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

2012 MarsdenLR 1706

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SEE THONG & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
SAW BENG CHONG – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:T Gunaseelan ,Respondent Advocate: Hoo Lin Coln On

Table of Content
1. transaction background and loan details. (Para 1 , 2)
2. claims and procedural history. (Para 3)

[1] Both the appellants (the plaintiffs at the court below) are husband and wife, and claimed to be the legal owners of two properties at No 1 & 3, Jalan SJ 7, Jalan Selayang Jaya 68100 Batu Caves, Selangor.

[2] In their statement of claim, the appellants pleaded the following facts:

(a) that sometime on 16 June 2003 and 30 July 2003, both the appellants had borrowed money in the sum of RM500,000 from the respondent (the defendant at the court below); and as security for the said loan, the appellants were asked to sign two sets of undated sale and purchase agreements in respect of the two properties which say that the purchase price of the properties were RM300,000 and RM200,000 each respectively;

(b) that the respondent had only paid RM400,000 to the appellants for the said loan, saying that RM100,000 was to be deducted up front as interest. The appellants claimed to have repaid RM300,000 for the said loan. When they failed to repay the balance of the said loan, the respondent forced them to pay RM800,000 to the respondent if the appellants want the two properties to be t

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