Sevanasparan a/l Manikam (No. K/P: 710112-08-5683) 1. Dharmendra Kumar a/l Raghavan (No. K/P: 771018-07-6333) 2. Tetuan R Dharmendra & Co 3. Low Chin Joo (No KP: 640317-07-5787) 4. Low Chin Joo (No KP: 640317-07-5787) (sebagai wasi harta pu

Sevanasparan a/l Manikam (No. K/P: 710112-08-5683) 1. Dharmendra Kumar a/l Raghavan (No. K/P: 771018-07-6333) 2. Tetuan R Dharmendra & Co 3. Low Chin Joo (No KP: 640317-07-5787) 4. Low Chin Joo (No KP: 640317-07-5787) (sebagai wasi harta pu

The court found bona fide, serious triable issues that the 3rd SPA, power of attorney and pre-signed Form 14A were sham documents used to cloak illegal moneylending and a conspiracy to defraud; the balance of convenience favored preserving the status quo because the plaintiff would suffer irreversible loss if lands were transferred at a manifestly undervalued price; public interest and protective purpose of the Moneylenders Act justified intervention and dispensation of the usual undertaking as to damages; accordingly the interim injunction was granted to restrain dealings in the lands pending disposal of the main action.

Citation
PA-22NCvC-25-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Sevanasparan a/l Manikam; Defendant 1: Dharmendra Kumar a/l Raghavan; Defendant 2: Tetuan R Dharmendra & Co; Defendant 3: Low Chin Joo; Defendant 4: Low Chin Joo (as wasi harta pusaka Low Kim Khoi, deceased)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 June 2021
Case Number
PA-22NCvC-25-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil (interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction) / Interim Injunction Application / Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Application for interim injunction allowed against Defendants 3 and 4; Defendants 1 and 2 gave undertaking not to deal with the lands; costs awarded to plaintiff; undertaking as to damages dispensed with
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Sham Transaction, Fraud, Conspiracy to Defraud, Moneylending Regulation, Caveat, Pari Delicto, Public Interest, Undertaking as to Damages
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Property Equity Contract Injunctions Moneylenders Law Probate Interim Injunction +8 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sevanasparan a/l Manikam

Plaintiff

Dharmendra Kumar a/l Raghavan

Defendant 1

Tetuan R Dharmendra & Co

Defendant 2

Low Chin Joo

Defendant 3

Low Chin Joo (as wasi harta pusaka Low Kim Khoi, deceased)

Defendant 4

Procedural Posture

Civil (interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction) / Interim Injunction Application / Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants committed fraud and/or conspiracy to defraud the plaintiff of his lands using the 3rd SPA, power of attorney and pre-signed Form 14A
  2. 2 Whether the 3rd SPA and the power of attorney were sham documents created to cloak an illegal moneylending transaction
  3. 3 Whether there was a genuine sale and purchase agreement to sell the lands to Defendants 3 and 4

Ratio Decidendi

The court found bona fide, serious triable issues that the 3rd SPA, power of attorney and pre-signed Form 14A were sham documents used to cloak illegal moneylending and a conspiracy to defraud; the balance of convenience favored preserving the status quo because the plaintiff would suffer irreversible loss if lands were transferred at a manifestly undervalued price; public interest and protective purpose of the Moneylenders Act justified intervention and dispensation of the usual undertaking as to damages; accordingly the interim injunction was granted to restrain dealings in the lands pending disposal of the main action.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction allowed against Defendants 3 and 4; Defendants 1 and 2 gave undertaking not to deal with the lands; costs awarded to plaintiff; undertaking as to damages dispensed with

Orders

  • Interim injunction granted restraining Defendants 3 and 4 and their agents from using or proceeding with the sale and purchase agreement dated 31.10.2019, the power of attorney dated 31.10.2019 and the pre-signed Form 14A and from disposing, charging, assigning or otherwise dealing with the plaintiff's seven parcels...
  • Defendants 1 and 2 provided an undertaking to the court not to deal with the lands in any manner whatsoever and accordingly were not restrained by the order