RAMESH A/L RAJARATNAM RAVINDRAN A/L SIVASUBRAMANIAM

RAMESH A/L RAJARATNAM RAVINDRAN A/L SIVASUBRAMANIAM

The Court affirmed the High Court: the Personal Loan document was authentic and admissible; the parties evidenced an intention that repayment would be on demand so limitation ran from the oral demand in November 2009 (making the 2015 suit timely); the earlier appellate order precluding strike-out estopped the defendant from relitigating limitation and abuse issues; the refiling did not constitute abuse of process because the earlier order was not peremptory and the defendant was bound by the earlier appellate decision; therefore the appellant's challenge failed.

Citation
W-02(NCC)(W)-103-01/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Ramesh a/l Rajaratnam; Respondent/plaintiff: Ravindran a/l Sivasubramaniam
Court
NCC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 September 2019
Case Number
W-02(NCC)(W)-103-01/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment affirmed
Legal Topics
Personal Loan, Promissory Note, Limitation Period, Abuse of Process, Estoppel, Document Authenticity, Expert Document Evidence, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Law Contract Civil Procedure Evidence Commercial Law Personal Loan Promissory Note Limitation Period +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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramesh a/l Rajaratnam

Appellant/defendant

Ravindran a/l Sivasubramaniam

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 authenticity of the Personal Loan document dated 17 May 2009
  2. 2 whether the claim was time-barred and when limitation commences for a promissory note payable on demand
  3. 3 whether refiling the suit after expiry of a writ amounted to abuse of court process

Ratio Decidendi

The Court affirmed the High Court: the Personal Loan document was authentic and admissible; the parties evidenced an intention that repayment would be on demand so limitation ran from the oral demand in November 2009 (making the 2015 suit timely); the earlier appellate order precluding strike-out estopped the defendant from relitigating limitation and abuse issues; the refiling did not constitute abuse of process because the earlier order was not peremptory and the defendant was bound by the earlier appellate decision; therefore the appellant's challenge failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and order of the High Court dated 21 December 2017 affirmed
  • Judgment entered for plaintiff for RM10,000,000 (amount claimed) as found by the High Court with costs RM50,000