Friday, November 8, 2024

High Court orders fashion designer Jovian Mandagie to pay two firms RM10m for defaulting on friendly loans | Malay Mail

Must read

KUALA LUMPUR, July 11 — Datuk Jovian Mandagie has been ordered to pay RM10 million to two companies after the High Court here granted their application for a summary judgment against the fashion designer.

According to documents obtained by the media today, Judge Datuk Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin directed Jovian to pay RM5 million each to Bina Pragmatik Sdn Berhad and Cekap Air Sdn Bhd, in decisions made on April 2 and 4, respectively.

Advertising

Advertising

A summary judgment is obtained when the court determines that one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and makes a decision based on written submissions and legal arguments presented by the parties, without the need for a full trial or witness testimonies.

The companies’ lawyers, Messrs Saiful, Roger & Co, confirmed the matter when contacted.

Jovian has filed an appeal against the decision on April 30.

The businessman was sued separately by the two companies on May 16 last year for allegedly failing to repay their friendly loans of RM5 million each.

The statements of claim say that Jovian is an acquaintance of Yong Zhen Wei and Azirul Salihin, the directors of Cekap Air and Bina Pragmatik, respectively.

On February 25, 2022, Cekap Air allegedly lent Jovian RM5 million upon his verbal request, transferring the money to the client’s account of a law firm representing him.

Similarly, Bina Pragmatik is said to have lent Jovian RM5 million on March 25, 2022, also transferring the money to the same law firm’s client account representing the fashion designer.

Both plaintiffs stated that the friendly loans were to be repaid within 12 months.

The loans were given informally and verbally, as all parties were acquaintances, and there was no reason to doubt Jovian, who had several other businesses and was the son-in-law of then-Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob, at the time.

However, both plaintiffs claim that the defendant breached the loan agreements and has, to date, failed to repay the money, causing financial losses to both companies. — Bernama

Latest article