1. D是一块地的地主,地面上建了3间货舱。由于D没有准时付Kuwait银行的贷款,Kuwait银行申请一间公司任为D的经理,专门处理D的产业以便能付还Kuwait银行的贷款。
  2. P入禀法庭声称自己是货舱的租客。租约是在Kuwait银行委任经理之前已经于D签约了。所以货舱必须租给P而不是其他人。
  3. D经理提出的抗辩点(a) 由于租约没有付印花税,租约在印花法令第52条文下,是不可以被法庭接纳为证据的 (b)租约是虚构和不是一份真诚的租约。
  4. 印花法令第52条文注明,任何必须付印花税的文件,除非付清印花税,不然此文件是不能被法庭接纳为证据。
  5. 租约在印花法令第4条文里列明租约是属于必须支付印花税的文件。
  6. 印花法令第41条文注明,此类文件必须在签署此文件之前或者线束文件的时候付印花税,不然此文件是不能被法庭接受为呈堂证据(印花法令第52条)。但是这个约束并不是绝对的 (印花法令第52(a)条)。只要你在之后付清印花税和罚款,文件就能被法庭接纳。
  7. 在此案,由于租约是没有付印花税或者罚款,法庭有责任在印花法令第51条下,拒绝接受此租约为法庭证据。
  8. 但是,P在法庭的审讯过程中付清了租约的印花税和罚款,所以D 提出的抗辩已经无效。
  9. 就算租约能纳为法庭证据,这不是意味租约是真诚的。它只是证明此租约是存在的。此租约是否虚假,法庭会根据证据判别。
  10. 根据此案件的证据,法庭判决此租约是虚假的。此租约是P与D(两间是联营公司)虚构出来的租约。用意就是欺骗D经理(Kuwait银行),让D经理不能顺利处理/拍卖D的产业。

 

  1. The defendant (D) was the registered owner of a piece of land on which was erected three warehouses known as Blocks A, B and C (“the warehouses”). A receiver and manager (‘R&M’) was appointed by Kuwait Finance House Bhd (‘KFH’) over the charged assets of D under a debenture. Blocks A and B were tenanted by Padiberas Nasional Bhd (‘Bernas’) while Block C was unoccupied and in the possession of the R&M.
  2. P alleged that vide a tenancy agreement, they had leased the warehouses from D prior to D being placed under receivership. Hence, they contended that the tenancy agreement was binding on the R&M who had knowledge of the tenancy. Consequently, the plaintiff sought, inter alia, specific performance of the tenancy agreement and an order that the R&M be at liberty to sell the property subject to the plaintiff’s rights under the tenancy agreement.
  3. The defence raised by D: (a) is not a duly stamped instrument as ad valorem duty was not paid therefore the tenancy agreement was inadmissible under Section 52 of the Stamp Act 1949 (‘SA’); (b) the tenancy agreement was a sham and thus, not a genuine document.
  4. Under s 52(1)of the Stamp Act 1949 (“the Act”), no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence unless such instrument is duly stamped.
  5. A tenancy agreement is an instrument falling under Section 4 of the Act. It is an instrument chargeable with duty. It is provided under Item No 49 of the First Schedule (Section 4) under the description ‘Lease or Agreement for Lease that a tenancy agreement attracts payment of ad valorem stamp duty’.
  6. All instruments chargeable with duty must be stamped before or at the time of its execution as provided under Section 41 failing which it will not be admitted under Section 52(1)of the Act. The prohibition against admissibility of an instrument for being not duly stamped is, however, not an absolute prohibition (proviso (a) to s 52(1)). It is conditional upon payment of a duty or a penalty, if any, under Section 43 and 47A. In this case, the tenancy agreement is an instrument that should have been brought to the collector of stamp duties for adjudication of stamp duty under Section 36. After the duty had been assessed by the collector, the tenancy agreement must be stamped within 14 days pursuant to Section 40.
  7. The ad valorem stamp duty must be paid in accordance with the Act in the manner described above. Failure to pay the duty or the penalty prevents the use of the tenancy agreement in this proceedings. As the tenancy agreement is not a duly stamped instrument, it is the duty of this court under Section 51 to impound the tenancy agreement.
  8. Accordingly, the tenancy agreement was impounded. The plaintiff subsequently paid the ad valorem stamp duty and penalty on the tenancy agreement thus it was admitted as evidence.
  9. Even the tenancy agreement was admitted as evidence, it does not of itself mean that it is a genuine tenancy agreement. It only relates to the fact that the tenancy agreement exists; the question of whether it is a sham or not is for the court to determine on the facts as presented in the evidence.
  10. Based on the circumstances in this case, the court is driven to the conclusion that the tenancy agreement is a sham. It was a scheme between associated companies. It was created with the ulterior motive to deceive the R&M into letting Block A, B and C to P thereby obstructing or frustrating the work of the R&M in realising the charged assets of D under the debenture.

 

Source: Octville Golf Properties Sdn Bhd v Uniwheels Sdn Bhd (appointed receivers and managers) [2013] 8 MLJ 558; HC JB

 

==============================

*如果需要法律咨询或者聘请律师处理法律事务,你可以联系我们。

*浏览我们律师楼的法律文章: www.kuekong.com

*浏览我们律师楼的法律文章: www.kuekongklg.com

*订阅我们的YouTube: http://bit.ly/lawnjustice

*加入 我们的“法律与你同行”FB 群组: http://bit.ly/fblawnjustice

*Like 我们的“法律与你同行” FB Page: http://bit.ly/lawnjusticefbpage

*加入我们的网络论坛: www.queco.org

*Wilson Kuek是“法律与你同行 Law & Justice”面子书群组的创办人。“法律与你同行”是马来西亚最大的法律平台。我们为无数的平民百姓免费解除了各类的法律困扰。

*Kuek, Ong & Associates. Advocates & Solicitors. No.86-1, Jalan Mahagoni 1, Bandar Botanic, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan. Klang Lawyer. 巴生(吧生)律师楼。

*我们的律师楼拥有超过15年的执业经验。我们处理民事纠纷,商业纠纷,打官司/法庭诉讼,追讨债务,遗产分配,遗嘱,离婚,抚养权,赡养费,产业分配,领养小孩,拟商业合约,拟买卖合约,银行贷款,法律咨询,法律顾问,等法律事务。全马的案件,我们皆都处理。

*We have more than 15 years of experience in the legal profession. We handle matters such as commercial disputes, civil litigation, debt recovery, probate & letter of administration, will, divorce, children custody, maintenance/alimony, adoption, distribution of matrimonial assets, drafting commercial agreement, drafting sale and purchase agreement, process loan documentations, legal consultation, legal advisory, miscellaneous legal works.

#马来西亚华人律师 #Chinese Lawyer in Malaysia #Malaysia Lawyer #巴生律师 #吧生律师 #Klang Lawyer #KL律师 #吉隆坡律师 #KL Lawyer #懂华文的律师

#Kuek, Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong Associates #郭汪律师事务所 #郭汪律师楼

#没有给印花税

 

合约没有付印花税,能呈当法庭证据?