{
  "id": 3438049,
  "title": "Balu Sri Ram gagal batal saman tuntutan yuran guaman RM200,000",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/08/26/balu-sri-ram-gagal-batal-saman-tuntutan-yuran-guaman-rm200-000",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-08-26T04:35:52.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Free Malaysia Today",
    "slug": "free-malaysia-today",
    "url": "https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/bahasa/tempatan/2026/08/26/balu-sri-ram-gagal-batal-saman-tuntutan-yuran-guaman-rm200-000"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "Gopal Sri Ram, a former Chief Justice of the Federal Court, passed away in January 2023 before he could complete a criminal appeal he had been appointed as the chief lawyer for. Kuala Lumpur: The Federal Court rejected the application of former Chief Justice Gopal Sri Ram to cancel a lawsuit demanding the return of RM200,000 in unpaid Guaman royalties. Justice Alice Loke ruled that the lawsuit between Khoo Gee Tat and Sri Ram was not clearly unenforceable and should proceed to a full trial based on the merits of the case. Gee Tat appointed Sri Ram as his chief lawyer to represent his son, Adrian Khoo, in the criminal appeal at the Court of Appeal in 2022. Form invoices issued by Sri Ram's firm, Tetuan Sri Ram, stated the Guaman royalty amounted to RM349,800. Gee Tat made four payments totaling RM200,000. However, Sri Ram died on January 29, 2023, before he could complete the appeal, which was later heard and ruled upon by the Court of Appeal on May 5, 2023. Gee Tat claimed that the RM200,000 was owed for incomplete legal services, as he was not the full-time servant and trustee of Sri Ram. Chandra contested the lawsuit, arguing Gee Tat was not the guarantor of Sri Ram's estate and therefore had no legal right to bring the lawsuit. Loke denied these arguments after finding Gee Tat had appointed Sri Ram, made payments, received invoices, and communicated with him regarding the appeal. In a 10-page judgment, Loke stated that the definition of a guarantor under the Legal Practitioners Act 1976 could include Gee Tat. She also dismissed Gee Tat's argument that the lawsuit could be dismissed as res judicata (the matter had already been decided) or frivolous and harmful. Loke noted that the dispute over whether the RM200,000 could be returned involved both legal issues and facts requiring detailed consideration, making it unsuitable for easy dismissal. Ng Choon Kiat and Ahmad Nur Zharif Rosdi acted on behalf of Gee Tat, while Alvin Oh, Thooi Zi Hui, and Sew Chang Peng represented Chandra, who had filed the appeal.",
  "summary": "Pertikaian bayaran kepada mendiang hakim tersebut yang sebelum itu menjadi peguam memerlukan bicara penuh.",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 2,
    "also_reported_by": [
      {
        "outlet": "Free Malaysia Today",
        "title": "Balu Sri Ram gagal batal saman tuntutan yuran guaman RM200,000",
        "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/08/26/balu-sri-ram-gagal-batal-saman-tuntutan-yuran-guaman-rm200-000-3438817",
        "published": "2026-08-26T04:35:52.000Z"
      }
    ]
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}