TAN SRI DATO SERI DR M MAHADEVAN A/L MAHALINGAM 1. DAVID CHOONG JIN CHAI 2. LEE KUANG GEN

TAN SRI DATO SERI DR M MAHADEVAN A/L MAHALINGAM 1. DAVID CHOONG JIN CHAI 2. LEE KUANG GEN

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the SOGA evidenced genuine sale and investment transactions supported by physical transfer of gold, admissions and contemporaneous documents; DC failed to prove TSM carried on unlicensed moneylending or that the SOGA were sham, and the presumption under s10OA MLA was rebutted; IL's indemnity was voluntarily executed and enforceable; accordingly TSM's claim succeeded for the stated sum with interest and costs while DC's counterclaim and the Suit 2015 claim were dismissed as appropriate.

Citation
WA-22NCVC-95-02/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (suit 2017); 1st Defendant (suit 2015): Tan Sri Dato Seri Dr M Mahadevan a/l Mahalingam; Plaintiff (suit 2015); 1st Defendant (suit 2017): David Choong Jin Chai; 2nd Defendant (suit 2017): Lee Kuang Gen @ Ivan Lee; Defendant (suit 2015): Thiviya Resources Bhd.; Defendant (suit 2015): Datin Malinga A/P Sokkalingam; Defendant (suit 2015): Manoharan A/L Muthiah; Defendant (suit 2015): Vanaja Dhevy A/P Munisamy; Defendant (suit 2015): Dato' Letchumanan A/L S. Rajoo; Defendant (suit 2015): Balamurugan A/L Rajoo; Defendant (suit 2015): Suliza Binti Ishak; Defendant (suit 2015): Saravanan Anamalai; Defendant (suit 2015): Suresh Kumar A/L Murugiya
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 October 2021
Case Number
WA-22NCVC-95-02/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment (grounds of Judgment)
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff Tan Sri Dato Seri Dr M Mahadevan in Suit 2017; claim allowed against 1st and 2nd Defendants. 1st Defendant's counterclaim dismissed. In Suit 2015 the Plaintiff's claim dismissed against the 1st and 6th Defendants.
Legal Topics
Sale of Gold Agreements, Moneylenders Act 1952, Indemnity, Sham Transaction Doctrine, Burden of Proof Under Evidence Act, Parol Evidence Rule, Injunctions, Harassment Allegations
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Moneylenders Law Evidence Restitution/unjust Enrichment Tort (conspiracy/harassment) Sale of Gold Agreements Moneylenders Act 1952 Indemnity +5 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tan Sri Dato Seri Dr M Mahadevan a/l Mahalingam

Plaintiff (suit 2017); 1st Defendant (suit 2015)

David Choong Jin Chai

Plaintiff (suit 2015); 1st Defendant (suit 2017)

Lee Kuang Gen @ Ivan Lee

2nd Defendant (suit 2017)

Thiviya Resources Bhd.

Defendant (suit 2015)

Datin Malinga A/P Sokkalingam

Defendant (suit 2015)

Manoharan A/L Muthiah

Defendant (suit 2015)

Vanaja Dhevy A/P Munisamy

Defendant (suit 2015)

Dato' Letchumanan A/L S. Rajoo

Defendant (suit 2015)

Balamurugan A/L Rajoo

Defendant (suit 2015)

Suliza Binti Ishak

Defendant (suit 2015)

Saravanan Anamalai

Defendant (suit 2015)

Suresh Kumar A/L Murugiya

Defendant (suit 2015)

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment (grounds of Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a settlement agreement and/or an admission of indebtedness by DC to TSM
  2. 2 Whether the Sale of Gold Agreements (SOGA) were sham documents cloaking illegal moneylending subject to the Moneylenders Act 1952
  3. 3 Whether DC and IL induced TSM to enter into SOGA

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the SOGA evidenced genuine sale and investment transactions supported by physical transfer of gold, admissions and contemporaneous documents; DC failed to prove TSM carried on unlicensed moneylending or that the SOGA were sham, and the presumption under s10OA MLA was rebutted; IL's indemnity was voluntarily executed and enforceable; accordingly TSM's claim succeeded for the stated sum with interest and costs while DC's counterclaim and the Suit 2015 claim were dismissed as appropriate.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff Tan Sri Dato Seri Dr M Mahadevan in Suit 2017; claim allowed against 1st and 2nd Defendants. 1st Defendant's counterclaim dismissed. In Suit 2015 the Plaintiff's claim dismissed against the 1st and 6th Defendants.

Orders

  • Plaintiff awarded RM10,493,500.00 against Defendants (Suit 2017) with interest at 5% per annum from date of judgment to realization
  • Costs awarded: RM20,000.00 to be paid by the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiff