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

2004 MarsdenLR 1581

HIGH COURT MALAYA, MELAKA

KN SEGARA J


SUN YOK PENG
versus
SUN LEONG PIN

CIVIL SUIT NO: 22-199-1998

Decided On : 06-30-04

Advocates:
For the plaintiff - Avatar Singh; M/s Mohd Latip & Assocs
For the defendant - CH Lee; M/s Lee & Yong

JUDGMENT

KN Segara J:

The plaintiff is the sole-proprietor of a firm carrying on business known as Peng Motor Repair Engine and Auto Electrical Service (hereinafter referred to as the "said firm"). The business was registered on 21 February 1987 and the said firm carried out its business at No. 11 Jalan Suria 4, Taman Malim Jaya, Melaka. The defendant is the younger brother of the plaintiff, and worked with the plaintiff until August 1997, when he started his own business known as Syarikat Pin Auto Engine Repair & Electrical Services, at the same premises the plaintiff had carried on his business, upon plaintiff terminating his tenancy of the said premises.

Counsel for plaintiff and the defendant have agreed that there are only two issues to be determined by the court, namely:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the RM70,000, which was withdrawn by the defendant from the said firm's account No. 504067-0059-5, at Malayan Banking Berhad, Taman Malim Jaya, on 24 July 1997;

2. In the counterclaim, whether the plaintiff is liable to the defendant for the sum of RM4,000, allegedly taken by the plaintiff from the defendant's workshop.

The plaintiff had opened a current account No. 504067-0059-5, at Malayan Banking Berhad, Taman Malim Jaya branch, in the name of the said firm, for his business purposes. The defendant was given a mandate by the plaintiff to issue cheques on behalf of the said firm (see exh. P8). Exhibit P8 appears to be a bank document - it is an authority to the bank, given by the plaintiff, to honour all cheques drawn on the said account by the authorized person named therein, that is, the defendant. The said mandate was given in 1996 and has not been revoked. The plaintiff testified,inter alia:

Untuk menguruskan perniagaan Peng Motor saya ada membuka satu akaun semasa di MBB Taman Malim Jaya. Nombor akaun 504067-0059-5. Saya ada memberi satu mandat bank kepada defendan untuk menguruskan akaun tersebut tujuan perniagaan saya.

Defendan bersama-sama saya ke bank untuk menandatangan bersama-sama saya. Saya menandatangan mandat ini pada tahun 1996.

Saya ada memberitahu defendan pada 1996 semasa saya menandatangan mandat tersebut bahawa beliau hanya boleh mengeluarkan wang setakat RM10,000 sahaja iaitu had sekeping cek setakat RM10,000.

Saya memilih defendan untuk memberi mandat ini oleh kerna beliau adalah adik saya. Saya percaya kepada beliau.

Tujuan saya memberi mandat ialah saya ingin perniagaan saya berjalan dengan lancar semasa saya pergi outstation. Saya telah membuka akaun ini lebih awal - iaitu pada tahun 1993 atau 1994 - apabila cawangan bank Malayan Banking Berhad memulakan perniagaan di sana.

Sebelum 24.7.1997 defendan tidak pernah menandatangani apa-apa cek melebihi RM10,000.

Pada bulan 8 tahun 1997 saya dapat tahu bahawa defendan telah mengeluarkan cek melebihi RM10,000 apabila saya terima statement bagi bulan Julai 1997. Dia telah mengeluarkan satu cek sebanyak RM70,000 pada 24.7.1997 atas nama sendiri.

Nombor cek ialah 081135 bertarikh 24.7.1997 dari akaun Peng Motor Repair Engine & Electrical Sevice.

Saya tidak berhutang kepada defendan.

Saya tidak berhutang kepada bapa atau ibu saya.

Saya tidak berhutang kepada sesiapa pun jumlah sebanyak RM70,000 itu.

Saya rasa marah dan hilang kepercayaan pada adik saya iaitu defendan. Saya terus bincang dengan defendan dan minta beliau pulangkan wang RM70,000 balik kepada akaun perniagaan saya. Dia minta saya pergi bincang dengan ibubapa saya.

Saya ada pergi berjumpa ibubapa saya. Saya tidak dapat menyelesaikan ... .

Semasa saya bincang dengan ibubapa saya seperti diarahkan oleh defendan ibubapa saya tidak memberitahu saya bahawa saya berhutang kepada mereka (iaitu ibubapa).

The plaintiff's cause of action against the defendant for the sum of RM70,000 is based on a breach of trust. The plaintiff pleaded, inter alia, as follows:

3(a) Di atas dasar kepercayaan, maka Plaintiff telah memberi kebenaran kepada Defendan untuk menandatangani segala cek-cek untuk Syarikat

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 Back to top