SELVA KUMAR MURUGIAH vs THIAGARAJAH RETNASAMY

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1995 MarsdenLR 736

FEDERAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
SELVA KUMAR MURUGIAH – Appellant
Versus
THIAGARAJAH RETNASAMY – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:R R Sethu,H S Dhillon ,Respondent Advocate: N Chandran,Sri Dev Nair

JUDGMENT

Peh Swee Chin FCJ:

[1] This appeal raises a difficult but important question of interpretation of s 75 of the Contracts Act 1950, which is set out below for ease of reference, (s 75 is hereafter the section in question):

Section 75
When a contract has broken, if the sum is named in the contract as the amount to be paid in case of such breach, or if the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty, the party complaining of the breach is entitled, whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named or, as the case may be, the penalty stipulated for.

[2] Both parties are medical practitioners. The respondent, (hereafter the vendor), sold his medical practice on certain terms and conditions under the name and style of "Poliklinik and Surgeri Thiager" to the appellant, (hereafter the purchaser), for a total price of RM120,00 and for this purpose they entered into an agreement in writing on 15 October 1988. The relevant parts of the agreement are set out below:

2
The agreement made on this 15 October 1988 ...
Whereas:
Now this agreement wi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1995 MarsdenLR 736

FEDERAL COURT KUALA LUMPURSELVA KUMAR MURUGIAH – AppellantVersusTHIAGARAJAH RETNASAMY – Respondent

FEDERAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
SELVA KUMAR MURUGIAH – Appellant
Versus
THIAGARAJAH RETNASAMY – Respondent