Back
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
FAIZAH JAMALUDIN, JCA
GOLDEN WHEEL CREDIT SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
DATO SIAH TEONG DIN – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of moneylending agreements. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. high court's findings on legality. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. legal framework and compliance under mla 1951. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. distinction between void and illegal agreements. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. court's reasoning on validity and immorality. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 6. restitution claim under contracts act 1950. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 7. issues regarding entitlement to restitution. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 8. guidance from detik ria on s 66 ca 1950. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 9. assessment of centrality of illegality. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 10. proportionality in granting restitution. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 11. court's final decision and order. (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64) |
Introduction
[1] The appellant is a moneylender licensed under the Moneylenders Act 1951 ("MLA 1951"). The respondent was, at all material times, a shareholder and Director of Instant Bonus Sdn Bhd ("Instant Bonus"), a property development company. Instant Bonus was the developer of a project known as
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
