DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN DALAM KEBANKRAPAN NO: 29NCC-384-01/16 5 ANTARA Berkenaan : LIM CHENG POW (NRIC NO : 4401-71-5375) Dan Ex-Parte : LIM CHENG POW (NRIC NO : 4401-71-5375) 1. MAYBANK INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT: 938-H) 2. MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT: 3813-K) 3. ALLIANCE INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT: 21605-D) 4. DBS BANK LIMITED (NO. SYARIKAT: 940031-C) 5. AFFIN BANK BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT: 046-T) PEMOHON-PEMOHON 30 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction 1. Enclosure is Applicants application for inter alia the following- (1) that the Receiving Order made by the Court on 22-1-16 (RO) be set aside; (2) that the Debtor, Lim Cheng Pow (Debtor) be declared guilty of contempt of court for failing to comply with the requirements of section 16 of Bankruptcy Act 1967 including, inter alia, not disclosing his assets in full and in transferring assets out despite the existence of RO and be punished in such manner as the Court deems fit; and 1
(3) that the Applicants be granted leave to continue and proceed with the committal proceedings commenced against Debtor in the Kuala Lumpur High Court vide Originating Summons No. 24NCC-134-04/14. 5 On 8-12-16 the Court granted leave to Applicants in respect of prayer (3). 2. The relevant grounds as stated in the application were as follows- (a) The Applicants are creditors of the Debtor; (b) Prior to the presentation of the Debtor s Petition herein, there was already a pending bankruptcy action filed by the 1 st Applicant against the debtor in the Kuala Lumpur High Court vide Bankruptcy No. 29NCC-1816-03/, which the Debtor was vigorously opposing, (c) However, unknown to the Applicants, the Debtor then chose to apply for and obtained an RO against his assets. RO was applied for by the Debtor himself, for the reason that there was purportedly a scheme of arrangement for the creditors consideration. To date, no creditor s meeting has been fixed and no proposed scheme was ever presented to the creditors, (d) The Debtor deliberately omitted to declare all of his assets in its Statement of Affairs and the Statement of Affairs lacked particulars as required by section 16 (1) of RO Bankruptcy Act 1967. The Debtor in fact transferred assets after RO was obtained, (e) There is no bona fide scheme. The present proceedings commenced at the Debtor s instance is an abuse of the process of the Court, and 2
(f) The RO is flawed and ought to be set aside. 5 3. As there were 5 Applicants, all of them filed affidavits in support and further affidavits. Where necessary in so far as Applicants are concerned the Court will only refer to the affidavits of one Saraswathy Varadarajan (Saraswathy) from 1 st Applicant as the affidavits from the other Applicants repeated and adopted Saraswathy s averments in her affidavits. Facts leading to application 4. In Saraswathy s affidavit in support (enclosure 16) were set out the salient facts leading to the application. (a) Judgment dated 7--13 5. On 7--13 1 st and 2 nd Applicants obtained judgment against Debtor (exhibit MIBB-I ) for the sum of RM9,633,942.00 with interest to be paid to 1 st Applicant (MIBB 13 Judgment Debt) and a sum of RM2,264,483.00 with interest to be paid to 2 nd Applicant (MBB 13 Judgment Debt). 6. Bankruptcy actions were filed on 31-3-. Both bankruptcy actions were resisted by Debtor who maintained his inability to pay his debts (exhibits MIBB-3 and MIBB-5 ). On 14-1-16 Debtor settled MBB s 13 Judgment Debt and MBB s bankruptcy action was withdrawn. The bankruptcy action of 1 st Applicant filed vide 29NCC-1816-03/ (Exhibit MIBB-4 ) in Kuala Lumpur High Court (KLHC) proceeded. Hearing of Creditor s Petition (CP) fixed on 29-1-16 did not proceed due to RO. 3
(b) Judgment dated 5-- 7. On 5-- Applicants obtained judgment against Debtor (exhibit MIBB-6, judgment) in KLCH suit 22NCC-163-06/ ( suit) for the sum of RM124,489,509.27 with interest. This arose from a Sale & Purchase Agreement dated 5-8-14 between Million Westlink Sdn Bhd, Debtor and Applicants (SPA) whereby Million Westlink agreed to purchase Redeemable Convertible Secured Notes (Notes) of which Applicants were holders. The Notes were issued by Gula Perak Bhd. Debtor guaranteed performance of SPA via a Guarantee dated 5-8-14. suit was filed for breach of SPA and Guarantee and judgment obtained. Stay of execution of judgment 8. On 6-12-16 Debtor s appeal against judgment was dismissed by Court of Appeal. On 12-5-17 when enclosure came up for hearing the Court was informed the Federal Court (FC) had on 26-4-17 stayed execution of judgment and subsequently learnt leave had been granted to appeal to FC. Preliminary issue 9. A preliminary issue was thus raised whether Applicants could proceed with enclosure in light of stay of execution of judgment by FC.. The Court took the view this was not a case where Applicants had presented a bankruptcy action against Debtor based on judgment obtained against Debtor. Enclosure was not an execution of judgment but an application filed on the basis of abuse of process by Debtor in 4
obtaining RO. It thus follows despite the stay of judgment enclosure could proceed as it was not an execution of judgment. There was therefore no basis to the submission that Applicants having elected to file an earlier application to intervene on the basis of them being creditors under judgment can no longer assert their standing as creditors due to the stay of execution. 11. Further, the application to intervene in enclosure 29 was granted by consent on 8-12-16 where there was nothing indicated by Debtor the consent was on his recognition Applicants are creditors only under judgment. Analysis and Court s finding (a) Law on setting aside RO 12. At the outset it is noted there is no provision in Bankruptcy Act 1967 (BA) nor Bankruptcy Rules 1969 (BR) that deal with setting aside of RO. The provision in section 14 BA which provides for power of court to rescind RO does not apply in this instant application, as acknowledged by Applicants. 13. However it is the Court s finding it has the power to do so pursuant to section 91 BA. The aforesaid provision states as follows- 91. General power of the bankruptcy courts (1) Subject to this Act, the court under its jurisdiction in bankruptcy, shall have power to decide all questions of priorities and all other questions whatsoever, whether of law or fact, which may arise in any case of bankruptcy coming within the cognizance of the court, or which the court deems it expedient or necessary to decide for the purpose of doing 5
complete justice or making a complete distribution of property in any such case.. 5 14. In United Overseas Bank (M) Bhd v Loke Lai Ying [03] 3 MLJ 1 it was stated at page 5-6- Section 91(1) of the Act, as far as the limb that we have quoted is concerned, gives full power to the court to decide all questions for the purpose of doing complete justice in bankruptcy cases. The emphasis of the section is on deciding all questions, whether of fact or of law. It tells the judge that to do complete justice he has full power to decide all questions and he should exercise the power if necessary. Do not leave any question undecided, if by not deciding it complete justice will not be done. Do not leave any stone unturned in the pursuit of complete justice. But it is not the intention of the section that if the answer to a question is found to be in favour of a creditor, the debtor is yet to be saved on the perception that that would be doing complete justice. Complete justice id owned to both parties equally, not to one only. If in the interest of doing justice a question is decided and decided in favour of a party, the consequence of the decision ought to be given effect to... Aside from section 91 BA the Court has inherent jurisdiction to so decide. Rule 276 BR states that In the absence of any rule regulating any proceedings under this Act or these Rules, the Rules of the High Court shall apply, mutatis mutandis.. 30 16. As to the Rules of High Court, Order 92 Rule 4 of Rules of Court 12 states as follows- Inherent power of the Court For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court.. 35 6
17. Thus despite the absence of an express provision in BA or BR, section 91 BA confers on the Court the power to set aside RO. This coupled with the inherent jurisdiction of the Court makes it clearer. The question which arises is what are the circumstances under which the Court may do so. Section 91 BA speaks of doing complete justice while Order 92 Rule 4 speaks of preventing injustice or an abuse of the process of the Court. 18. Debtor s counsel submitted section 7 BA required the Debtor s Petition to set be aside before RO can be set aside and in this instance since there was no attack on the Debtor s Petition there can be no setting aside of RO. Section 7(1) states A debtor s petition shall allege that the debtor is unable to pay his debts and the court shall thereupon make a receiving order. In Re Painter [1894] 1 QB 85 was cited to support this proposition where at page 91 the Court there was unable to say that the petition was presented for a purpose foreign to the bankruptcy laws and therefore allowed the appeal and did not annul the adjudication. However upon perusing In Re Painter (supra) the court there recognized at page 92- There may be cases in which the debtor s object in presenting a petition is so distinctly foreign to the purposes with the Bankruptcy Act that it is a mere abuse of the process of the Court; but in my opinion this is not such a case, and I think the adjudication ought to stand. (emphasis added) Thus the court recognized the power to set aside but did not so for the reasons it gave. 7
19. In Re Betts [1901] 2 KB 39 there was a setting aside of RO without setting aside the petition. There the Court found abuse of process in warranting the setting aside. At page 41 it was stated- As to the law there is no doubt. It has been established in In Re Painter, that where a debtor files his own petition the proceedings in bankruptcy ought not to be stopped merely on the ground that his object in filing the petition is to escape the effect of an order against him under the Debtors Act; I do not wish to criticise a word that was said in that case. There must, however, be a limit to a debtor s immunity; and if it appears as a fact that a debtor is in the habit of filing bankruptcy petitions, so that the bankruptcy law is really being made use of in order to assist him in his frauds on his creditors, and to enable him to get credit, while he all along has the intention of getting rid of his liabilities by filing his own petition, I cannot think that such a state of things comes within the protection of the bankruptcy law...there are abundant grounds for rescinding the receiving order,. RO can thus be set aside without an attack on petition being made. (b) Grounds for setting aside RO. The grounds for this Court to set aside RO were premised on abuse of process for non compliance with section 16 BA in relation to Debtor s Statement of Affairs (including assets in Australia), non disclosure of material facts, failure to disclose and surrender cause papers to Director General of Insolvency (DGI) and RO being flawed. 30 (i) Non compliance of section 16 BA 21. Section 16 (1) and (2) BA states the following- 16. Debtor s statement of affairs (1) Where a receiving order is made against a debtor he shall make out and submit to the Director General of Insolvency a statement of and in relation to his affairs in the prescribed form, verified by affidavit, showing the particulars of the debtor s assets, debts and liabilities, the names, 8
residences and occupations of his creditors, the securities held by them respectively, the dates when the securities were respectively given, the cause of his insolvency, the date when he last balanced his accounts before becoming insolvent, the amount of his capital at the date of such balance, after providing for all his liabilities and making allowances for bad and doubtful debts, and such further and other information as is prescribed or as the Director General of Insolvency requires. (2) The statement shall be so submitted within the following times: (a) if the order is made on the petition of the debtor, within seven days from the date of the order;. 30 22. Debtor s Statement of Affairs filed on 29-1-16 can be seen in exhibit MIBB-14 which is essentially his affidavit verifying statement of affairs as per his exhibit LCP-I. In Table G-List of assets was listed one landed asset in item 1 Lot 66 Mukim of Setapak, Town of Kuala Lumpur. In paragraph 40 of Saraswathy s affidavit it was stated Debtor made an untrue statement and omitted to declare all of his assets. Paragraph 41 then stated Debtor owed 8 other properties and these were listed. Debtor in paragraph 11 of his affidavit in reply in enclosure 21 stated the Statement of Affairs was prepared by himself without any advice from solicitors and due to this there was some information not included and it was not deliberately omitted. 23. Out of the 8 other properties listed by Applicants it was the Court s finding there had been a failure by Debtor to disclose 3 assets. Those were in respect of- (1) Geran No. 50559 Lot No. 58586, Mukim Batu, Kuala Lumpur; (2) Geran No. 50585 Lot No. 58573, Mukim Batu, Kuala Lumpur; and (3) Geran No. 50600 Lot No. 58587, Mukim Batu Kuala Lumpur. 9
24. In respect of Geran No. 50585 and 50600 Debtor admitted in his paragraph the properties were essentially his and charged to Straits Capital Corporation Sdn Bhd (chargee). He was verbally informed by chargee the properties will be sold and he genuinely believed and was under the impression as they would be sold he would no longer be the proprietor and thus these were not declared.. It is evident exhibit LCP-2 showed Debtor to be the registered proprietor and the fact of the charge. However there were no documents to support his statement of a potential sale by chargee. Even if there were such documents and prior to any sale Debtor remained the proprietor and this was not disclosed. Debtor was only prepared to state he would amend his Statement of Affairs (paragraph, 2 nd affidavit in reply, enclosure 27) to include the properties charged. 26. It was also contended the properties alleged to be omitted was due to time constraint as the Statement of Affairs was required to be filed within 7 days from date of RO. Although the time line of 7 days was correct and is the requirement under section 16 (2) BA, this time constraint was never raised in the Debtor s affidavits and was a submission from the Bar. In any event the 7 days requirement is no excuse for Debtor to omit listing properties owned by him, charge or no charge. 27. With respect to Geran No. 50599, it was transferred to Cloverchip Sdn Bhd (Cloverchip) on 26-1-16 (land search in exhibit MIBB-16 ) which is 4 days after RO. Debtor in his paragraph 16 of affidavit in reply stated the S&P with Cloverchip was entered on -12- and the S&P
was attached in exhibit LCP-3. Purchase price was RM4.85 million. Pursuant to clause 5.1, the balance purchase price of RM2.965 million was to be paid upon the expiry of 14 days after the presentation of the transfer at the relevant land office. The transfer was presented on 26-1-16 after the RO of 22-1-16. Subsequently Debtor stated in supplementary affidavit dated -6-16 in enclosure 56 he gave a discount of RM2.4 million to Cloverchip as per letter dated 8-12- in exhibit LCP-1 and the total purchase price was RM2.4 million. 28. As rightly pointed out by counsel for Applicants, this issue of discount was only raised 4 months after the S&P was produced in Debtor s affidavit in reply with no reasons why the letter of discount was only raised now despite the discount being given on 8-12-. No explanation was given for this discount which is nearly half the purchase price. The discount appeared doubtful and points towards Debtor s intention to reduce the amount to be declared and included in the Statement of Affairs. 29. In paragraph 13 of Saraswathy s affidavit in reply in enclosure 22 it was stated Debtor failed to disclose assets held by him in other country and in paragraph of enclosure 35 that Debtor willfully refused to disclose if he has any other properties in any other country. This was essentially denied and Applicants were put to strict proof (paragraph 18 of Debtor s affidavit in reply in enclosure 27 and paragraph 14 of enclosure 40). 30. By Saraswathy s supplemental affidavit in enclosure 165 and as per exhibit MIBB-C it was stated in paragraph 5 the following- 11
(a) The Debtor is a shareholder of the following companies registered in Australia- (i) Fortcom Pty Ltd (owning 80% of the total shares issued); (ii) Grand Holdings Pty Ltd (owning 81% of the total shares issued); (iii) Luteum Pty Ltd (owning 99.99% of the total shares issued); and (iv) Straits Properties Pty Ltd (owning 93% of the total shares issued). (b) The Debtor is a director of the following companies registered in Australia- (i) Fortcom Pty Ltd; and (ii) Straits Properties Pty Ltd.. 31. In Debtor s 7 th affidavit in reply in enclosure 178, Debtor stated in paragraph 16- I have no knowledge that I need to disclose the directorship and shares outside Malaysia. At all times, I have relied on my solicitor s advice and I was advised that as the effect of bankruptcy in Malaysia will not have any effect on my asset in Australia, I was under the impression that there is no obligation to disclose.. 32. Applicants had already been pressing for disclosure of Debtor s assets outside Malaysia only to be met with a denial. It was only when Applicants came up with its exhibit MIBB-C to show Debtor s shareholding and directorship in companies in Australia did Debtor then say he was under the impression there was no obligation to disclose. indeed a failure to disclosure assets outside Malaysia. There was 30 (ii) Non disclosure of material facts 33. As stated under the heading facts leading to application, the bankruptcy action of 1 st Applicant pursuant to MIBB 13 Judgment Debt in KLHC proceeded with CP fixed on 29-1-16. Due to RO obtained, hearing of CP could not proceed. 12
34. As submitted by Applicants counsel which this Court agrees, Debtor could have applied for RO in MIBB bankruptcy action but did not and chose to file it in Shah Alam on 19-1-16. This was just days before hearing of CP in KLHC on 29-1-16. In filing the Debtor s Petition in Shah Alam, there was no disclosure of MIBB bankruptcy action, which Petition if it had been filed in MIBB bankruptcy action, would have been apparent. 35. It is under these circumstances the change of Debtor s address is material and was an attempt to justify filing the Petition in Shah Alam. Although Debtor in paragraph 9 of affidavit in reply dated 24-3-16 stated he has been residing in the Tropicana address for more than a year with his son due to old age and safety, in an affidavit dated 2-2-16 (after his Debtor s Petition) filed in Court of Appeal for a stay of execution of judgment the address given was that of a residence in KL (exhibit MIBB- 8 ). In affidavits dated -- (MBB s bankruptcy action) and 30-12- (MIBB s bankruptcy action) it was a KL address (exhibits MIBB-3 and MIBB-5 ). 36. Taken together these were non disclosure of material facts and an abuse of process. (iii) Failure to disclose and surrender cause papers to Director General of Insolvency (DGI) 37. In Sarawathy s supplemental affidavit in enclosure 165 it has been set out the circumstances (in paragraph 4) leading to the failure to disclose and surrender cause papers to DGI. DGI issued a notice to Debtor on 21-11-16 (DGI s notice, exhibit MIBB-A ) requiring him to surrender all 13
his assets and books of affairs to DGI followed by a Court order made on 17-2-17 (exhibit MIBB-A ) for Debtor to comply with DGI s notice. The Court order came about when Applicants brought the lack of disclosure in compliance with DGI s notice to the Court s attention. Upon Applicants letter to DGI as to whether Debtor had complied with the Court order, Applicants received inter alia a copy of Debtor s letter dated 1-3-17 and copies of various documents (exhibit MIBB-B ). 38. In paragraph 4(f) are listed suits/appeals not listed in Debtor s letter dated 1-3-17. In Debtor s 7 th affidavit in reply in enclosure 178 he stated in paragraph 9- (a) the case in paragraph 4(f)(i), Federal Court Civil Application No. 08-8- 01/17, is a continuation from the Court of Appeal where the cause papers were served on DGI on 29-8-16; (b) for the cases in paragraph 4(f)(ii) and (iii), Court of Appeal Civil Appeal no W-02(NcVc) (A)-947/05/16 and KLHC 24NCC-134-04/14, leave for committal proceedings have been granted and DGI should have knowledge, (c) the case in paragraph 4(f)(iv), KLHC 29NCC-1816-03/, has been served to DGI on 5-12-16; and (d) DGI in its letter has confirmed knowledge of the case in paragraph 4 (f)(v), Court of Appeal Civil Appeal no W-02(IM)(NcVc)-976/06/16. Debtor further stated if DGI had requested him to forward the cause papers he would have given his utmost cooperation. 14
39. DGI notice and the Court order was for Debtor to serve relevant cause papers and it is clear cause papers for cases Federal Court Civil Application no 08-8-01/14, Court of Appeal Civil Appeal no W-02(NcVc)(A)-947/05/16, KLHC 24NCC-134-04/14 and Court of Appeal Civil Appeal no W-02(IM)(NcVc)-976/06/ were not served. Knowledge of proceedings does not negate the requirement to comply. (iv) Flaw in RO 40. RO (exhibit MIBB-11 ) was worded as follows- ADALAH DIPERINTAHKAN bahawa- (a) Satu Perintah Penerimaan dimasukkan terhadap Penghutag di atas; (b) Satu perintah penggantungan bagi sebarang tindakan, perlaksanaan atau sebarang prosess Undang-undang yang lain selain dari tindakan di sini terhadap harta-harta Penghutang dan/atau Penghutang dibenarkan sehingga satu komposisi skim penyusunn semula dipertimbangkan oleh Mesyuarat Pertama Pemiutang-Pemiutang menurut seksyen dan seksyen 18 Akta Kebankrapan 1967.. 41. The words of RO has effectively restrained all actions against not only the assets of the Debtor but also against the Debtor himself, which is not what is envisaged to be achieved by a receiving order granted under section 8 BA. 30 42. Section 8(1) BA provides that- (1) On the making of a receiving order the Director General of Insolvency shall be thereby constituted received of the property of the debtor, and thereafter, except as directed by this Act, no creditor to whom the debtor is indebted in respect of any debt provable in bankruptcy shall have any remedy against the property or person of the debtor in respect of the debt, or shall proceed with or commence any action or other legal
proceeding in respect of such debt unless with the leave of the court and on such terms as the court may impose.. 5 43. Section 4 BA states that RO is for the protection of the estate of Debtor. 44. Section 8 BA provides for the protection of the property or person of the debtor in respect of his debt and not for the protection of person of the debtor against any actions or proceedings. By the wide wordings of RO, the Debtor obtained an order for a stay of all actions or legal proceedings against himself. This cannot be the intention envisaged under section 8 BA. By obtaining such an order for stay, the Debtor has managed to restrain all actions commenced by the Applicants against him and not only actions in respect of a debt. 45. As the terms of RO have gone beyond the ambit of section 8(1) BA it can be set aside. So for instance in Mohd Roslan bin Mohd Noor dan lain lwn. Saidina Khatijah Zaharah Kairulnisak bt Hj Mohd Noor [] MLJ 307 the order made by the Senior Assistant Registrar was set aside as the order contradicted with the provisions of law. Contempt 46. Applicants have also sought a prayer that Debtor be declared guilty of contempt of court for failing to comply with section 16 BA and be punished in such manner as the Court deems fit. 16
47. Section 16(1) BA which has been set out earlier essentially mandates Debtor to submit to DGI a statement of affairs in the prescribed form showing inter alia particulars of Debtor s assets. provides as follows- Section 16(3) then 16.(3) If the debtor failed without reasonable excuse, proof whereof shall lie on him, to comply with the requirements of his section he shall be guilty of a contempt of court and may be punished accordingly, and the court may on the application of the Director General of Insolvency or of any creditor adjudge him bankrupt.. 48. It is thus an offence punishable under section 16(3) for failing to comply with section 16. 49. In the earlier paragraphs this Court found there to be non compliance of section 16(1) BA in Debtor not disclosing his assets in Malaysia and Australia. 30 50. It was submitted by Debtor s counsel the application for contempt was flawed as Applicants have not applied for leave under Order 52 Rules of Court 12. This was because although BA provides contempt as a punishable offence, BA and BR are silent on the rule governing contempt. Where BA and BR are silent Rule 276 BR referred to earlier provides that Rules of the High Court shall apply and this would be Order 52 Rules of Court 12 for which Rule 3 requires leave of the Court. Reliance was placed on Dato Abdullah Hishan Haji Mohd Hashim v Sharma Kumari Shukla (No.4) [01] 5 CLJ 400 where the court held that- Notwithstanding, the fact that there are no rules governing contempt proceedings, r.276 of the Bankruptcy Rules 1969 stipulates that in the event of lacunae, the Rules of the High Court shall apply. Therefore, the 17
Plaintiff was well within his right to have proceeded under O.52 of the Rules of the High Court 1980.. 5 51. In this regard this application for committal was filed in the bankruptcy court pursuant to the express provision of section 16(3) BA which permits the bankruptcy court to hold the Debtor in contempt. There is no requirement for prior leave to be obtained under BR by the Applicants to proceed with the contempt proceedings against the Debtor. Dato Abdullah Hishan (supra) can be distinguished. There the dispute was whether only the DGI, and not a creditor may proceed with contempt proceedings against the bankrupt. The court held that the plaintiff creditor may proceed with contempt proceedings against the bankrupt. The issue of Order 52 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 arose only because the creditor had instituted proceedings under Order 52. The court held that the creditor may do so. The court did not rule that prior leave must be obtained for a creditor to proceed with an application for committal order to be made against a debtor under BA, which is the case here. 52. As to the reasonable excuse advanced by Debtor on his non compliance, as stated earlier, this has not been accepted by the Court. As to Debtor s readiness to amend the Statement of Affairs to include the omission this has yet to be done, and in any event does not excuse the non compliance. 18
Conclusion 53. For all the above reasons the application by Applicants to set aside RO and declare Debtor guilty of contempt for non compliance of section 16 BA was allowed. 5 Dated: 13 July 17 See Mee Chun Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Peguam cara JC / Applicant Ms Yoong Sin Min, Ms Ng Hooi Huang and Ms Michelle Wong Tetuan Shook Lin & Bok, Kuala Lumpur Peguam cara JD / Respondent Mr Malik Imtiaz, Mr Surendra Ananth and Mr Afdhlani Jusoh Tetuan Faizul Nasir & Associates, Kuala Lumpur 30 19