1. ) TRIPLE ZEST TRADING & SUPPLIERS SDN.BHD 2. ) JUNAIDAH BINTI LEMAN 3. ) MUHAMAD FAIRUZ BIN ROSLAN v APPLIED BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES SDN.BHD

02f-16-02-2022a Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) 18 June 2023 • 02(f)-16-02/2022(A)

Catchwords

Contract- Moneylenders- Loan - Friendly loan – Whether loan granted a friendly loan or an illegal moneylending transaction in contravention of Moneylenders Act 1951- The loan agreement included a clause stating that the borrowed amount must be repaid along with an equivalent sum defined as the agreed profit- Breach of friendly loan agreement and personal guarantee by director – Whether judgment can be granted solely for the repayment of the principal loan amount excluding the agreed profit? - Whether the land titles held as collateral be returned to their rightful owners? -Whether the borrower unable to conclusively prove that the lender was an illegal moneylender or engaged in moneylending business? -Whether the lender successfully refuted, based on the balance of probabilities, the presumption under Section 10OA of the Moneylenders Act 1951 that it was involved in moneylending activities?

Practice Areas

Contract- Moneylenders- Loan

Judges (3)

Abdul Rahman bin Sebli Delivered Hasnah binti Dato' Mohammed Hashim Coram Nordin bin Hassan Coram

Parties (4)

APPLIED BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES Sdn Bhd Respondent TRIPLE ZEST TRADING & SUPPLIERS Sdn Bhd Appellant Junaidah binti Leman Appellant Muhamad Fairuz bin Roslan Appellant

Case Significance

1. ) TRIPLE ZEST TRADING & SUPPLIERS SDN.BHD 2. ) JUNAIDAH BINTI LEMAN 3. ) M... is a Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) decision dated June 18, 2023 (citation: 02f-16-02-2022a). The panel comprised Abdul Rahman bin Sebli, Hasnah binti Dato' Mohammed Hashim and Nordin bin Hassan, with Abdul Rahman bin Sebli delivering the judgment.

What was the outcome of 1. ) TRIPLE ZEST TRADING & SUPPLIERS SDN.BHD 2. ) JUNAIDAH BINTI LEMAN 3. ) M...?

1. ) TRIPLE ZEST TRADING & SUPPLIERS SDN.BHD 2. ) JUNAIDAH BINTI LEMAN 3. ) M... is a Federal Court decision dated June 18, 2023. The case was heard by Abdul Rahman bin Sebli. See the full judgment for details.