[2019] 5 MLRA 169
Federal Court, Putrajaya
Zaharah Ibrahim CJM, David Wong Dak Wah CJSS, Ramly Ali, Balia Yusof Wahi, Alizatul Khair Osman Khairuddin FCJJ
[Civil Appeal Nos: 02(f)-35-05-2018(B), 02(f)-36-05-2018(B) & 02(f)-37-05-2018(B)]
Zaharah Ibrahim CJM, David Wong Dak Wah CJSS, Ramly Ali, Balia Yusof Wahi, Alizatul Khair Osman Khairuddin FCJJ


Alizatul Khair Osman Khairuddin FCJ:


[1] This appeal, Civil Appeal No 02(f)-35-05-2018, was heard together with Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-36-05-2018 (B) (Appeal No 36) and Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-37-05-2018 (B) (Appeal No 37). The appellant in both Appeals No 36 and No 37 is Veheng Global Traders Sdn Bhd, the 3rd respondent in this appeal.

[2] The background facts pertaining to these two appeals (Appeals No 36 and No 37) have been set out in my brother Justice Ramly Ali's judgment. As with the other two appeals (supra), this appeal arose out of the decision of the Court of Appeal which had allowed the appeals brought by the 1st and 2nd respondents against the decision of the High Court. The High Court had granted the claims of both the 3rd respondent and the appellant.

Salient Facts

[3] For the purpose of this judgment, the salient facts pertaining to this appeal which we adopt from the appellant's written submission (with some modification) are as follows.

[4] The 3rd respondent had purchased four insurance policies from the 1st and 2nd respondents to protect all its assets located at Lot 711 A, Jalan Batu Tiga, Sungai Rasau, Seksyen 16, 40200, Shah Alam for a period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 against fire. One of the insurance policies and the one which we are concerned with here, was Fire Insurance Policy No: HB-0- 08-H000005 (Fire Material Damage Policy No HB-0-08-H000005) issued to the insured in the sum of RM45,000,000.00 (hereinafter referred to as FMD Policy 005).

[5] In respect of the FMD Policy 005, the 2nd respondent is the co-insurer via CIMB Aviva Takaful Policy No: TH00FR01080000004. From the total insured sum of RM45,000,000.00, the 1st respondent and 2nd respondent insured the sum of 87.5% and 12.5% respectively.

[6] The appellant (RHB Islamic Bank Berhad) had granted a Murabahah revolving credit facility to the 3rd respondent that was subsequently restructured to a 'Commodity Murabahah Overdraft-i' facility totalling a sum of RM30 million vide letter of offers dated 29 June 2006 and 6 April 2009 and a Facility Agreement dated 23 June 2009.

Sign up to view full cases Login