UDAI SINGH A/L RATTAN SINGH 1. ) CENTRE SIDE EXPRESS SDN BHD 2. ) LAL RAVINDRARAJULOO NAIDU A/L S INOKANNA

UDAI SINGH A/L RATTAN SINGH 1. ) CENTRE SIDE EXPRESS SDN BHD 2. ) LAL RAVINDRARAJULOO NAIDU A/L S INOKANNA

The court accepted uncontested affidavit evidence that only RM1,500,002.74 was disbursed, deducted RM378,000 of repayments to arrive at RM1,122,002.11, found no triable issues raised by the Defendants on a balance of probabilities, and therefore summary judgment was appropriate; stakeholders were ordered to pay the judgment sum to the Plaintiff's solicitors, with interest, legal fees and costs as ordered.

Citation
WA-22NCvC-91-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Udai Singh a/l Rattan Singh; Defendant: Centre Side Express Sdn Bhd; Defendant: Lal Ravindrajuloo Naidu a/l S Inokanna
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 August 2023
Case Number
WA-22NCvC-91-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit Recovery of Debt (friendly Loan) With Summary Judgment Application Under Order 14 Ro C / Judgment (summary Judgment Granted)
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of the Plaintiff against both Defendants.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Loan Agreement, Guarantee, Stakeholder Funds, Interest, Costs, Legal Fees
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Debt Recovery Equity (security/caveat) Summary Judgment Loan Agreement Guarantee Stakeholder Funds +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Udai Singh a/l Rattan Singh

Plaintiff

Centre Side Express Sdn Bhd

Defendant

Lal Ravindrajuloo Naidu a/l S Inokanna

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit Recovery of Debt (friendly Loan) With Summary Judgment Application Under Order 14 Ro C / Judgment (summary Judgment Granted)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment under Order 14 RoC was appropriate
  2. 2 Whether the correct principal sum is the contractual figure or the actual amount disbursed
  3. 3 Liability of guarantor for the loan

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted uncontested affidavit evidence that only RM1,500,002.74 was disbursed, deducted RM378,000 of repayments to arrive at RM1,122,002.11, found no triable issues raised by the Defendants on a balance of probabilities, and therefore summary judgment was appropriate; stakeholders were ordered to pay the judgment sum to the Plaintiff's solicitors, with interest, legal fees and costs as ordered.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of the Plaintiff against both Defendants.

Orders

  • Judgment sum of RM1,122,002.11 to be paid to the Plaintiff to settle outstanding amount owed
  • Messrs. S Vengadeswaran (stakeholders) to pay immediately the judgment sum to Plaintiff's solicitors Messrs. Edison & Associates