KARUNAKARAN A/L RAMASAMY ARJUNAN A/L NADESAN & ORS

KARUNAKARAN A/L RAMASAMY ARJUNAN A/L NADESAN & ORS

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, concluding there was no basis for the Sessions Court to limit the judgment to RM70,000 when it had found a valid loan of RM100,000; it increased the judgment to RM100,000, held post-judgment interest at 5% per annum was mandatory under Order 42 r12, increased costs to RM6,825 based on scale, and dismissed the appeal on D3 and pre-judgment interest because the claim against D3 was pleaded only alternatively and pre-judgment interest is discretionary.

Citation
WA-12BNCC-23-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Karunakaran A/L Ramasamy; Respondent/defendant: Arjunan A/L Nadesan; Respondent/defendant: Mageswary A/P Thangaveloo; Respondent/defendant: Vikneswary A/P Arjunan
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 May 2021
Case Number
WA-12BNCC-23-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; judgment varied and other aspects dismissed
Legal Topics
Loan Agreement, Dishonoured Cheque, Interest on Judgment, Costs, Privity of Contract, Alternative Pleading
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Civil Procedure Negotiable Instruments Civil Remedies Loan Agreement Dishonoured Cheque Interest on Judgment Costs +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karunakaran A/L Ramasamy

Appellant/plaintiff

Arjunan A/L Nadesan

Respondent/defendant

Mageswary A/P Thangaveloo

Respondent/defendant

Vikneswary A/P Arjunan

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sessions Court erred in awarding RM70,000 instead of the claimed RM100,000
  2. 2 Whether D3 is liable for a dishonoured cheque under the Bills of Exchange Act
  3. 3 Whether pre-judgment interest should be awarded under Section 11 Civil Law Act 1967

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, concluding there was no basis for the Sessions Court to limit the judgment to RM70,000 when it had found a valid loan of RM100,000; it increased the judgment to RM100,000, held post-judgment interest at 5% per annum was mandatory under Order 42 r12, increased costs to RM6,825 based on scale, and dismissed the appeal on D3 and pre-judgment interest because the claim against D3 was pleaded only alternatively and pre-judgment interest is discretionary.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; judgment varied and other aspects dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment sum increased to RM100,000.00 in favour of the Appellant
  • Judgment sum of RM100,000.00 shall carry interest at 5% per annum from date of Judgment until satisfaction