TAN CHENG CHAI v 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN BHD 2. ) CHANG AI NEE 3. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG

wa-22ncc-646-09-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 23 October 2025 • WA-22NCC-646-09/2023 • 13 min read

2 cases cited (0 SG, 2 foreign)

Catchwords

Section 4.03 of the Investment Agreements merely states that the plaintiff agrees and understands the financial risks associated with the investment. But this acknowledgment of risk does not imply that the repayments are contingent upon the financial performance of Ace Credit-Section 4.03 of the Investment Agreements does not override sections 2.01 and 2.04 of the Investment Agreements which expressly provide that the Invested Sums are to be repaid upon maturity-I hold the Investment Agreements are not moneylending transactions-presumption under section 10 OA of the MA 1951-Whether D2 and D3 are discharged as a Proposed Scheme of Arrangement (“PSOA”) pursuant to section 366 of the Companies Act 2016 was approved by the Scheme Creditors who had attended the Court Convened Meeting on 30-10-2024 [“CCM”], including the plaintiff-whether a person’s monetary claim against his guarantors can be waived by a PSOA proposed by the principal debtor which has received the requisite approval by the scheme creditors and sanctioned subsequently by the Court under section 366 of the Companies Act 2016-PSOA has yet to be sanctioned by the Shah Alam High Court. The plaintiff’s cause of action therefore remains unaffected by the PSOA process

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Counsel (5)

Shahrizat Rashid & Lee Firm Zaid Ibrahim & Co Firm Aliya Zamimi Counsel Defendant Chuah Jo-Shua Counsel Plaintiff Hilwa Nazifa binti Bustam Counsel Defendant

Parties (4)

ACE CREDIT Sdn Bhd Defendant Chang Ai Nee Defendant Choong Chee Meng Defendant Tan Cheng Chai Plaintiff

Statutes Cited

Companies Act 2016 (Cap 777)

Cases Cited (2)

MY (2)

[2016] 8 CLJ 211 [2024] MLJU 3525

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-22ncc-646-09-2023)