YEONG KING HUI vs PARAMESWARAN SUBRAMANIAM

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 MarsdenLR 3384

SESSION COURT SHAH ALAM
YEONG KING HUI – Appellant
Versus
PARAMESWARAN SUBRAMANIAM – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Shamalah Selvarajah ,Respondent Advocate: Govin Thangadurai

Table of Content
1. nature of the loan disputed. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. plaintiff's view: loan was friendly and interest-free. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. defendant's view: loan involved illegal moneylending. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
4. court's evaluation of payments labeled as interest. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 45 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
5. court's decision regarding the spa as a sham. (Para 63 , 70 , 78 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 88 , 91)
6. final judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claims. (Para 96 , 100 , 101)

Yong Leou Shin SCJ:

A. INTRODUCTION

[1] This case involves a dispute over a loan of RM200,000.00 advanced by the Plaintiff, Yeong King Hui, to the Defendant, Parameswaran A/L Subramaniam. The Plaintiff claimed it was a friendly, interest-free loan, while the Defendant argued it was subject to illegal interest charges, making the transaction void under the Moneylenders Act 1951 . The Defendant also alleged that a related Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) was a sham document used to facilitate the loan.

[2] The Plaintiff sought repayment, while the Defendant counterclaimed, seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration that the S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 MarsdenLR 3384

SESSION COURT SHAH ALAMYEONG KING HUI – AppellantVersusPARAMESWARAN SUBRAMANIAM – Respondent

Cases Referred (8)

SESSION COURT SHAH ALAM
YEONG KING HUI – Appellant
Versus
PARAMESWARAN SUBRAMANIAM – Respondent