MANMOHAN SAMRA 1. ) Sandave Singh A/l Harbhajan Singh (Sebagai Wakil Harta Pusaka Harbhajan Singh A/l Gurmukh Singh, No. Kp: 630515065353, Si Mati) 2. ) SANDAVE SINGH A/L HARBHAJAN SINGH 3. ) TRANSFORM MIRAGE SDN BHD

MANMOHAN SAMRA 1. ) Sandave Singh A/l Harbhajan Singh (Sebagai Wakil Harta Pusaka Harbhajan Singh A/l Gurmukh Singh, No. Kp: 630515065353, Si Mati) 2. ) SANDAVE SINGH A/L HARBHAJAN SINGH 3. ) TRANSFORM MIRAGE SDN BHD

On the facts the Court found the transaction was a lawful loan/investment agreement and not a moneylending business under the Moneylenders Act 1951 because there was no evidence the Plaintiff carried on moneylending as a business; the contract was therefore not illegal under s.24 Contracts Act 1950; Plaintiff failed to prove any enforceable claim against the 1st and 2nd Defendants but established an unpaid balance of RM559,467.23 against the 3rd Defendant as admitted in evidence.

Citation
CB-22NCvC-5-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Manmohan Samra; 1st Defendant: Sandave Singh a/l Harbhajan Singh (as representative of estate of Harbhajan Singh); 2nd Defendant: Sandave Singh a/l Harbhajan Singh; 3rd Defendant: Transform Mirage Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
12 December 2022
Case Number
CB-22NCvC-5-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit Loan Dispute / Judgment (high Court)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claims against 1st and 2nd Defendants dismissed. Plaintiff's claim against 3rd Defendant allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Illegality of Contract, Moneylending Vs Friendly/investment Loan, Enforceability, Interest Charges, Locus Standi, Quantification of Debt, Remote Trial Procedure
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Moneylenders Act 1951 Commercial Law Civil Procedure Illegality of Contract Moneylending Vs Friendly/investment Loan Enforceability Interest Charges +3 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manmohan Samra

Plaintiff

Sandave Singh a/l Harbhajan Singh (as representative of estate of Harbhajan Singh)

1st Defendant

Sandave Singh a/l Harbhajan Singh

2nd Defendant

Transform Mirage Sdn. Bhd.

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit Loan Dispute / Judgment (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transaction is a moneylending contract contravening the Moneylenders Act 1951
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff discharged the burden of proof as to the amount owed by Defendants
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff has any cause of action against the Second Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts the Court found the transaction was a lawful loan/investment agreement and not a moneylending business under the Moneylenders Act 1951 because there was no evidence the Plaintiff carried on moneylending as a business; the contract was therefore not illegal under s.24 Contracts Act 1950; Plaintiff failed to prove any enforceable claim against the 1st and 2nd Defendants but established an unpaid balance of RM559,467.23 against the 3rd Defendant as admitted in evidence.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claims against 1st and 2nd Defendants dismissed. Plaintiff's claim against 3rd Defendant allowed in part.

Orders

  • Claims against 1st and 2nd Defendants dismissed with costs of RM30,000.00 to be paid by Plaintiff? (judgment records dismissal with cost RM30,000.00)
  • Third Defendant ordered to pay Plaintiff RM559,467.23