​KembaraXtra – Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – Admissions by Persons Whose Position Must Be Proved (Section 17)
1. General Rule

• Statements made by a third person are treated as admissions
• Only when that person’s position or liability is in issue in the case

👉 In simple words:
If a case depends on someone else’s liability, then what that person says becomes relevant.

2. Core Principle👉 When liability of one party depends on liability of another, statements of that other person become admissions.

3. Example

• A is agent of B (collects rent)
• B sues A for not collecting rent from C
• A says: “C did not owe rent”
• C earlier said: “I owe rent to B”

👉 C’s statement = Admission against A

4. Scope of Section

• Applies where:
  • Rights/liability of one party depends on third party’s liability
• Common situations:
  • Agent–Principal
  • Debtor–Creditor
  • Contract through third person

5. Essential ConditionsTo apply Section 17, all must be satisfied:

1. Relationship must exist
   • Between parties (e.g., agent–principal)
2. Third person’s liability must be in issue
   • Case outcome depends on that liability
3. Statement must relate to that liability
4. Statement must be made during existence of liability
   • If liability ended (e.g., time-barred) → NOT relevant

6. Important Limitation❌ Statement NOT relevant if:

• Made after liability ceased
• Example: Debt already time-barred

7. Key Concept👉 Third person’s statement becomes admissible because:

• It directly affects legal rights of parties in dispute

Quick Revision Line👉 If your liability depends on another person, his statement about that liability can be used against you.

​KembaraXtra – Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – Proof of Admissions (Section 19)
1. General Rule

• Admissions are relevant and can be proved AGAINST the maker
• But they cannot be proved BY or ON BEHALF of the maker

👉 Meaning:

• A person’s admission can be used against him
• But generally, he cannot use his own admission in his favour

2. Exceptions (When Admission Can Be Used in Favour of Maker)(1) When Maker is Dead (Section 26 Principle)

• Admission can be proved if it would be relevant when the maker is dead
• Based on necessity and unavailability

📌 Example:

• Entries made in business records by deceased person → admissible

(2) Statement as to State of Mind or Body

• Must satisfy:
  • Relates to state of mind/body (e.g., intention, knowledge)
  • Made at or about the time
  • Supported by conduct making falsehood unlikely

👉 Reason: Helps prove mental condition or intention

(3) Relevant Otherwise Than as Admission

• If statement is independently relevant under Sections 4–11, it can be used
• Even if it is also an admission

📌 Example:

• Statement explaining conduct or possession can be admitted

3. Key Illustrative Principles

• A cannot prove his own statement to support his case
• But opponent can use it against him

📌 Example:

• A says deed is genuine → B can use it
• But A cannot rely on his own statement

4. Self-Serving Statements (Exception Cases)Self-serving statements are allowed only in 3 cases:

1. When admissible under Section 26 (dead person rule)
2. When showing state of mind/body
3. When independently relevant under other provisions

5. Core Principle👉 Admissions are evidence against the maker, not in his favour — unless special exceptions apply.

Quick Revision Line👉 You cannot use your own admission to help yourself, except in limited situations (dead person, state of mind, or independent relevance).

​KembaraXtra – Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – When Oral Admissions as to Contents of Documents are Relevant (Section 20)
1. General Rule

• Oral admissions about contents of a document are NOT relevant
• Reason:
  👉 Best evidence rule → Document itself must be produced

2. When Oral Admissions are NOT AllowedOral admission is inadmissible:

• ❌ When the document exists and can be produced
• ❌ When a party tries to prove contents without producing the document

📌 Example:

• A executes mortgage deed in favour of B
• B files suit but does not produce the document
• B cannot rely on oral statement to prove contents
  👉 Must produce and prove the actual document

3. Exceptions (When Oral Admissions ARE Relevant)(a) As Secondary Evidence

• Allowed when party is entitled to give secondary evidence
• Example situations:
  • Original document is lost or destroyed
  • Document is in possession of opposite party
• Oral account by a person who has seen the document is admissible

(b) When Genuineness of Document is in Question

• Oral admissions are relevant when:
  👉 Issue = whether document is genuine or forged
• Helps in proving validity or invalidity of document

4. Key Principle👉 Contents of a document must be proved by the document itself, not by oral statements.

Quick Revision Line👉 Oral admissions about documents are generally excluded, except when secondary evidence is allowed or genuineness is in dispute.

Malaysian Banking Law: Is Cheque Handling Essential? (Linked Case Law)


👉 NO — cheque handling is NOT essential to be a banker



1. Traditional View (Older Position)


From:

• United Dominions Trust Ltd v Kirkwood

👉 Suggested bankers usually:

• Pay cheques

• Collect cheques

• Maintain accounts

✔ This created the impression that cheques are essential




2. BUT This View Was Rejected (Important Cases)


Key Case: No Need for Cheques


From:

• R v Industrial Disputes Tribunal, ex parte East Anglian Trustee Savings Bank

👉 The court held:
✔ A bank can still be a banker
❌ Even if it does NOT issue cheque books

3. Supporting Cases (Flexible Approach)


Also supported by:

• Re Bottomgate Industrial Co-operative Society

• State Savings Bank of Victoria, Commissioners v Permewan, Wright & Co Ltd

👉 These cases show:
✔ Cheques are NOT essential
✔ Methods of banking can vary



4. Why courts say cheques are not necessary (Simple explanation)

👉 Because banking evolves


Today:

• Online transfers

• Mobile payments

• Digital banking

👉 Replace cheques


So courts focus on:
✔ Function (handling money)
NOT
❌ Form (cheques specifically)

5. Link to Malaysian Law

Under:

• Financial Services Act 2013

👉 “Paying and collecting cheques” is mentioned

BUT

👉 Courts interpret this flexibly


✔ Includes modern payment systems

6.
Although earlier cases such as United Dominions Trust v Kirkwood identified cheque handling as a characteristic of banking, later cases such as R v Industrial Disputes Tribunal, ex parte East Anglian Trustee Savings Bank established that cheque facilities are not essential. The courts now adopt a functional approach, recognising modern payment methods as substitutes



7. Final Rule 


Cheque handling is not an essential requirement of banking; what matters is the institution’s role in managing customer funds and facilitating payments, whether through traditional or modern means.

Malaysian Banking Law: Final Definition of a “Banker”
Comprehensive Legal Definition
A banker is a person, partnership, or corporation whose principal or predominant business is to accept money from the public as deposits (repayable on demand or at agreed times), maintain an ongoing account relationship enabling deposits and withdrawals, and utilise those funds by providing loans or other financial services, and who is recognised or authorised under the law to carry on such banking business.


How This Definition Was Built 
1. Core Function (Foundation of Banking)
From:

• State Savings Bank of Victoria, Commissioners v Permewan, Wright & Co Ltd

👉 A banker:

• Receives deposits
• Uses those deposits (mainly lending)

✔ This is the essential economic function


2. Continuous Relationship (Not One-Off Activity)
From:

• United Dominions Trust Ltd v Kirkwood

👉 A banker:

• Maintains accounts
• Handles ongoing transactions

✔ Banking = system, not isolated act


3. Traditional Characteristics (Guidelines, not strict rules)
👉 Usually involves:

• Accepting deposits
• Paying/collecting cheques
• Keeping current accounts

✔ BUT:
❌ Cheques are not essential today
❌ Methods can change (digital banking)


4. Flexibility of Definition
From:

• Bank of Chettinad Ltd of Colombo v IT Commissioners of Colombo

👉 No fixed definition
👉 Banking evolves over time
✔ So definition must be broad and adaptable


5. Statutory Position (Malaysia)
From:

• Financial Services Act 2013

👉 A banker must:

• Be licensed (Section 10)
• Carry on banking business (Section 2)

✔ Adds legal recognition requirement


6. What is NOT a Banker (Very Important)
From your cases:

• Vernes Asia Ltd v Trendale Investment Pte Ltd
  → Lending alone ≠ banker
• Sabah Development Bank Bhd v SKBS (Sabah) Sdn Bhd
  → Financier ≠ banker
• Light Style Sdn Bhd v KFH Ijarah House (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
  → Financing alone ≠ banking business

✔ So:
👉 Not every lender is a banker


7. Supporting Activities Are Not Banking
From your cases:

• Bank of China v Lee Kee Pin
  → Debt recovery ≠ banking
• Koh Kim Chai v Asia Commercial Banking Corporation Limited
  → Taking/enforcing security ≠ banking

✔ These are incidental activities


8. Modern Understanding (Very Important)
👉 A banker today is:

• A financial intermediary
• A custodian of funds
• A provider of financial services
• A regulated institution

Final Simplified Definition 
A banker is a licensed financial institution whose main business is to accept deposits from the public, maintain accounts for customers, and use those funds to provide loans and other financial services as part of a continuous banking system.


Ultimate Takeaway 
A banker is defined by function (deposit-taking + financial intermediation), continuity (ongoing relationship), and legal recognition (licensing)—not merely by lending money.


If you want, I can now turn this into a perfect essay answer (with intro, cases, and conclusion) or a one-page revision cheat sheet.

Malaysian Banking Law: Definition of a “Bank” under the Financial Services Act 2013


Direct Answer
Under the Financial Services Act 2013:
👉 There is NO single section that directly defines the word “bank.”


How the Act Defines a Bank (Step-by-Step Understanding)
1. Section 2(1): Key Definitions
Instead of defining “bank” directly, the Act defines:
👉 “licensed bank”
= a person licensed under section 10 to carry on banking business


2. Section 10: Licensing Requirement
👉 Section 10 states:
A person must obtain a licence to carry on banking business


3. Section 2(1): “Banking business”
The Act defines banking business as:

• Accepting deposits
• Paying/collecting cheques
• Providing finance
• Other prescribed activities

Put It Together (Very Important)
👉 A “bank” under the Financial Services Act 2013 means:
✔ A licensed bank
✔ Which is authorised under section 10
✔ To carry on banking business


Simplified Definition (Exam Ready)
A bank under the Financial Services Act 2013 is a person licensed under section 10 to carry on banking business as defined in section 2(1).


Important Insight
👉 The Act uses an indirect definition approach:

• It does NOT say “bank = …”
• Instead, it defines:
  • banking business
  • licensed bank

👉 So you must combine them


Link to Your Previous Cases
This matches what courts said:

• Sabah Development Bank Bhd v SKBS (Sabah) Sdn Bhd
  → Not every lender is a bank
• Light Style Sdn Bhd v KFH Ijarah House (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
  → Financing alone ≠ banking

👉 So:
✔ “Bank” = licensed + full banking functions


Final Exam Rule
Under the Financial Services Act 2013, a bank is not expressly defined but is understood as a licensed person under section 10 authorised to carry on banking business as defined in section 2(1).

​

Malaysian Banking Law: Section 125 BAFIA and Its Link to the Financial Services Act 2013

Case Scenario
A borrower in Malaysia challenges a financing agreement, arguing that the lender did not comply with banking regulations. The borrower claims the contract should be void. The court must decide: does a breach of banking law automatically invalidate the agreement?​

Q1: What is Section 125 of the Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989?
Section 125 states that a contract will not automatically become void just because it breaches the Act.
👉 In simple terms:
Even if a transaction does not fully comply with banking law, the agreement itself can still remain valid and enforceable.


Q2: Why is Section 125 important? 
Without this section:

• Many financial contracts could be cancelled easily
• Borrowers could avoid repayment by claiming illegality

👉 Section 125 prevents this by ensuring:
✔ Commercial certainty
✔ Fairness between parties


Q3: How does this apply in cases like Light Style Sdn Bhd v KFH Ijarah House (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd?
The court said:
👉 Even if the transaction had breached banking law (which it did not),
✔ Section 125 would still protect the agreement
So:

• The borrower cannot escape liability
• The debt remains payable

Link with Current Law: Financial Services Act 2013
Q4: What replaced BAFIA?
The Financial Services Act 2013 replaced BAFIA and now governs banking regulation in Malaysia.


Q5: Does the same principle still exist under the Financial Services Act 2013?
Yes — the same idea continues.
👉 The law still aims to:

• Regulate financial institutions
• BUT not automatically invalidate contracts

Key Understanding
✔ Regulatory breach ≠ Contract automatically void
👉 The Act focuses on:

• Punishing non-compliance (fines, penalties)
• NOT destroying private agreements

Application (Note Form)
✔ Section 125 principle:

• Contracts remain valid despite breach
• Protects lenders and financial system
• Prevents borrowers from avoiding repayment

✔ Under Financial Services Act 2013:

• Same approach continues
• Licensing rules enforced separately
• Contracts generally still enforceable

Critical Analysis 
This rule is very important for commercial stability.
👉 If every illegal technical breach made contracts void:

• Banking system would collapse
• Loans could not be enforced
• Borrowers could act unfairly

So the law separates:
👉 Regulation (public law)
vs
👉 Contract enforcement (private law)


Resolution of the Case Scenario

• Even if there was a breach ✔
• The agreement is still valid ✔
• The borrower must repay ✔

👉 Section 125 ensures fairness


Final Exam Rule (Very Important)
A breach of banking law does not automatically render a contract void; under Section 125 BAFIA (and its modern equivalent under the Financial Services Act 2013), financial agreements remain enforceable unless expressly declared void by law.

​KembaraXtra – Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – Admissions by Persons Expressly Referred (Section 18)
1. General Rule

• Statements made by a person expressly referred by a party for information are admissions
• Such statements become binding on the party making the reference

👉 Logic:

• By referring someone, the party adopts that person’s statement as his own

2. Meaning of “Expressly Referred”

• A party clearly directs the other party to seek information from a third person
• That person’s statement is treated as admission of the referring party

3. Example

• A sells horse to B
• B doubts horse’s condition
• A says: “Ask C, he knows everything”
  👉 C’s statement = Admission against A

4. Key Principle👉 When a party refers another person for information, he is deemed to approve that person’s statement in advance.

5. Scope of “Information”

• Not limited to unknown facts
• Includes opinions, knowledge, or statements relevant to dispute
• Even if Court seeks clarification through such person → still covered

6. Case Law Principle

• If a party agrees to rely on someone’s statement (even conditionally),
  👉 He becomes bound by that statement

7. Self-Regarding Statements (Concept Link)(a) MeaningStatements relating to one’s own interest:

• Self-serving → in favour of maker
• Self-harming → against interest of maker

(b) Rule

• Self-harming statements → admissible
• Self-serving statements → generally NOT admissible

👉 Reason:

• People are unlikely to lie against their own interest
• But may easily make statements to benefit themselves

8. Link with Section 19

• Section 18 + 19 together:
  👉 Admissions are generally used against the maker
  👉 Not in his favour (except exceptions)

Quick Revision Line👉 If you tell someone to “ask X”, you are bound by what X says.

KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Limitation
Limitation refers to legal rules that set time limits within which a person must bring a civil claim. If a claim is not made within the specified period, it may be barred, regardless of its merits.
For most claims in contract and tort, the standard limitation period is six years from the date the cause of action arises. However, shorter or different periods apply in specific cases, such as personal injury claims, which generally have a three-year limit.
The law also provides exceptions. For example, time may not begin to run against minors or persons lacking mental capacity until the disability ends. Limitation rules are primarily procedural but can effectively prevent enforcement of legal rights.

​

​KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Limited Administration


Limited administration refers to the administration of a deceased person’s estate for specific and restricted purposes, as determined by the court. It is granted through letters of administration tailored to particular circumstances.


This type of administration may be used where full administration is not immediately possible or necessary. Examples include situations where assets need to be preserved temporarily or where an executor is absent or underage.


By limiting the scope of authority, the court ensures that only essential tasks are carried out. This allows flexibility in managing estates while protecting the interests of beneficiaries and creditors.