SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 MarsdenLR 1076

COURT OF APPEAL,PUTRAJAYA
DARSHAN SINGH HULLAN & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
RANGASAMY KAILASAM & ANOR – Respondent


Table of Content
1. sale and purchase agreement details (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. claims of non est factum and fraud (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. court analysis of witness credibility (Para 22)

[1] On 29 January 2010 the learnedHigh Court Judge at Kuala Lumpur allowed the 1st respondent's claim for a sum ofRM410,000.00, interest and costs against the 1st and 2nd appellants. In his judgmentthe learned High Court Judge ordered the appellants to jointly and severally pay the 1st respondent special damages in the sum of RM410,000.00 which was the amountoutstanding from the 3rd defendant (not a party in this appeal) to the 1st respondentunder the sale and purchase agreement dated 27 January 1999. The learned judge alsoordered that the 1st respondent was not liable to pay the outstanding amount underthe charge documents to the 2nd respondent (who is the 4th defendant in the HighCourt).

[2] Not satisfied with the decision,the 1st and 2nd appellants appealed to this Court against that decision.

[3] For convenience, in thisappeal the appellants will be referred to as the 1st and 2nd defendants and the1st and 2nd respondents as the plaintiff and 4th defendant respectively.

[4] The 3rd defenda

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top