Search results
Jul 11, 2020 · The plaintiff (Government of Malaysia) entered into an agreement with the first defendant (Gurcharan Singh) as the promisor and the second and third defendants as sureties for providing a course of training at a Malayan Teacher's Training Institution.
This case concerns the Government of Malaysia as the plaintiff who sued Gurcharan Singh as the first defendant to promise the contract and ORS as the second and third defendant to act as the guarantors of the contract for breach of the contract made between them.
Back in the 60s, a young fella by the name of Gurcharan Singh was given a scholarship contract by our government. The terms of the contract was that in return of the government sending young Gurcharan to be trained in the Malayan Teachers’ Training Institution, he would return and work for the government for 5 years.
In this action, the Government Of MALAYSIA sued the first defendant as the promisor and the second and third defendants as sureties for breach of an agreement in writing entered into by them with the plaintiff for
Government OF Malaysia v Gurcharan Singh & ORS, [1971] journal. Course. Law (LAW224) 999+Documents. Students shared 4414 documents in this course. University. Universiti Teknologi MARA. Academic year:2019/2020. Uploaded by: Anonymous Student. This document has been uploaded by a student, just like you, who decided to remain anonymous.
Government of Malaysia v Gurcharan Singh & Ors [1971] 1 MLJ 211, the issue in this case was whether scholarship for a student who was a minor who attended practical training overseas amounted to contract for necessaries. The High Court held that the scholar agreement was void and unenforceable between the government and the minor.
Nov 23, 2023 · In Government of Malaysia v Gurcharan Singh and Ors (1971) 1 MLJ 211, Chang Min Tat J said that: “ In my view, the word necessaries must be construed broadly
Jan 18, 2023 · The findings derived imply that the determination of the age of majority needs to be compatible with the capacity of minors and current realities. This determination must be...
Government of Malaysia v Gurcharan Singh & Ors2, which held that the scholarship contract entered into by the First Defendant was void since the latter was still an infant at the material time. Due to significant legal setback that could have befallen onto other government scholarship contracts, the Amending Act was introduced to cover the lacunae
Apr 19, 2023 · In Malaysia, the decision in Mohori Bibee has been applied in the following categories of contracts by minors: Government of Malaysia v Gurcharan Singh & Ors [1971] MLJ 211 (HC, Malaya) (scholarship agreement before the amendment to the MCA in 1976); Tan Hee Juan by his next friend Tan See Bok v The Boon Keat Lai Soon [1934] 3 MLJ 96 (HC ...
