh 3.8.2023, Bundle B 97-98 juga dirujuk. Di dalam emel tersebut, Plaintif telah membalas kepada D2 dengan menyatakan Plaintif tidak pernah bersetuju untuk mengenepikan FPL dan Defendan juga tidak pernah meminta untuk mengenepikan FPL tersebut semasa perbincangan pada bulan Oktober 2022. [48] Mahkamah meneliti hujahan pihak-pihak serta keterangan saksi-saksi berhubung dakwaan bahawa Plaintif telah bersetuju untuk mengetepikan Faedah Pembayaran Lewat (“FPL”) semasa perbincangan pada bulan Oktober 2022. [49] Defendan melalui SD1 mendakwa bahawa Plaintif telah bersetuju untuk mengenepikan FPL selepas menerima enam (6) keping cek bertarikh hadapan (“post-dated cheques”) sebagai penyelesaian penuh. Namun, semasa pemeriksaan balas, SD1 mengakui bahawa tiada sebarang pengesahan bertulis berhubung persetujuan tersebut, dan bahawa beliau tidak menafikan mesej WhatsApp daripada wakil Plaintif bertarikh 2.11.2022 yang dengan jelas menyatakan “we have no discount to your company”. S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g [50] Keterangan SP1 pula konsisten bahawa semasa mesyuarat Oktober 2022, isu utama yang dibincangkan hanyalah berhubung bayaran tertunggak dan jadual pembayaran semula, tanpa sebarang persetujuan untuk mengetepikan faedah. SP1 turut merujuk kepada emel beliau bertarikh 3.8.2023 yang dengan jelas menyatakan bahawa Plaintif tidak pernah bersetuju untuk mengecualikan FPL dan bahawa Defendan juga tidak pernah membuat permintaan sedemikian semasa mesyuarat tersebut. [51] Mahkamah juga mengambil kira bahawa penerimaan enam keping cek oleh Plaintif tidak boleh ditafsir sebagai pelepasan (waiver) terhadap hak untuk menuntut faedah, memandangkan tiada bukti menunjukkan cek-cek tersebut merupakan penyelesaian penuh dan muktamad (“full and final settlement”). Sebaliknya, perbualan WhatsApp bertarikh 2.11.2022 memperkukuhkan pendirian Plaintif bahawa tiada diskaun atau pengecualian diberikan kepada Defendan. [52] Berdasarkan keterangan keseluruhan, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa Defendan gagal membuktikan wujudnya persetujuan bersama untuk mengetepikan FPL. Sebaliknya, bukti dokumentari dan lisan menunjukkan bahawa Plaintif secara konsisten mengekalkan haknya untuk menuntut FPL. Oleh itu, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa Plaintif tidak pernah melepaskan haknya untuk menuntut Faedah Pembayaran Lewat tersebut. ISU KEEMPAT S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g Sama ada Defendan Kedua dan Ketiga bertanggungjawab sebagai penjamin terhadap hutang Defendan Pertama. [53] Adalah pembelaan Defendan bahawa, Defendan-Defendan mengakui bahawa Defendan Kedua telah menandatangani borang permohonan kredit bagi pihak Defendan Pertama dan bahawa Defendan Kedua serta Defendan Ketiga telah menandatangani satu Borang Jaminan Persendirian. Namun, Defendan-Defendan menegaskan bahawa Borang Jaminan tersebut telah ditandatangani di bawah paksaan pihak Plaintif tanpa sebarang penjelasan berhubung terma dan kandungannya. [54] Defendan-defendan selanjutnya mendakwa bahawa borang jaminan tersebut tidak disetemkan dan oleh itu adalah tidak sah dan tidak mengikat Defendan Kedua serta defendan ketiga [55] Defendan Kedua dan Ketiga turut menegaskan bahawa sekiranya borang jaminan persendirian dianggap sah (yang dinafikan), liabiliti mereka sebagai penjamin hanya timbul apabila Defendan Pertama gagal membayar jumlah yang dibuktikan sah kepada Plaintif.

Paksaan [56] Mahkamah merujuk kepada Borang Jaminan Persendirian di Bundle B, muka surat 33 dan 34 yang telah ditandatangani oleh Defendan Kedua dan Ketiga. Perhatian khusus diberikan kepada Klausa 1 yang menyatakan seperti berikut: S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g

We hereby jointly and severally irrevocably and unconditionally guarantee as principal debtors and not merely as sureties, the proper and punctual repayment and payment by the Customer of all monies together with accrued interest due and owing to you in respect of such goods and services and the due observance and performance by the Customer of all the agreements covenants stipulations and undertakings on the part of the Customer in your favour and we unconditionally and irrevocably undertake jointly and severally as a continuing obligation to you that if for any reason the Customer does not make such repayment or payment, we shall pay all such monies due to you on demand. Our liability herein is co-extensive with that of the Customer. [57] Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada keterangan SD1 seperti berikut: Pemeriksaan Balas Let’s refer to Bundle B page 32-34. Are you there? Okay. This is title ‘Joint & Several Continuing Guarantee & Indemnity’. Flip to page 34. Can you confirm that, that is your signature with the name of ‘Kong Muk Weng’? And signature on the top Saravana Kumar is D2 signature? Is it your evidence that this personal guarantee form was sent by email from the Plaintiff to you? S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g So when both of you signed this form the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s representative was not present. SD1 Agree. And did you read this personal guarantee form before you signed? So if you did not read this form, you wouldn’t understand the term. Correct? SD1 Agree. Can you confirm that when you receive this personal guarantee form, you did not ask Plaintiff about the term? SD1 I have asked. Can you show the Court where is the evidence? SD1 That’s all on the phone by phone call. I see. Mr Kong, if you agree that a phone call was made, you can produce a phone bill to show in fact the telephone call was made? SD1 Now I don’t have but in future I will submit to Court. We already passed that stage, now based on the current document there’s no such phone call. Do you agree? SD1 No evidence. Based on all the documents before the Court, I put it to you that you have never ask Plaintiff any question about the personal guarantee form. S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g SD1 I have asked he/she if not otherwise why that they still sent me these documents? My question is, after you received these documents did you raise any question to the Plaintiff about the term in this guarantee form? SD1 For terms I did not ask, but I’ve asked what is the usage for these documents. And similarly, when D2 did receive this form, D2 did not ask Plaintiff about the term in this personal guarantee. Agree? SD1 D2 have asked me what is this. Can you confirm D2 did not ask Plaintiff any question about this form? SD1 He just ask me but never ask him. Plaintiff is a company. SD1 Because this document I handle it. Sorry Puan, I think learned counsel means the Plaintiff, company, instead of ‘he’. It’s a company. Its for record purposes. Sorry. So my next question is that, both of you proceeded to signed this personal guarantee form without raise any questions to the Plaintiff? SD1 I asked, they told me to sign this document. Then to allow me to open an account in their company. Is it your evidence that this personal guarantee form is a pre-condition for credit application? S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g So you do sign this personal guarantee form because you want the Plaintiff to approve the first Defendant credit application form. Is that correct? SD1 I represent the company to sign. So are you saying that you signed this guarantee on behalf of the first Defendant? SD1 Agree. Mr Kong, can you show me where in this guarantee it says that you’re signing it on behalf of the first Defendant? SD1 I don’t understand. You can take your time to read it now. SD1 This is Latex form one, how do I know. That’s why I’m suggesting that the witness can have a look at this document. SD1 I don’t understand the contents. My English is not so efficient. I’m suggesting the witness should look at it right now and point to the Court where does it say that he’s applying on behalf of the first Defendant. SD1 I only go see the Latex form in this document, then they ask me to sign, then I just put my signature on it. Mr Kong, earlier you’ve given evidence, when you signed a personal guarantee, it means you are guarantee someone else’s liability. That’s your testimony. And right now, when you signed this personal guarantee you are guarantee that the first Defendant will pay money to the Plaintiff. S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g SD1 I signed this document if I represent the company to put my signature. Mr Kong, if you’re representing the company, shouldn’t you put the company’s ‘cop’ on the form? SD1 Sometimes I put company’s stamp on it sometimes I don’t. this is handled by the HR department. But you’re the one who signed this form. SD1 (….cuba menjelaskan dalam Bahasa Cina-Mandarin….)) Sorry Puan. Witness, can you just answer whatever being asked by the Plaintiff and please look in the document itself. If it is not there you just answer to the Plaintiff. If you need to explain, I can ask you later. Just based on the document, answer what the Plaintiff is asking. Thank you. Let’s look at page 34. Does it say that you are signing on behalf of the company? So I put it to you that, when you sign this personal guarantee, you signed it in your personal capacity. SD1 I only say I represent the company. Whether personal capacity I don’t know. Did you ask D2 whether you signing on behalf of the company? SD1 They never explain to me, then I saw the Latex Form were handle the document, then I just sign. You’re not answering my question. Let me repeat my question. Did you ask D2 whether you signing on behalf of the company? S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g Yesterday you testify that you know D2 can understand English but you did not ask D2 what is this document about. Is that correct? Do you agree with me that you claim you don’t understand this document because you didn’t ask D2 about this document and D2 can understand English? SD1 Agree. So both of you signed this personal guarantee form because both of you want to guarantee the Plaintiff that you two will pay if the first Defendant cannot pay. Is that correct? SD1 I don’t know about his. And by signing this document, it means that you agree with the terms in it. SD1 I don’t know. Can I confirm you did not ask Plaintiff to read any of the terms in it? SD1 I don’t do because I don’t understand English. So I take it as you didn’t ask Plaintiff to remove? And when you sent back this form to the Plaintiff, none of you raise any issue or dispute about the terms. Would that be correct? SD1 Agree. Mr Kong, did you consult any lawyer before you sign this document? S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g You had the opportunity to consult a lawyer. Would you agree? SD1 Maybe yes I would ask lawyer. Mr Kong, I will give you two dates. 22/08/2021 that was the date when you submit this personal guarantee form, second date is 02/11/2021 this is the date when the credit was approved. During these dates, none of you D2 & D3 asked to withdraw this personal guarantee form. Is that correct? SD1 Agree. Can you confirm the very first time you claim the Plaintiff force you to sign this personal guarantee form was in the Defence? SD1 Agree. So you confirm that before this suit was commenced, none of the Defendants has raise any issue with this personal guarantee form? SD1 You set up the account then I will ………. 1.20.14 in this documents. ………. 1.20.18 Unable to do. (Suara jurubahasa tidak jelas) You’re not answering my question. My question is, before this suit was filed, you never or none of the Defendants has raise any issue with the personal guarantee form. SD1 Both parties, both sides has never raised this issue. So before this suit was commenced, both sides deemed that personal guarantee form is valid and legally binding document? SD1 I dot know. S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g Since you never raised any issue up until the defence, I put it to you that you’re asserture for the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff force them to sign the personal guarantee form is an afterthought. SD1 Disagree. I put it to you that its not true that you and second Defendant were forced to sign this personal guarantee form. SD1 Disagree. Let me put it in a bit of context. No. 1, the Plaintiff was not present at the time when the document was signed. No. 2, the Defendant never raise any issue on the term in personal guarantee form with the Plaintiff. No.3, the Defendant have the opportunity to consult a lawyer before signing it. Considering all these three factors, its not logical for the Defendants to claim that they were forced to sign this form. SD1 Disagree. Is there any evience to show that Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s representative force the Defendants to sign this form? Would you agree, if you don’t agree with this term, you will actually has liberty not to sign it? SD1 Agree. So then I put it to you again, the Defendants were not forced to sign this personal guarantee form? S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g SD1 Because that during MCO, other company don’t have any stock, only Plaintiff’s company have. Then, they request us to sign these documents. I think tak jawab soalan. You agree ke disagree? I think its disagree. Betul? Puan, I didn’t heard that. Perhaps just to confirm for the record. Okay you agree ke disagree? SD1 Disagree, because in my opinion, I was forced to do so. When you say ‘you were forced to do so’ is it because the Plaintiff asked you to submit it together with the credit application form? SD1 Agree. So the Defendants signed this form so that the Plaintiff will consider and approve this credit application. Would that be correct? And because you want to show the Plaintiff the Defendants has the ability to pay, and therefore you submit this personal guarantee form. SD1 I don’t agree. Let me put it differently. It you don’t apply for credit term from the Plaintiff, you wouldn’t submit this personal guarantee. SD1 Agree. So, is the Defendant still was force to sign this form? S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g SD1 At that time, in the market, I have no any other choice that I have to do this. So it was because you not having choice and it is not because of Plaintiff force you to sign? SD1 Never sign that, unable to set up an account. Witness, you’re not answering my question. SD1 I don’t know how to answer this. So then I put it to you that you sign this personal guarantee form because you don’t think of any other options in the market and not because Plaintiff was force you. SD1 Agree. Please refer to your witness statement question 3 (A) paragraph 3 at the bottom. In view of your answer, the statement here and I quote, ‘terpaksa menandatangani borang jaminan persendirian tersebut’. I quote this phrase is incorrect. SD1 I was forced by the situation. I have no other choice. [58] Setelah meneliti keterangan lisan SD1 serta dokumen Borang Jaminan Persendirian (Bundle B, m.s. 33–34), Mahkamah mendapati tiada sebarang bukti yang menyokong dakwaan bahawa tandatangan pada borang tersebut dibuat di bawah paksaan pihak Plaintif. [59] Berdasarkan pemeriksaan balas, SD1 sendiri mengakui bahawa: S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g

Plaintif atau wakilnya tidak hadir ketika borang tersebut ditandatangani;

Borang tersebut telah ditandatangani dan dihantar semula kepada Plaintif melalui e-mel tanpa sebarang bantahan terhadap terma-terma di dalamnya;

Defendan-defendan tidak pernah membuat sebarang aduan atau bantahan berkaitan borang tersebut sebelum tindakan ini difailkan; dan

Defendan-defendan menandatangani borang tersebut kerana ia merupakan syarat untuk meluluskan permohonan kredit Defendan Pertama, dan bukan kerana terdapat sebarang ancaman atau tekanan daripada Plaintif. [60] Keterangan SD1 bahawa beliau “terpaksa menandatangani” kerana “tiada pilihan lain di pasaran” tidak memenuhi takrif paksaan di sisi undang-undang. Undang-undang menetapkan bahawa paksaan hendaklah melibatkan ancaman yang menyalahi undang-undang terhadap diri, harta atau kebebasan seseorang sehingga memaksa pihak tersebut menandatangani kontrak tanpa kerelaan sebenar. Tekanan komersial atau keadaan pasaran yang mendesak tidak memadai untuk menubuhkan paksaan yang sah di sisi undang-undang. [61] Dalam kes ini, Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa apa yang dikemukakan oleh Defendan hanyalah tekanan komersial (commercial pressure) akibat keadaan pasaran semasa, bukannya paksaan yang menafikan kerelaan sebenar. Tambahan pula, Defendan mempunyai pilihan untuk tidak menandatangani borang tersebut sekiranya tidak S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g bersetuju dengan terma-terma yang terkandung di dalamnya, dan juga mempunyai peluang untuk mendapatkan nasihat undang-undang sebelum menandatangani. [62] Oleh itu, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa dakwaan Defendan-defendan bahawa Borang Jaminan Persendirian ditandatangani di bawah paksaan adalah tidak berasas dan tidak disokong dengan sebarang bukti. Tandatangan tersebut dibuat secara sukarela demi membolehkan akaun kredit dibuka bagi pihak Defendan Pertama. [63] Mahkamah seterusnya berpendapat bahawa Borang Jaminan Persendirian tersebut adalah sah dan mengikat Defendan Kedua dan Ketiga secara bersama dan berasingan (jointly and severally) sebagaimana diperuntukkan dalam Klausa 1 borang tersebut.

(ii) Duti Setem [64] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes American Express International Banking Corporation v Tan Loon Swan [1992] 1 MLJ 727 yang memutuskan seperti berikut: “We were referred to and agree with the decision of the Federal Court in Malayan Banking Bhd v Agencies Service Bureau Sdn Bhd & Ors 3, in which the Federal Court held at p 200 that it was clear that under s 52(1) of the Stamp Ordinance 1949, except for certain types of instruments, prohibition against admissibility of an instrument on account of not being duly stamped is not an absolute prohibition but conditional on payment of a duty or a penalty, if any, S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g under ss 43 and 47 of that Ordinance. We would also agree with the views of the Federal Court that it is the responsibility of the court under s 51 of that Ordinance to impound unstamped documents, if produced, and to admit them under proviso (a) to s 52(1) on payment of stamp duty or penalty, if any. As regards the question whether the Bar Council in this country would consider any of its members as being unprofessional for raising a stamp objection, we also agree that this is a matter left to that body to decide. The court and counsel appearing before it as officers of the court are only under an obligation to draw the court’s attention to its powers under ss 51 and 52(1) including its provisos. We therefore agreed with and approve the views of VC George J expressed in Elders Keep Ltd (formerly known as Keep Brothers Ltd) v Luen Mei Plastic Industries Sdn Bhd & Ors 4 at p 1008 that the non-stamping of documents concerned does not provide a triable issue.” [65] Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada kes Trust Company Limited v Tham Ching Poh & Ors [2022] MLJU 1232 yang telah memutuskan seperti berikut: “[24] Although I allowed the Striking Out Application on the basis that the court should give effect to the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Agreements, I will nonetheless briefly touch upon the second ground relied on by the defendants in the Striking Out Application, namely, that the Agreements have not been stamped. My stand on this is simple. An unstamped agreement is still admissible as evidence (see proviso (a) to section 52(1) of the Stamp Act 1949). The fact that the Agreements are unstamped cannot therefore be a reason for the court to strike out the plaintiff’s claim.” S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g [66] Defendan-defendan turut berhujah bahawa Borang Jaminan Persendirian yang ditandatangani oleh Defendan Kedua dan Ketiga adalah tidak sah dan tidak mengikat kerana tidak disetemkan sebagaimana kehendak undang-undang. [67] Mahkamah meneliti hujahan ini dan mendapati bahawa dokumen tersebut telah disetemkan pada 25.9.2024, iaitu selepas tarikh tandatangan. Berdasarkan peruntukan seksyen 47 dan 52 Akta Setem 1949, kelewatan dalam penyeteman tidak menjadikan sesuatu dokumen itu tidak sah. Undang-undang hanya mensyaratkan agar duti setem dibayar sebelum dokumen diterima sebagai keterangan, dan apabila ia telah disetemkan—walaupun lewat—dokumen tersebut tetap boleh diterima dan berkuat kuasa. [68] Mahkamah merujuk kepada keputusan American Express International Banking Corporation v Tan Loon Swan [1992] 1 MLJ 727, di mana Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan bahawa larangan terhadap penerimaan sesuatu dokumen yang tidak disetemkan bukanlah larangan mutlak, sebaliknya hanya bersifat bersyarat, iaitu tertakluk kepada pembayaran duti atau penalti yang sewajarnya. Dalam kes tersebut, mahkamah menegaskan bahawa tanggungjawab mahkamah hanyalah untuk mengimpun (impound) dokumen yang tidak disetemkan dan membenarkan penerimaannya setelah bayaran duti atau penalti dilakukan, selaras dengan seksyen 51 dan 52 Akta Setem 1949. [69] Mahkamah juga mengambil panduan daripada kes Trust Company Limited v Tham Ching Poh & Ors [2022] MLJU 1232, di S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g mana Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan bahawa perjanjian yang tidak disetemkan masih boleh diterima sebagai keterangan di bawah proviso

kepada seksyen 52(1) Akta Setem 1949, dan bahawa kegagalan menyetem sesuatu dokumen tidak menjadi alasan untuk menolak atau menafikan kesahan substantif perjanjian tersebut. [70] Sehubungan itu, Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa hujahan Defendan-defendan mengenai ketidaksahan Borang Jaminan Persendirian atas alasan tidak disetemkan adalah tidak berasas di sisi undang-undang. Fakta bahawa borang tersebut telah disetemkan pada 25.9.2024 memadai untuk memenuhi kehendak undang-undang dan menjadikannya sah serta boleh diterima sebagai bukti. ISU KELIMA Sama ada Faedah Pembayaran Lewat (“FPL”) yang dikenakan oleh Plaintif merupakan faedah berganda (compound interest). [71] Defendan berhujah bahawa kadar FPL sebanyak 1.5% sebulan yang dikenakan oleh Plaintif adalah keterlaluan dan bersifat faedah berganda (compound interest), yang menurut mereka bercanggah dengan prinsip undang-undang dan amalan perdagangan yang munasabah. [72] Mahkamah meneliti dokumen invois serta keterangan saksi-saksi dan mendapati bahawa kadar FPL tersebut dikenakan hanya ke atas jumlah prinsipal tertunggak yang belum dijelaskan dalam tempoh kredit S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g yang ditetapkan. Tiada bukti menunjukkan bahawa Plaintif telah mengenakan faedah ke atas jumlah faedah yang terdahulu, atau mengira semula faedah atas faedah yang sudah terkumpul. [73] Oleh itu, Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa FPL tersebut adalah faedah mudah (simple interest), bukan faedah berganda (compound interest). Hujahan Defendan bahawa ia merupakan faedah berganda adalah tidak berasas dan tersilap dari segi konsep pengiraan faedah komersial. [74] Tambahan pula, kadar FPL sebanyak 1.5% sebulan telah pun dinyatakan dengan jelas dalam invois-invois yang dikemukakan dan tidak pernah dipertikaikan oleh Defendan sebelum tindakan ini difailkan. Mahkamah juga mengambil kira bahawa kadar sedemikian adalah munasabah dalam urus niaga perdagangan bagi melindungi pihak pembekal daripada kelewatan pembayaran yang berpanjangan. [75] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa FPL yang dikenakan oleh Plaintif adalah sah, munasabah dan tidak bersifat faedah berganda sebagaimana didakwa oleh Defendan. S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g PENUTUP [] Berdasarkan kepada semua alasan di atas, atas imbangan kebarangkalian, Mahkamah telah membenarkan tuntutan Plaintif dengan kos mengikut skala dan faedah seperti di dalam Pernyataan Tuntutan. Peguamcara Plaintif: Woh Yu Luo dan Calvin Seah, Tetuan Pierre Chuah & Associates Peguamcara Defendan: Lee Lin Jun, Tetuan Tee Tai Tzian & Sim t.t. ..................................... Nur Atikah binti Zakaria Majistret Sivil 1 Mahkamah Klang Tarikh Keputusan : 21 Ogos 2025 Tarikh Alasan Penghakiman : 15 Oktober 2025 S/N XbhvOf3ae0ireTbOEtkn5g