AG Gill for the Applicants [Messrs Avinder Gill Chambers] PENCELAH 1. ) Pauline Koh for SME Bank [Messrs Shearn Delamore & Co.] 2. ) Cliff Siow Juan Wen & Ahmad Naszuan bin Mohd Nasib for EXIM Bank [Messrs Zain Megat & Murad] 3. ) Ng Ying C

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. WA-29VA-9-09/2020 In the matter of a proposed Scheme of Arrangement for Andy Farouk Muhamad Nasim (NRIC No: 801220- 14-5149) And In the matter of Sections 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F, 2G, 2H, 2I, 2J, 2K, 2L, 2M, 2N, 2O, 2P and 2Q of the Insolvency Act 1967 And In the matter of Order 7, 28, 88 and 92(4) Rules of Court 2012 ANDY FAROUK MUHAMAD NASIM (NRIC No. 801220145149) …APPLICANT AND 1. SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEFELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD 2. EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF MALAYSIA BERHAD (COMPANY NO: 357198-k) 3. LEMBAGA TABUNG HAJI …PROPOSED INTERVENERS 1 Heard Together with IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. WA-29VA-10-09/2020 In the matter of a proposed Scheme of Arrangement for Mohamed Ridzuan bin Nor Md (NRIC No: 801027-14- 6027) And In the matter of Sections 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F, 2G, 2H, 2I, 2J, 2K, 2L, 2M, 2N, 2O, 2P and 2Q of the Insolvency Act 1967 And In the matter of Order 7, 28, 88 and 92(4) Rules of Court 2012 MOHAMED RIDZUAN BIN NOR MD (NRIC No: 801027-14-6027) …APPLICANT AND 1. SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEFELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD 2. EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF MALAYSIA BERHAD 2 (COMPANY NO: 357198-k) 3. LEMBAGA TABUNG HAJI …PROPOSED INTERVENERS JUDGMENT (Enclosure 1, 4 and 45 in OS 9 and Enclosure 1, 4 and 46 in OS 10) 1. There are 3 enclosures in Originating Summons No. WA-29VA-9- 09/2020 (OS 9) before this Court of which are as follows: (i) enclosure 1 is an Originating Summons on the hearing of the Applicant in OS 9, Andy Farouk Muhamad Nasim (OS 9 Applicant) pursuant to the Insolvency Act 1967 (Enclosure 1) for, inter alia: (a) an interim order pursuant section 2D(1) of the Insolvency Act 1967 that an interim order for Voluntary Arrangement be ordered and that the Applicant be given leave to convene meeting or meetings of creditors of the OS 9 Applicant for the purpose of considering, and if thought fit, approving with or without modification the proposed scheme of arrangement in respect of the Scheme Creditors; (b) that pursuant to subsection 2C(2)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967, Zahari Affendi bin Abdul Kadir and Ahmad Fadhli Salleh be appointed as Nominees. (ii) enclosure 4 is an Ex Parte Summon in Chambers for an interim order pursuant to subsection 2C(2)(b) of the 3 Insolvency Act 1967 for an order pursuant to section 2D(1) of the Insolvency Act 1967 that an interim order for Voluntary Arrangement be ordered and that the OS 9 Applicant be given leave to convene meeting or meetings of creditors of the OS 9 Applicant for the purpose of considering, and if thought fit, approving with or without modification the proposed scheme of arrangement in respect of the Scheme Creditors (Enclosure 4); (iii) enclosure 45 which is a Summon in Chambers in accordance with Order 20 Rule 5 read with Order 20 Rule 7 of the Rules of Court 2012 and/or Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 to, inter alia, amend the name of the Nominee pursuant to section 2C(2)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1967 at prayer 2 of the Originating Summons from Zahari Affendi bin Abdul Kadir and Ahmad Fadhli Salleh to Dato Feroz bin A S Moidunny (Enclosure 45). 2. The grounds in support of Enclosure 1 in OS 9 are as follows: 2.1 That Mohamed Ridzuan bin Nor Md and the OS 9 Applicant are shareholders (the Shareholders) in Wellspring Worldwide Ltd registered in Labuan, Malaysia and together they hold stock holdings of just under 60%; 2.2 The OS 9 Applicant state that Wellspring Worldwide was formed for the purpose of purchasing Tutti Frutti brand owned by a USA based company and acquired majority control; 4 2.3 By assuming control of Wellspring, the Shareholders then obtained controlling stake in various business holdings of Tutti Frutti Franchise in various countries such as USA, Canada, Australia and Jamaica; 2.5 From the original company “Wellspring Industry, Inc.” a California based corporation, they acquired the master licensing rights to operate Tutti Frutti branded outlets in the United Kingdom. In order for them to open the flagship outlet, they sought capital from EXIM bank. EXIM Bank loaned to their company, I Leaves (UK) Ltd GBP800,000.00 against their personal guarantee to setup their flagship outlet at Covent Garden, London; 2.6 After successfully operating as United Kingdom based master Licensee, the Shareholders negotiated with California based company (Wellspring Industry, Inc.) to acquire a majority stake and formed Wellspring Worldwide Limited, Labuan Malaysia. Their objective of acquiring Tutti Frutti frozen yogurt brand was to list the company through an Initial Public Offering (IPO) on the Bursa Malaysia main market. Prior to the IPO, the promoters together with the Shareholders did a roadshow with the assistance of AmInvestment Bank Berhad (Lead Advisor), who also prepared the Listing Scheme, for institutions and high net worth accredited investors and participate in a Pre IPO exercise. 5 2.7 The prospective return on investment was substantially higher than Tabung Haji’s average return on its investments, and hence Tabung Haji was aware that it was a speculative investment with lower safety and higher potential return. Tabung Haji subscribed 10% of the pre IPO shares. 2.8 Tabung Haji’s team of financial experts, legal advisors, etc. vetted the proposed investment, including risk assessment were highly confident of the IPO success. 2.9 At a last minute negotiation, Tabung Haji representatives had asked for a Shareholders’ personal guaranty, without performing any due diligence of their personal financial strength to support over Ringgit Malaysia 18 million 2.10 Had they (Tabung Haji) asked for personal financial statements, the Shareholders would be obligated to provide those, and Tabung Haji would have realized that the Shareholders’ personal guaranty would not backup their investment. 2.11 The Shareholders believe, Tabung Haji management did not intend to rely on the Shareholders’ personal guaranty in as much as to make the speculative investment, risks of which were well known to their investment portfolio management team, as this is their everyday function to invest LTH funds by enforcing their investment risk and reward criteria; 2.12 SME Bank Bhd had a finance facility called “Equibumi Financing Facility” for local bumiputra entrepreneurs to 6 acquire growth companies. With SME approval, the Shareholders made drawdowns from SME Bank to invest and acquire additional 20% shares of Wellspring from the promoters. The loans were secured against Wellspring shares pledged with SME Bank. The Shareholders also personally guaranteed the SME Bank facility; 2.13 The business faced financial mismanagement and this led to the various claims being instituted against the Shareholders, where the 3 named and only Creditors have claims totaling almost RM50 million collectively against the Shareholders; 2.14 the Applicant had exhibited a proposal of a Business Turnaround strategy which will enable him and his co- shareholder to repay their Creditors over the time frame stated in the proposal, which is summarized as follows: a. Priority 1: Critical Operating Expenses – to pay all suppliers, employees and essential operating cost and provision for Federal and State Corporate taxes; b. Priority 2: Officers/Directors Compensation [including Andy Farouk Muhamad Nasim and myself to levels significantly below market. In the projections for 2021, the Consultant set out a maximum of USD 360,000.00 per annum pay out for all Officers/Directors; c. Priority 3: Set aside remaining 40% of after tax earnings (after satisfying Priority 1 and 2 payments) to Repurchase those investors’ shares who are agreeable to sell their shares back to the Company; 7 d. Priority 4: Set aside 35% of the remaining profits and issue catch up compensation to Officers/Directors to true up to a market level; e. Priority 5: Set aside minimum 2.5% as Zakat and Charity calculated on Zakat principles. 2.15 The main strategy involves inter alia a scheme with the active contractual involvement of Danone Yogurt (Danone), a French publicly listed company who are the world’s leading yogurt, dairy and other food and beverage related that will enable the Applicant and Mohamed Ridzuan bin Nor Md to start repayment as early as April 2022, which have in fact been delayed by the Covid-19 Pandemic. In essence the strategy requires Danone’s support which will be done via the Tutti Frutti Stores who will purchase the Danone products and supply them to the stores and Tutti Frutti will earn a markup or margin from 2 revenue streams i.e (1) gross margin on regular purchase and (2) rebate income 3. On the other hand, Enclosure 45 in OS 9 is based on, inter alia, the grounds that the proposed Nominee did not get the consent of the OS 9 Applicant and that an amendment was required to change the Nominee to one which has been appointed by the Director General of Insolvency (DGI) and is not meant to add or remove any party. 4. Similarly, in Originating Summons No. WA-29VA-10-09/2020 (OS 10) there are also 3 identical enclosures to be heard which are enclosures 1, 4 and 46 in OS 10 for the exact identical prayers in enclosures 1, 4 and 45 respectively in OS 9 and on the exact same 8 grounds, save that the applicant therein is one Mohamed Ridzuan Bin Nor Md (OS 10 Applicant). 5. The said enclosures 1, 4 and 45 in OS 9 and Enclosures 1, 4 and 46 in OS 10 are opposed by 3 parties being Export-Import Bank of Malaysia Berhad (EXIM Bank), Lembaga Tabung Haji (LTH) and Small Medium Enterprise Development Bank Malaysia Berhad (SME Bank). 6. It was agreed by the counsels for the respective parties that the counsels will submit on OS 9 and that OS 10 will be bound by the said decision in OS 9 as the issues in both OS’s are identical. 7. For the purpose of this written grounds where the expression “Applicants” appear, the same will refer to both the OS 9 and OS 10 Applicants jointly. Applicants’ Submissions in both OS 9 & OS 10 8. The Applicants submits inter alia that: a. It is a bona fide application; b. It is a genuine attempt to resolve the financial issues of the company primarily and then to repay the loans of the Creditors thereto; c. It will be used as a baseline for the Nominee to present a detailed proposal; 9 d. If accepted, the creditors will have a genuine chance to obtain repayment of the debts due to them and not just the act of bankruptcy against the Applicants which pragmatically will not achieve the desired result of recollection of debts. Submissions by EXIM Bank, LTH and SME Bank 9. In essence EXIM Bank, LTH and SME Bank have submitted either jointly or separately that: (i) Enclosures 1, 4 and 45 respectively in OS 9 and Enclosures 1, 4 and 46 in OS 10 respectively are not bona fide and are frivolous and an abuse of court process; (ii) they had taken objection to the original nominees Zahari Affendi bin Abdul Kadir and Ahmad Fadhli Salleh named in enclosure 1 of OS 9 and OS 10 and that the application for a different nominee in enclosure 45 in OS 9 and enclosure 46 in OS 10 respectively were only made on 18.3.2021 and thus the Applicant was now seeking to improve his position after they had highlighted their opposition to Enclosure 1 in OS 9 and OS 10 and//or to defeat the objections raised; (iii) the objections raised by them were made after the 1st affidavit was filed, i.e sometime in October 2020; 10 (iv) there has been noncompliance of the Insolvency Act 1967 and the Insolvency (Voluntary Arrangement) Rules 2017 for Enclosures 1 and 4; (v) Enclosures 4 and 45 in OS 9 and enclosures 4 and 46 in OS 10 are a tactical maneuver; (vi) the Proposed Scheme is not viable as it is based on the turn around of Wellspring and that the same are all based on assumptions and not based on actual data or any expert opinion; (vii) there is no guarantee that the projected revenue in the Proposed Scheme will be received or achieved; (viii) there are insufficient supporting documents to support the Proposed Scheme; (ix) the Proposed Scheme is far from ready to be accepted; (x) there has been a delay in filing enclosure 45 in OS 9 and enclosure 46 in OS 10 respectively which has not been explained. Findings of the Court Statutory Non-Compliance 11 10. I will firstly address the issue of the alleged statutory noncompliance with regards Enclosure 1 in both OS 9 and OS 10 respectively and if so whether the same can be cured. 11. As to this the relevant provisions to be considered are Section 2C(2)(a)(b), Section 2D(2)(b), Section 2F, Section 2G of the Insolvency Act 1967 which are as follows: Section 2C(2)(a)(b): “(2) A debtor who intends to propose a voluntary arrangement shall: (a) appoint a nominee to act in relation to the voluntary arrangement or for the purpose of supervising the implementation of the voluntary arrangement (b) make an application as prescribed to the court for an interim order of voluntary arrangement and submit a copy of the application to the Director General of insolvency.” Section 2D(2)(b): “(2) Before the making of an interim order under subsection (1), the court shall satisfy itself that: (b) the nominee appointed under paragraph 2C(2)(a) is willing to act in relation to the proposal.” Section 2F: “(1) No person shall act as a nominee unless he is registered with the Director General of insolvency.” 12 Section 2G: “(1) For the purposes of subsection 2F(1), the Director General of insolvency may approve an application for registration of a nominee subject to the following conditions: (a) the applicant is: (i) a registered chartered accountant under the Accountants; (ii) an advocate and solicitor; or (iii) such other person as the Minister may, on the recommendation of the Director General of insolvency prescribe by order published in the Gazette; (b) the applicant is not an undischarged bankrupt; (c) the applicant does not assign his estate for the benefit of his creditors or is not under a voluntary arrangement with his creditors; (d) the applicant has not been convicted in Malaysia or elsewhere of a criminal offence as would render him unfit to be a nominee under this Part, and in particular, but not limited to, an offence involving fraud or dishonesty; and (e) the applicant is not suffering from any mental disorder under the Mental Health act 2001.” 13 12. This Court has also considered Rule 7(1) and (2) of the Insolvency (Voluntary Arrangement) Rules 2017 which reads as follows: “(1) An application to the court for an interim order under paragraph 2c(2)(b) of the Act shall be made by summons in chambers in Form 4 and supported by an affidavit in Form 5. (2) A copy of Form 3, a list of debtor's creditors and the estimated amount owed shall be exhibited in the affidavit.” 13. After reading the above stated provisions, I find that section 2D(2)(b) and section 2F of the Insolvency Act 1967 is couched in mandatory terms by the operation of the word “shall” in the said sections with regards the appointment of a nominee appointed who is willing to act in relation to the proposal who must be registered with the Director General of Insolvency. I hold that these sections read together with rule 7(1) and (2) of the Insolvency (Voluntary Arrangement) Rules 2017 which are also couched in mandatory terms by the use of the word ‘shall’ therein as to the mode of the proceedings to be by way of a Summons in Chambers, are from the plain language used therein meant to be obligatory and to be complied with strictly more so when the Applicants in such a situation is coming to this court to seek the court to exercise its powers to resort to the Voluntary Arrangement mechanism to escape or avoid bankruptcy. 14. It is imperative that applicants seeking the intervention of the Court in such circumstances must carefully ensure that the mechanism 14 provided for is strictly complied with. In Re Lim Cheng Pow; ex parte Maybank Investment Bank Bhd & Anor [2021] 8 MLJ 517 this Court had held: “[94] This court holds that there must be meticulous compliance with the law more so when the interim order under s 2 of the Insolvency Act 1967 is only valid for a very limited time of 90 days from the date the order is made and such period shall not be extended pursuant to s 2D(3)of the IA 1967. “ 15. I do not find section 131 of the Insolvency Act 1967 (Formal Defect not to Invalidate Proceedings) nor the Rules of the Court 2012 as being applicable on this issue as contended by the Applicants counsel as firstly the breach complained of is not a formal defect but one which goes to the core or root of the matter which in my view is fundamental in nature and secondly where there are specific provisions or rules governing a matter as in the Insolvency (Voluntary Arrangement) Rules 2017, the refence to general rules such as the Rules of Court 2012 will not be invoked as the maxim "generalia specialibus non derogant" would apply, see the decision of the Federal Court in Majlis Agama Islam v Bong Boon Chuen [2009] 6 CLJ 405. 16. It is also trite that the inherent powers of the Court cannot be invoked to override express provisions of the law. A case on point will be the oft quoted Damansara Realty Berhad v Bungsar Hill Holdings Sdn Bhd [2018] 5 CLJ 1 where the Court of Appeal in referring to the Supreme Court case of Karpal Singh & Anor v. PP held: 15 “[44] In the Supreme Court case of Karpal Singh & Anor v. PP [1991] 2 CLJ 1458; [1991] 1 CLJ (Rep) 183; [1991] 2 MLJ 544, Abdul Hamid Omar (LP) (as he then was) at p. 192 (CLJ); p. 549 (MLJ), para. e left, held as follows: ... The inherent power apparently cannot be invoked to override an express provision of law or when there is another remedy available. Where the legislature has provided a particular mode of action or has vested an authority with powers to act in a particular manner and has prescribed the conditions limiting the scope of such action, the court cannot act outside those powers and conditions.” 17. I therefore hold that the non compliances mentioned are non curable. Delay 18. Should I be wrong on my finding with regards the Statutory Non- Compliance, I will now turn to the issue of the alleged delay in the filing of enclosure 45 in OS 9 and enclosure 46 in OS 10 respectively. I rely on Taisho Co Sdn Bhd v Pan Global Equities Sdn Bhd [1999] 1 MLJ 359 where the Court of Appeal held the question of whether an application was bona fide also had to be considered, and where no reasons were given for the delay in filing the application, the same bordered on lack of bona fides. 19. I would also refer to Hong Leong Finance Bhd v Low Thiam Hoe and another appeal [2016] 1 MLJ 301 where the Federal Court held: 16 “The Courts in Malaysia have consistently held that where there is a delay in making an amendment application, the onus is on the applicant to furnish a reasonable explanation for such a delay. They seem to have considered [2016] 1 MLJ 301 at 313 this as an additional factor to the Yamaha Motor’s rules. The need to show ‘some material and advance some cogent reasons’ was applied in Taisho Co Sdn Bhd v Pan Global Equities Bhd & Anor [1999] 1 MLJ 359; [1999] 1 CLJ 703, Haidar JCA (as he then was) held: The learned judge intimated that the application was made after the appellant failed on appeal to this court to affirm the judgment entered by it initially. Further, he said that the appellant had knowledge of the ‘acknowledgement’ as late as April 1987, that is, four years before the action was filed. Furthermore, the application was filed four years after the commencement of this action. We would add further that no reasons were given for the delay in filing the application when the point of admission was obviously available even before filing the proceedings. As rightly opined by the learned JC in Multi-Pak Singapore Pte Ltd and correctly followed by the learned judge, the appellant did not place some material and advance some cogent reasons to impel the court to lean on its side. We would further add that the application borders on lack of bona fides, one of the basic question set out in Yamaha Motor Co Ltd. (Emphasis added) [26] The requirement to advance some material and cogent reasons was likewise followed in the subsequent decisions in 17 the cases of Raphael Pura v Insas Bhd & Anor [2001] 1 MLJ 49; [2000] 4 CLJ 830 and Everise Hectares Sdn Bhd v Citibank Berhad [2010] MLJU 1379 ; [2011] 2 CLJ 25. [26] It is to be stated here the requirement that a cogent explanation for such a delay must be furnished when making a late application to amend would be clearly in line with pre-trial case management procedures (introduced in year 2000).” 20. In the cases before me, the matters have been fixed for hearing on a number of occasions and for case management on no less than 7 occasions before enclosure 45 in OS 9 and enclosure 46 in OS 10 respectively were eventually filed. In Hong Leong Finance Bhd v Low Thiam Hoe (supra) the Federal Court therein was faced with a similar situation and held: “[27] In our instant case, there had been five case managements since 2011 and there was no indication at all that an amendment application was contemplated by the defendant. The only explanation given by the defendant in his affidavit for the delay was that he had only discovered that these new issues were not pleaded when preparing for trial. Such an explanation in our view surely cannot be acceptable.” 21. In the circumstances, I find that the lack of any explanation as to the delay in filing enclosure 45 in OS 9 and enclosure 46 in OS 10 respectively have not been adequately explained and that the reason that the creditors lawyers had previously been informed of the proposed change of nominee via the Applicant’s solicitors letter 18 dated 15.3.2021 as seen in exhibit A-2 of enclosure 46 in OS 9 and in exhibit M-2 of enclosure 47 in OS 10 respectively as not being a reasonable explanation as to the delay in the filing of enclosure 45 in OS 9 and enclosure 46 in OS 10. 22. Thus, the filing of enclosure 45 in OS 9 and enclosure 46 in OS 10 on 18.3.2021, which is more than 6 months from the date of filing of enclosure 1 for OS 9 and OS 10 on 2.9.2020 has not been explained and I find such delay as evidence of a lack of bona fides on the part of the Applicant and this Court cannot allowed Enclosure 45 in OS 9 and enclosure 46 in OS 10 respectively for that reason. Proposed Scheme 23. A perusal of the Proposed Scheme in the Applicants Affidavit in Support at enclosure 2 of both OS 9 and OS 10 respectively reflects that the Applicants are relying heavily on the future performance of Wellspring and in particular an agreement with Danone Yogurt. However, this Court finds that the agreement with Danone Yogurt was exhibited in exhibit AE-3 enclosure 20 by the Applicant in OS 9, which is similar to exhibit ME-3 enclosure 22 by the Applicant in OS 10 contains various conditions to be complied with by Wellspring and no evidence exhibited to show Wellspring’s current state or that of the Applicants themselves. 24. I agree with the counsels objecting to enclosures 1 and 4 in OS 9 and 0S 10 respectively that: 19 (i) there is nothing to show that Wellspring will be able to meet its commitments in the agreement with Danone Yogurt; (ii) Wellspring being a separate legal entity is under no legal obligation to settle the Applicants personal debts; (iii) the Applicants are in control of Wellspring; (iv) there is nothing to show that the agreement with Danone Yogurt is still alive. 25. It is trite that in any Ex Parte Applications, a duty of full and frank disclosure is required, see cases such as Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd &. Ors v Koperasi Serbausaha Makmur Sdn Bhd [2004] 1 CLJ 239 and PECD Bhd & Anor v AM Trustee Bhd & Other Appeals [2010] 1 CLJ 940. See also this Court’s decision in Re Lim Cheng Pow; ex parte Maybank Investment Bank Bhd & Anor [2021] 8 MLJ 517 where this Court has made reference to such cases on this point. 26. I hold that there has been a lack of full and frank disclosure by the Applicants in Enclosures 1 and 4 of OS 9 and OS 10 respectively due to the absence of the matters referred to above, and that after examining the Proposed Scheme as a whole, it is this Court’s view that the same is lacking enough particulars for which this Court finds shows a lack of certainty on the viability of the Proposed Scheme and at the same time of which this Court subsequently holds will be a futile exercise in light of the fact that the 3 major creditors of the Applicants have all objected to the Application. 20 27. I repeat what I had referred to in Re Lim Cheng Pow; ex parte Maybank Investment Bank Bhd & Anor where this Court had referred to Twenty First Century Oils Sdn Bhd v Bank of Commerce (M) Bhd & Ors (No 2) [1993] 2 MLJ 353; [1993] 2 CLJ 677 in a case allowing the creditors’ application to set aside an ex parte order obtained by the company to convene a meeting and to restrain its creditors from commencing proceedings against it, pending the completion of its proposed scheme under s 176 of the CA 1965, Dato’ Hj Abdul Malek bin Hj Ahmad J (as he then was) held that: “… it was my finding that a proper reading of the proposed scheme, in the light of the arguments of learned counsel for all three secured creditors … and learned counsel by the applicant, clearly showed that the proposed scheme of arrangement was not viable, feasible, workable or intelligible. That aside, even if the meeting was allowed to be held, with the same objections canvassed thereat, it would certainly result in the proposed scheme being rejected. It was more logical, therefore, not have the scheduled meeting at all.” 28. In the circumstances, I hereby dismiss enclosures 1, 4 and 45 in OS 9 and enclosures 1, 4 and 46 in OS 10 respectively with costs of RM5,000 to be paid by the Applicants to EXIM Bank, LTH and SME Bank each respectively in OS 9 and the same amount order of costs for OS 10 will apply. Dated: 8th day of October 2021 21 sgd. NADZARIN WOK NORDIN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER KUALA LUMPUR HIGH COURT Parties: AG Gill for the Applicants [Messrs Avinder Gill Chambers] Pauline Koh for SME Bank [Messrs Shearn Delamore & Co.] Cliff Siow Juan Wen & Ahmad Naszuan bin Mohd Nasib for EXIM Bank [Messrs Zain Megat & Murad] Ng Ying Ci for Lembaga Tabung Haji [Messrs Zul Rafique & Partners] 22