Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
RAMESH SIVARAJ RAJASINGAM CHELLIAH – Appellant
Versus
SITHAMPARANATHAN NADARAJAH – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. agreement terms and remittance as loan (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. conclusion on evidence and judgment (Para 2) |
| 3. evidence supporting fund remittances (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. trial judge's credibility assessments (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 31) |
| 5. burden of proof and its shifting (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
Introduction
[1] After a full trial, the Sessions Court found the Appellant/Defendant liable to re-pay RM250,000.00 with interest and costs to the Respondent/Plaintiff under an RM275,000.00 friendly loan agreement dated 5 October 2018 ("Agreement"). According to the terms of the Agreement, the RM275,000.00 was repayable in eight instalments between 31 January 2019 and 31 August 2019.
[2] I heard and dismissed the appeal by the Defendant/Appellant as I found no error on the part of the trial Judge to warrant appellate interference. In these brief grounds, I will refer to the parties as they were in the Court below.
Facts in Dispute
[3] The Plaintiff's case is that the Agreement was prepared and signed at the Defendant's request to document the repayment terms for various advances that the Plaintiff had made to the Defendant
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
