Chew Tuan Hong 1. ) RAVINDRAN A/L G VELOO 2. ) Suriakala A/p Munasamy

Chew Tuan Hong 1. ) RAVINDRAN A/L G VELOO 2. ) Suriakala A/p Munasamy

The court found the appellant to be an unlicensed moneylender and that evidence established the transaction was interest-bearing and not a genuine interest-free "friendly" loan; accordingly the loan agreement was unenforceable under the Moneylenders Act 1951, the actual sum disbursed (RM93,250) less payments made (RM84,000) produced a recoverable balance of RM9,250 only, with no interest, and the appellant's caveats on the two properties were to be removed and prohibited going forward.

Citation
JB-12BNCC-2-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Chew Tuan Hong; Respondent / 1st Defendant: Ravindran A/L G. Veloo; Respondent / 2nd Defendant: Suriakala A/P Munasamy
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 December 2021
Case Number
JB-12BNCC-2-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; trial decision set aside in part and judgment entered for appellant for limited sum but loan agreement declared void as moneylending by unlicensed lender
Legal Topics
Enforceability of Loan Agreements, Illegal/unlicensed Moneylending, Presumption Under Moneylenders Act, Evidentiary Effect of Written Contracts (s91/s92), Removal of Caveat, Assessment of Credibility and Appellate Review
Source Language
Malay/English
Moneylenders Law Contract Law Evidence Property Law Enforceability of Loan Agreements Illegal/unlicensed Moneylending Presumption Under Moneylenders Act Evidentiary Effect of Written Contracts (s91/s92) +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chew Tuan Hong

Appellant / Plaintiff

Ravindran A/L G. Veloo

Respondent / 1st Defendant

Suriakala A/P Munasamy

Respondent / 2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the written loan agreement excludes contrary oral or documentary evidence
  2. 2 Whether the loan was a "friendly" interest-free loan or an interest-bearing loan and/or a sham to disguise moneylending
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest and/or principal recovery given alleged unlicensed moneylending

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the appellant to be an unlicensed moneylender and that evidence established the transaction was interest-bearing and not a genuine interest-free "friendly" loan; accordingly the loan agreement was unenforceable under the Moneylenders Act 1951, the actual sum disbursed (RM93,250) less payments made (RM84,000) produced a recoverable balance of RM9,250 only, with no interest, and the appellant's caveats on the two properties were to be removed and prohibited going forward.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; trial decision set aside in part and judgment entered for appellant for limited sum but loan agreement declared void as moneylending by unlicensed lender

Orders

  • Appellant declared an unlicensed moneylender
  • Loan agreement declared null and void and of no legal effect