S

Sukhdarshan Singh a/l Bag Singh

Person 1 case

Sukhdarshan Singh a/l Bag Singh appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:

wa-12bncc-30-09-2023
SUKHDARSHAN SINGH A/L BAG SINGH v TERMIT KAUR A/P RANJIT SINGH
MYHC 2 March 2025

See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.

About Sukhdarshan Singh a/l Bag Singh

Sukhdarshan Singh a/l Bag Singh appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning March 2025 to March 2025. Sukhdarshan Singh a/l Bag Singh appeared as appellant in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).

How many court cases involve Sukhdarshan Singh a/l Bag Singh?

Sukhdarshan Singh a/l Bag Singh appears in 1 published judgment from March 2025 to March 2025. Most commonly as appellant (1 cases).

Practice Areas

illegal moneylending-Moneylenders Act 1951-The burden is on the defendant to prove this assertion of his by virtue of sections 101 to 103 of the Evidence Act 1950-Burden of proof as to particular fact-question of who in law, shall bear the burden to prove forgery-alleging that his signature on the SSA was a forgery-he bore the onus of proving that the signature was a forgery-The principles on when an Appellate Court can intervene in a trial judge’s findings of fact from decided cases are as follows-The starting premise must be that as the trial judge had based his findings of fact on the evidence of the witnesses, his findings of fact should not be disturbed-It is only in the rare cases where an Appellate Court, lacking the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, is justified in coming to a different conclusion from the trial judge’s findings of fact-It is well-settled law that an Appellate Court will not, generally speaking, intervene to reverse the trial judge’s findings of fact unless the trial judge is shown to be plainly wrong in arriving at his decision-As long as the trial judge’s findings of fact can be supported on a rational basis in view of the material evidence, the fact that the Appellate Court feels like it might have decided differently is irrelevant. The trial judge should be accorded a margin of appreciation when his treatment of the evidence is examined by the Appellate Court-Unjust enrichment-In Dream Property, the Federal Court set down the principles of unjust enrichment applicable in Malaysia as follows-The defendant must have been enriched-The enrichment must be gained at the plaintiff’s expense-That the retention of the benefit by the defendant was unjust- There must be no defence available to extinguish or reduce the defendant’s liability to make restitution 1

Appellant (1)

wa-12bncc-30-09-2023 MYHC
SUKHDARSHAN SINGH A/L BAG SINGH v TERMIT KAUR A/P RANJIT SINGH
2 March 2025