THARMALINGAM A/L MUNIANDY 1. ) KOKULA BALAN A/L EHAMBARAM 2. ) RHB BANK BERHAD

THARMALINGAM A/L MUNIANDY 1. ) KOKULA BALAN A/L EHAMBARAM 2. ) RHB BANK BERHAD

Section 10OA presumption was properly raised because the agreement imposed monthly payments in excess of the principal; the appellant failed to rebut the presumption that he was carrying on the business of moneylending; therefore the loan arrangement was part of unlicensed moneylending and unenforceable, and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
BA-12B-49-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Tharmalingam A/L Muniandy; 1st Respondent/defendant: Kokula Balan A/L Ehambaram; 2nd Respondent/defendant (nominal): RHB Bank Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 September 2024
Case Number
BA-12B-49-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Appeal After Trial (judgment on Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unlicensed Moneylending, Presumption Under S10 OA, Illegality of Contract, Enforceability of Loan Agreements
Source Language
Malay/English
Moneylenders Act 1951 Contract Civil Procedure Unlicensed Moneylending Presumption Under S10 OA Illegality of Contract Enforceability of Loan Agreements

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tharmalingam A/L Muniandy

Appellant/plaintiff

Kokula Balan A/L Ehambaram

1st Respondent/defendant

RHB Bank Berhad

2nd Respondent/defendant (nominal)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Appeal After Trial (judgment on Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was carrying on an unlicensed moneylending business under the Moneylenders Act 1951
  2. 2 Whether the presumption under section 10OA arises from the transaction
  3. 3 Whether the appellant discharged the burden to rebut the presumption

Ratio Decidendi

Section 10OA presumption was properly raised because the agreement imposed monthly payments in excess of the principal; the appellant failed to rebut the presumption that he was carrying on the business of moneylending; therefore the loan arrangement was part of unlicensed moneylending and unenforceable, and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Dismiss appeal with costs of RM5000.00 subject to allocator