SUASA MUHIBBAH SDN BHD 1. ) MUHAMMAD AMIRUL FAUZI BIN ABDUL GHANI 2. ) MUHAMMAD AFHAM FAREEZ BIN ABDUL GHANI 3. ) MUHAMMAD ALIFF FURQAN BIN ABDUL GHANI 4. ) REEZBUBBLE SDN BHD 5. ) Amir Fikri Bin Khazani

CA-24NCC-9-08/2023 Kand. 69 08/01/2025 11:22:28 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUANTAN IN THE STATE OF PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: CA-24NCC-9-08/2023 BETWEEN SUASA MUHIBBAH SDN BHD (IN LIQUIDATION) …PLAINTIFF [Company No. : 200101009986 (545742-D] AND 1. MUHAMMAD AMIRUL FAUZI BIN ABDUL GHANI (NRIC No. : 890810-06-5445) 2. MUHAMMAD AFHAM FAREEZ BIN ABDUL GHANI (NRIC No. : 920816-06-5635) 3. MUHAMMAD ALIFF FURQAN BIN ABDUL GHANI (NRIC No. : 000127-06-0247) 4. REEZBUBBLE SDN BHD [Company No. : 202001002933 (1359252-W)] 5. AMIR FIKRI BIN KHAZANI ...DEFENDANTS (NRIC No : 910730-03-5305) (Trading in the name and Style of “A&H ASSOCIATES) (Registration No. : 202203312882 (CA0358465-V)] S/N VJrlU3BaRUeZtmKZffXpQ -1- **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] The Plaintiff’s liquidator applied to this Court for declarations and orders pursuant to ss. 528(1) and 540(1) of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”). [2] This Court allowed the application, with certain modifications to the prayers in the application. [3] The Defendants appealed against that decision. BACKGROUND The Plaintiff’s application [4] The application was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff by Ong Lai @ Ong Kong Lai, the Liquidator for the Plaintiff, appointed by the Court pursuant to the Kuantan High Court’s Order dated 21.11.2022. [5] The application by the Plaintiff’s Liquidator was filed pursuant to ss. 528 and 540 CA 2016, and O. 88 ROC 2012 for, inter alia - S/N VJrlU3BaRUeZtmKZffXpQ -2- **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (i) A declaration that the payments totalling RM2,394,187.00 made by the Plaintiff as set out in paragraph 1(a) - (d) of the application were fraudulent and constituted undue preference of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Defendants, and are void; (ii) A declaration that the said payments constituted a debt due and owing by those Defendants to the Plaintiff; (iii) A declaration that the disposals of the four vehicles as mentioned in the earlier paragraph by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Impugned Directors’ Resolution were fraudulent and constituted undue preference of the 1st and 3rd Defendants, and are void; (iv) A declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to immediate possession of those four vehicles, or that the unpaid consideration for the said disposals constituted a debt due by the 1st and 3rd Defendants to the Plaintiff; (v) A declaration that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants had intended to defraud the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s creditors and shall be S/N VJrlU3BaRUeZtmKZffXpQ -3- **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal personally responsible for the debts and liabilities of the Plaintiff; and (vi) The reliefs as set out in the application. Facts that led to the Plaintiff’s application [6] Brief facts that led to this application are as follows: 6.1.2022 : The Plaintiff was served with the statutory winding up notice under s. 466 of the Companies Act 2016 by Aminah binti Abdullah. 28.1.2022 : four (4) motor vehicles registered under the name of the Plaintiff, Suasa Muhibbah Sdn Bhd, were disposed-off for a total amount of RM84,000.00 in the following manner: (i) Mitsubishi Fuso FB511B8RDG1 bearing registration no. CCL 4430 was disposed off for a cash consideration of RM25,000.00 in favour of the 1st Defendant; S/N VJrlU3BaRUeZtmKZffXpQ -4- **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (ii) Perodua Bezza 1300 AV (Auto) with registration no. CEF 3911 was disposed off for a cash consideration of RM16,000.00 in favour of the 1st Defendant; (iii) Perodua Aruz 1500 AV (Auto) with registration no. VCQ 6911 was disposed off for a cash consideration of RM26,000.00 to the 3rd Defendant; and (iv) Perodua Axia 1000 AV (Auto) with registration no. CEE 1911 was disposed off for a cash consideration of RM17,000.00 to the 3rd Defendant. The disposal of those 4 vehicles were made pursuant to four (4) Directors’ Resolution in Writing, all dated 28.01.2022 and approved by the 1st and 2nd Defendants (“Impugned Directors’ Resolution”). 3.2.2022 : Winding-up Petition of the Plaintiff was presented to Court by Aminah binti Abdullah vide Kuantan High Court Companies Winding Up No. CA-28NCC-10-02/2022 S/N VJrlU3BaRUeZtmKZffXpQ -5- **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Between the period 3.2.2022 – 21.6.2022 : Several payments made from the Plaintiff’s current accounts maintained at Maybank Islamic Bhd, CIMB Bank Bhd, RHB Bank Bhd to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants totalling RM2,394,187.00. 21.6.2022 : Plaintiff company was wound up. 21.11.2022 : Ong Lai @ Ong Kong Lai (“OKL”) was appointed as the Liquidator for the Plaintiff’s, replacing the Official Receiver. Upon perusal of the Plaintiff’s bank statements for the year 2022, OKL discovered the events as set out above. [7] The Plaintiff argued that this Court shall allow its application and make the declarations and grant the orders and reliefs as prayed as the Defendants’ actions fell squarely within the confines of ss. 528(1) and 540(1) of the CA. The Defendants’ Objections [8] The Defendants argued that the transfer of the four vehicles to the 1st and 3rd Defendants on 28.1.2022 were valid and does not tantamount to undue preference as the transactions were carried out prior to the S/N VJrlU3BaRUeZtmKZffXpQ -6- **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Plaintiff being wound up. The transactions were carried out bona fide with the sole purpose of ensuring the Plaintiff would be able to continue its operations and the Plaintiff would be able to pay the salaries of its directors and workers and to honour the contracts it entered with third parties. [9] The Defendants argued further that as s. 528(1) is a mere deeming provision, it would not operate against the Defendants and its operation would cause injustice and absurdity. [10] Before invoking s. 528(1), it is the duty of this Court to examine the financial capabilities of the Plaintiff. This is to enable this Court to differentiate between a situation where the Plaintiff is facing liquidity problem and where the Plaintiff is insolvent : Arab Malaysian Merchant Bank Berhad v Orient Apparel Berhad & Ors [2002] 1 MLJ 89, HC. In this instant case, the Defendants argued that the Plaintiff was merely facing liquidity problem. [11] The Defendants’ main argument to object this application was premised on their contention that the transactions they undertook were appropriate and proper as the transactions were solely for purposes of payment of the directors’ remuneration (in the case of the 1st and 2nd S/N VJrlU3BaRUeZtmKZffXpQ -7- **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Defendants), employee’s salaries (in the case of the 3rd Defendant), contractual payments to the Plaintiff’s agents and creditors (4th and 5th Defendants) and the Plaintiff’s vendors. Payments made to the 4th Defendant will ensure that the 4th Defendant would continue to provide funds to the Plaintiff. These actions are necessary to ensure the Plaintiff is a going concern. [12] Further, during the winding up process, the Defendants were negotiating with the Petitioner, Aminah binti Abdullah. [13] Similar arguments were placed by the Defendants to object the Plaintiff’s application for declarations pursuant to s. 540(1) of the CA on grounds of fraudulent trading. [14] The Defendants argued that based on the reasons intimated, this application cannot be allowed by this Court as the Plaintiff failed to prove that the Defendants’ actions were intended to give any creditor a preference over other creditors in the event of the Plaintiff being wound up. The Plaintiff also failed to show the transactions tantamount to fraudulent trading. S/N VJrlU3BaRUeZtmKZffXpQ -8- **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal THE LAW [15] The Plaintiff’s application for the declarations pertaining to undue preference and was fraudulent was made pursuant to s. 528(1) of the Companies Act 2016 which provides: “528 (1) Any transfer, mortgage, delivery of goods, payment, execution or other act relating to property made or done by or against a company which is unable to pay its debts, as the debts become due, from its own money in favour of any creditor or any person in trust for any creditor shall be deemed to have given such creditor a preference over other creditors in the event of the company being wound up on a winding up petition presented within six months from the date of making or doing the same and every such act shall be deemed fraudulent and void.” [16] As for the Plaintiff’s application for declaration that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants had intended to defraud the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s creditors and shall be personally responsible for the debts and liabilities of the Plaintiff, that application was made pursuant to s. 540(1) of the CA which provides: “540(1) If in the course of the winding up of a company or in any proceedings against a company it appears that any business of the company has been carried on with intent to defraud the creditors of the company or creditors of any other person or for any fraudulent purpose, the Court on the application of the liquidator or any creditor or contributory of the company, may, if the Court thinks proper to do so, declare that any person who was knowingly a party to the carrying on of the business in that manner shall be personally responsible, S/N VJrlU3BaRUeZtmKZffXpQ -9- **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal without limitation of liability, for all or any of the debts or other liabilities of the company as the Court directs. ” FINDING [17] The ingredients of s. 528(1) can be understood as follows: (i) If the Plaintiff transfers or make payments relating to its property; (ii) At the time when the Plaintiff does any of the act in paragraph (i), the Plaintiff is unable to pay its debts; (iii) The Plaintiff effected the transfers or make payments relating to its property from its own money in favour of any creditor or any person in trust for any creditor; (iv) Then, such act shall be deemed to have given such creditor a preference over other creditors in the event the Plaintiff is being wound up on a winding up petition presented within six months from the date of making those acts; (v) If all the above are shown to the satisfaction of this Court, then such act shall be deemed fraudulent and must be declared void. S/N VJrlU3BaRUeZtmKZffXpQ - 10 - **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [18] The ingredient in paragraph (i) is shown by the action on 28.1.2022 where the four motor vehicles registered under the name of the Plaintiff were disposed-off for a total amount of RM84,000.00. The said RM84,000.00 were paid using the Plaintiff’s monies in the following manner: (i) Mitsubishi Fuso FB511B8RDG1 bearing registration no. CCL 4430 was disposed off for a cash consideration of RM25,000 in favour of the 1st Defendant; (ii) Perodua Bezza 1300 AV (Auto) with registration no. CEF 3911 was disposed off for a cash consideration of RM16,000 in favour of the 1st Defendant; (iii) Perodua Aruz 1500 AV (Auto) with registration no. VCQ 6911 was disposed off for a cash consideration of RM26,000 to the 3rd Defendant; and (iv) Perodua Axia 1000 AV (Auto) with registration no. CEE 1911 was disposed off for a cash consideration of RM17,000 to the 3rd Defendant. [19] The ingredient in paragraph (ii) can be seen in the cause papers relating to the Winding Up Petition No. CA-28NCC-10-02/2022 as pleaded in paragraph 16 of the Liquidator’s affidavit. The Petition showed that the S/N VJrlU3BaRUeZtmKZffXpQ - 11 - **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Plaintiff was unable to pay its debt amounting to RM500,000.00 to the petitioner, Aminah binti Abdullah. At the time when the said transfer and payments as mentioned in the earlier paragraph was done, the Plaintiff continues to be indebted. The Plaintiff was not merely having liquidity but was in fact insolvent. [20] As for the ingredient in paragraph (iii), the Defendants who carried out and effected the transfer of the four vehicles belonging to the Plaintiff and made payments relating to that transfer to the sole benefit of the 1st and 3rd Defendants did not dispute this fact. However, the Defendants argued the intent and purpose of such acts were not to defraud the Plaintiff’s creditors nor with any fraudulent purpose. On the contrary, they acted in that manner solely to ensure the Plaintiff will continue to survive. There was no such evidence offered by the Defendants to support this contention. On the contrary, the Defendants admitted the profits they received from the transaction were channelled to benefit the Defendant in their respective roles. These were clearly acts of giving unwarranted preference over other creditors. [21] That such acts were done by the Defendants immediately after the statutory notice was served on the Plaintiff, and within the 6 months period between the Winding Up petition was presented and the Winding Up order S/N VJrlU3BaRUeZtmKZffXpQ - 12 - **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal was granted by this Court, were also not denied by the Defendants. This Court is satisfied that such acts fulfilled the ingredient in paragraph (iv). The law provides that such acts shall then be deemed to have given such creditors a preference over other creditors. [22] As all the above ingredients are shown to the satisfaction of this Court to have been fulfilled, then such act shall be deemed fraudulent and must be declared void pursuant to s. 528(1) of the CA 2016. [23] This will take us to s. 540(1) of the CA 2016. [24] The Court of Appeal in Chin Chee Keong v Toling Corporation (M) Sdn Bhd [2016] 6 CLJ 666 enunciated the elements to be proven in order to succeed in a claim under Section 540(1) CA 2016 as follows: “[45] The plaintiff must first prove that the business of the company has been carried out with intent to defraud creditors or for any fraudulent purpose. Thereafter, the plaintiff has to prove that the defendants were knowingly parties to the company's carrying on of the business with intent to defraud creditors or for any fraudulent purpose. [46] After examining the evidence led, the High Court was satisfied that both requirements were met. [47] .... Amongst the evidence considered by the court was ... the speed at which the company's business premise was sold and the unusually large S/N VJrlU3BaRUeZtmKZffXpQ - 13 - **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal orders made by the company when the company did not appear financially able to pay for those orders. [48] We have examined those same pieces of evidence and we agree with the findings of the learned High Court Judge. The company was "not in the position to pay its creditors when the debts would fall due" and this is evidenced by the company's non-payment for the purchases or even the judgment debt. .... [49] More important and of relevance is the fact that the defendants did not challenge or explain that the company was not in debt and that it was able to pay its creditors, especially the plaintiff. [50] Despite knowing that it was not able to pay for its purchases, the company, under the directions of the defendants proceeded to place "unusual large orders of raw material from the plaintiff during the material period". ...” [25] It is clear that s. 540(1) CA 2016 provides for the lifting of the corporate veil in specific circumstances of fraudulent trading. This is done to hold personal accountability and liability on the directing minds behind the company found to have carry out such trading. [26] In Sunrise Sdn Bhd v. First Profile (M) Sdn Bhd & Atransactions nor [1997] 1 CLJ 529; [1996] 3 MLJ 533 FC the Federal Court reaffirmed the basic principle of the fundamental attribute of corporate personality that the corporation is a legal entity distinct from its members. S/N VJrlU3BaRUeZtmKZffXpQ - 14 - **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [27] An action under s. 540 of the CA 2016 underpins the existence of the statutory exception to the common law doctrine of corporate personality, also known as the separate legal entity principle: that the company is treated as an entity separate from its members, propounded in the landmark judgment of the House of Lords in Aron Salomon v. A Salomon & Co Ltd [1879] AC 22. [28] The application of the statutory exception to the corporate personality principle has been also described as the lifting of the corporate veil - the effect of which is to render the members or officers of the company personally liable for the debts and liabilities of the company under certain circumstances. Under s. 540, responsibility and liability will be attached to any person if it can be established that that person(s) has conducted a company's business with intent to defraud creditors. [29] I agree with the argument of the counsel for the Plaintiff’s Liquidator citing Justice Vernon Ong’s decision in Kawin Industrial Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) v. Tay Tiong Soong [2009] 1 MLJ 723 that the wording of the section is very clear. That it is not necessary in order to establish fraud that the creditors were in fact defrauded. An intention to defraud is sufficient. In this respect, an intent to defraud is an intent to deprive creditors, or some creditors, of an economic advantage or inflict upon S/N VJrlU3BaRUeZtmKZffXpQ - 15 - **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal them some economic loss (see Coleman v. The Queen [1987] 5 ACLC 766). If it appears that any business of the Plaintiff has been carried out with intent to defraud the creditors of the company or for any fraudulent purpose, the court may on application of the liquidator declare that a person who was knowingly a party to the carrying of the business in that manner shall be personally responsible for all or any of the debts of the company as the court directs. Essentially, it is a matter of making a finding of facts. [30] Fraudulent intend may be made out if it is shown that a person intends by deceit to induce a course of conduct in another which puts that other's economic interests in jeopardy, even though he does not intend that actual loss should ultimately be suffered by that other : If all the above are shown to the satisfaction of this Court, then such act shall be deemed fraudulent and must be declared void : Chin Chee Keong v. Toling Corp (M) Sdn Bhd [2016] 6 CLJ 666; [2016] MLJU 205. [31] In Chee Pok Choy & Ors v. Scotch Leasing Sdn Bhd [2001] 2 CLJ 321; [2001] 4 MLJ 346 the Court says that charges of fraud and collusion must be proved by those who make them, prove by established facts or inferences legitimately drawn from those facts taken together as a whole. The law however does not require direct evidence, but S/N VJrlU3BaRUeZtmKZffXpQ - 16 - **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal recognizes that frauds are commonly proved on the basis of inviting the fact-finder to draw proper inferences : Yee Poh Nyen v. Raji bin Kasan & Ors [2018] CLJU 1185; [2018] 1 LNS 1185; [2018] MLJU 1108. [32] In Siow Yoon Keong v. H Rosen Engineering BV [2003] 4 CLJ 68; [2003] 4 MLJ 569, the Court of Appeal recognized that an intent to defraud may be inferred where the business of a company had been carried on to incur debts at a time when there is to the knowledge of the directors no reasonable prospects of the creditors ever receiving payment of those debts. [33] It is settled law that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person would fail if no evidence at all given on either side and the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe its existence (ss. 101 and 103 of the Evidence Act 1950). [34] The Federal Court in Sinnaiyah & Sons Sdn Bhd v. Damai Setia Sdn Bhd [2015] CLJ 584; [2015] 5 MLJ 1 held that s. 304(1) of the Companies Act 1965 (in pari materia with s. 540 CA 2016) itself sets the standard of proof that must be met. The term if 'it appears' is deployed in the provision and this clearly indicates that a lower degree of proof is S/N VJrlU3BaRUeZtmKZffXpQ - 17 - **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal required. That lower degree of proof is on a balance of probabilities. It cannot go any lower than the civil burden of proof. [35] I am satisfied that the Plaintiff had shown on a balance of probabilities and to the satisfaction of this Court that the statutory requirements under s. 540(1) CA 2016 had been met through the following evidence: (a) The disposals of the motor vehicles were all made within 6 months before the presentation on the winding up petition on 03.02.2022, that is to say on 28.01.2022. (b) The 21-day period prescribed by the winding up notice expired on 28.01.2022. The 1st and 2nd Defendants who were the directors of the Plaintiff company ought to have known that the Plaintiff had become insolvent due to the company’s inability to pay debts from that point of time. Notwithstanding that, the 1st and 2nd Defendants still passed the Impugned Directors’ Resolution dated 28.01.2022, with the sole purpose of the disposal of the motor vehicles off to the sole benefits of the 1st and 3rd Defendants. S/N VJrlU3BaRUeZtmKZffXpQ - 18 - **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (c) The Plaintiff had, by their solicitors’ letter dated 29.03.2023 requested for the proof of payment and/or satisfaction of the consideration for the disposals of the abovementioned motor vehicles, however there has been no response to the letter until to date. (d) As for the payments totalling RM2,394,187.00, some of these payments were made to the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Defendants sometime after the presentation of the winding-up petition on 03.02.2022 while the winding up petition was still pending before the Kuantan High Court, while the other payments were made after an Order that the company be wound up was made this Court on 21.06.2022. (e) The payments made to Amirul, Fareez, Amir and Reezbubble were made out of the company’s bank accounts while the winding up petition was still pending in the Kuantan High Court and also after the winding-up Order was made. Amirul and Fareez, being the directors of the Suasa Muhibbah ought to have known that the company had become insolvent and was unable to pay its debts. S/N VJrlU3BaRUeZtmKZffXpQ - 19 - **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (f) Crucially, at the time of the transactions, the Board of Directors of the Plaintiff, which comprised of Amirul and Fareez, were “functus officio” : s. 442(1) of the CA 2016. The company shall cease to carry on its business from the commencement of the winding up except so far as is required in the opinion of the liquidator for the beneficial winding up. Once a company is wound up, the board of directors of the company becomes functus officio. The liquidator displaces the directors and the control of the activities of the company is vested with the liquidator. No one but the liquidator can act for the company : American international Assurance Bhd v Coordinated Services L Design Sdn Bhd [2012] 1 MLJ 369, CA. (g) The transactions were made in favour of the Defendants, whom are all the Plaintiff’s creditors. The Defendants, by their own admissions, are creditors of the Plaintiff i.e. parties that had “…a monetary claim against the company and can enforce its claim by an action of debt”, as seen below: (i) The payments made to the 1st and 2nd Defendants allegedly for directors’ remuneration (see paragraph 3 of E5 and paragraph 3 of E7). S/N VJrlU3BaRUeZtmKZffXpQ - 20 - **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (ii) The payments to the 4th Defendant was at first expressed as allegedly made in repayment of advances made by the 4th Defendant for the purposes of “…membantu melunaskan perbelanjaan bulanan Suasa Muhibbah dengan memberikan bantuan kewangan ” (see paragraph 5 of E7), and subsequently as “…bayaran kepada Defendan Keempat jumlah bantuan kewangan tersebut beserta faedah keuntungan ” (see paragraph 4 of E13). (iii) The payments made to the 5th Defendant allegedly for the Plaintiff’s monthly expenses, i.e., employee’s salary, rent and payment to Perodua Sales Sdn Bhd for registration of cars (see paragraph 3 and 5 of E8). [36] The transactions conferred upon these creditors clearly fell under the term “preference over other creditors in the winding up” provided in ss. 528(1) and 540(1) of the CA 2016. CONCLUSION [37] Having considered all the above, this Court allowed the application in Enclosure 1, but only with regards to paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 (with S/N VJrlU3BaRUeZtmKZffXpQ - 21 - **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal amendment to delete reference to paragraphs 7 and 8 therein), 10, 11 (with amendment to delete reference to paragraphs 7 and 8 therein), and 12. Paragraph 12 in the Order shall be read as follows: “a declaration pursuant to section 540(1) of the Companies Act 2016 that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th defendants have been knowingly a party to the carrying on of the business of the Plaintiff with intent to defraud the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s creditors or for any fraudulent purposes, and thus shall be personally responsible for all or any of the debts or other liabilities of the Plaintiff in the manner as described in the earlier paragraphs.” [38] Costs was allowed on indemnity basis but the quantum is to be determined separately at a later date, with agreement of counsels for all parties. Dated : 31 December 2024 -signed- (MOHD RADZI BIN HARUN) Judge High Court of Malaya S/N VJrlU3BaRUeZtmKZffXpQ - 22 - **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal PARTIES : Solicitor for the Plaintiff: En. Amir Feisal Ariff bin Mohamad Shukri together with Cik Arisha Nur Shahera binti Md Zamri Tetuan Ariff & Associates Unit 303, Block B, Phileo Damansara 1 No.9 Jalan 16/11 Off Jalan Damansara 46350 Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan Ref. : AFA/2023.124 Email : amir@ariffassociates.com Solicitor for the Defendants: En. Saipul Baharim bin Abd Rahman Tetuan Saipul Baharim & Associates 15.1, Suite 23A, Menara One Mont Kiara Jalan Kiara, Mont Kiara, 50480 Kuala Lumpur Ref : LIT/CVL/DHAGA/01-09-2020 Email : general_enquiry@sbalaw.com.my S/N VJrlU3BaRUeZtmKZffXpQ - 23 - **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal