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.
- Articles
What is a Judgment Debtor Summons (JDS)? A judgment Debtor...
- Articles
Case of Government of Malaysia v Gurcharan Singh [1971] 1 MLJ 211. 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.
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.
The plaintiff in the local case of “ Government of Malaysia v Gucharan Singh & Ors [1971] 1 MLJ 211” is the Government of Malaysia, while the defendant is Gucharan Singh. In this case, the Malaysian government filed a lawsuit to sue Gucharan Singh, who was a minor at the time, for breach of contract.
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
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.
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.
