Back
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
GLOBAL GLOBE PROPERTY (MELAWATI) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
JANGKA PRESTASI SDN BHD – Respondent
[1] How does one know when a sale and purchase agreement is actually a cloak for an illegal moneylending transaction where interest is charged by an unlicensed moneylender which under the Moneylenders Act 1951 is unenforceable? Unscrupulous moneylenders would of course try to leave no trace of any moneylending transaction. At the same time there may well be cases where having signed a sale and purchase agreement, a party may later have had a change of mind and tried to wriggle out of it by alleging it is a sham to cover up an illegal moneylending transaction.
[2] When confronted with two versions, one by the plaintiff saying that it is an ordinary sale and purchase transaction and another by the defendant saying it is a sham sale and purchase agreement meant only as a collateral to the moneylending transaction, the court would have to comb the evidence carefully to see if there are gaps that could not be explained away in the sale and purchase transaction and unusual features that will militate against a genuine sale and purchase transaction as well as the conduct of the parties.
[3] This appeal seeks to unravel the singular problem of whether the sale an
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
