Unique Splendid Holdings Sdn Bhd 1. ) Tshai Fook Cheung @ Chai Fook Chong 2. ) Siew Hon Ming @ Siow Soong 3. ) Zain Azahari Bin Zainal Abidin 4. ) Chai Yen Chong 5. ) Chai Fah Chong 6. ) Peter Lai Khee Chin 7. ) Chai King Chong 8. ) Wakil-w

WA-22NCC-463-09/2020 Kand. 275 28/03/2022 11:49:56 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA (BAHAGIAN DAGANG) GUAMAN NO. WA-22NCC-463-09/2020 ANTARA UNIQUE SPLENDID HOLDINGS SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 1095570-D) … PLAINTIF DAN 1. TSHAI FOOK CHEUNG @ CHAI FOOK CHONG (NO. K/P: 400721-10-5375) 2. SIEW HON MING @ SIOW SOONG (NO. K/P: 371130-10-5277) 3. ZAIN AZAHARI BIN ZAINAL ABIDIN (NO. K/P: 341225-08-5339) 4. CHAI JOOK KEW (Sebagai wakil diri untuk harta pusaka CHAI YEN CHONG, simati) 5. CHAI FAH CHONG (NO. K/P: 420620-10-5489) 1 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6. PETER LAI KHEE CHIN (NO. K/P: 450328-10-5083) 7. CHAI JEN CHIEW (Sebagai wakil diri untuk harta pusaka CHAI KING CHONG, simati) 8. WAKIL-WAKIL DIRI KEPADA CHAI KEE CHONG (NO. PASPORT AUSTRALIA: K0874186) (SIMATI) 9. CHAI KENG CHONG (NO. PASPORT AUSTRALIA: K0547431) 10. CHAI MEE LAN (f) (NO. K/P: 330421-10-5348) 11. CHAI KWEE LAN (f) (NO. K/P: 491216-10-5696) 12. CHAI SIN CHONG (NO. K/P: 480121-10-5075) … DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN BEFORE YA ADLIN BINTI ABDUL MAJID JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER JUDGMENT (Enclosures 61 & 65) 2 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal A. Introduction [1] The following applications were filed by the defendants: a. An application by the 4th defendant in Enclosure 61; and b. An application by the 1st to 3rd and 5th to 12th defendants in Enclosure 65, to strike out the plaintiff’s action (“Striking Out Applications”). [2] I allowed both applications, based on the grounds set out below. B. Background Facts [3] The defendants were the registered owners of 334,000 ordinary shares (“Registered Shares”) and 620,286 beneficial shares (“Beneficial Shares”) of RM1.00 each (collectively the “Sales Shares”) in Pacific Engineering Sdn Bhd (“PECOL”). [4] The plaintiff alleged that sometime in June 2014, the chief executive officer of PECOL had invited the plaintiff’s director to invest and/or to purchase shares in PECOL. [5] The plaintiff further alleged that fraudulent misrepresentations were made on the profit projections of the plaintiff’s investments inPECOL. The plaintiff claimed that they had relied on these misrepresentations, and provided a friendly loan without interest, 3 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal amounting to RM1,700,000 to PECOL (“Friendly Loan”). The Friendly Loan has not been fully paid. [6] The plaintiff and defendants subsequently entered into an agreement dated 18 March 2015 for the sale and purchase of shares (“Shares Sale Agreement”). Pursuant to the Shares Sale Agreement, the defendants agreed to sell the Sales Shares to the plaintiff for a consideration of RM954,286. [7] Upon completion of the Shares Sale Agreement on 29 October 2015, the plaintiff took over the business of and control of PECOL from the defendants. It was alleged that the names of the new shareholders could not be registered with the Companies Commission of Malaysia due to several unresolved issues. As such, PECOL could not open a new bank account, apply for loans or develop its business. [8] The plaintiff further claimed that it had discovered irregularities and illegalities in PECOL. These alleged irregularities and illegalities include the following: a. Falsifications of PECOL’s accounts and the utilisation of banking facilities of UOB Bank for irregular and inappropriate purposes; b. An increase in the shares of PECOL from 350,000 to 1,000,000 in 2013. The plaintiff claimed that the issuance of the new 650,000 additional shares (which the Beneficial Shares are a part of) is a contravention of section 67 of the (then) Companies Act 1965; and 4 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal c. Declaration of a dividend of RM14,000,000 to PECOL’s shareholders, despite the fact that (i) the Beneficial Shares were never paid for or owned by any of the shareholders; (ii) the Beneficial Shares were not validly issued under the Companies Act 1965; and (iii) the financial and profit status of PECOL had been manipulated. [9] Arising from the above, the plaintiff claimed that it has suffered losses and damages, arising from the following: a. the defendants’ failure to carry out their duties and responsibilities as shareholders and directors of PECOL; and b. the defendants’ contravention of the Shares Sale Agreement. C. The Plaintiff’s Claims [10] The plaintiff filed the following actions against the defendants: a. Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No. WA-22NCC- 380-11/2016 (“First Suit”): i. The plaintiffs claimed, inter alia, the following reliefs: 5 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (1) A declaration that the issuance of the 650,000 additional shares of PECOL in 2013 is invalidated and cancelled. (2) The transfer of the Registered Shares to the plaintiff. (3) That the defendants pay back the sum of RM620,286 paid by the plaintiff to the defendants for the invalidated 620,286 Beneficial Shares. (4) That the defendants pay to the plaintiff the outstanding sum of RM841,142.60 from the Friendly Loan. (5) That the defendants pay to the plaintiff losses and damages amounting to RM2,000,000 incurred by the plaintiff to keep the operations of PECOL running. ii. The defendants filed an application to strike out the plaintiff’s claim and the striking out application was allowed by Azizul Azmi Adnan J. The plaintiff then filed an appeal against the learned judge’s decision. The appeal was however withdrawn by the plaintiff. 6 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal b. Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No. WA-22NCC- 521-12/2017 (“Second Suit”): i. Representatives of the plaintiff who took over the management of PECOL filed the Second Suit against the defendants, through PECOL. PECOL claimed, inter alia, the following reliefs: (1) A declaration that the issuance of the additional 650,000 additional shares of PECOL is illegal and void; (2) A declaration that the dividend of RM14,000,000 is illegal and void; (3) Alternatively, the defendants pay to PECOL RM9,100,000 being dividends that had been declared based on the additional 650,000 shares; (4) A sum of RM69,040.42 being interest that had been paid by the plaintiff to UOB Bank for banking facilities that had been manipulated by the board of directors of PECOL; and (5) Damages to be assessed. 7 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal c. The suit was heard before S Nantha Balan J (as His Lordship then was). The plaintiff’s claim was only allowed in part, wherein the defendants were ordered to pay RM620,286 for the issuance of the Beneficial Shares. All other reliefs were dismissed by the court. Both the plaintiff and the defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appeals are pending. [11] The present suit is the third claim against the defendants. This claim is based on facts that are identical to the First Suit and the Second Suit. For ease of comparison, the relevant paragraphs of the claims in the present suit, the First Suit and the Second Suit are set out in the table below: Amended statement of claim in the References in the present suit First Suit and the Second Suit Paragraph 14: Paragraph 14 of the statement of “Defendan-Defendan pada segala masa claim in the First material telah mendakwa dan mengaku Suit bahawa mereka adalah pemilik-pemilik berdaftar 334,000 saham-saham biasa Paragraph 16 of dan juga pemilik-pemilik 620,286 saham- the statement of saham tambahan benefisial yang bernilai claim in the RM1.00 setiap satu (selepas ini dirujuk Second Suit sebagai “Saham Jualan tersebut”) di dalam syarikat Pacific Engineering Sdn 8 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Amended statement of claim in the References in the present suit First Suit and the Second Suit Bhd (No. Syarikat: 8073-K) (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “PECOL”) …” Paragraph 17: Paragraph 17 of the statement of “Pada bulan Jun 2014, Ketua Pegawai claim in the First Eksekutif PECOL bernama Lim Say Suit Thian telah mempelawa pengarah Plaintif bernama Tan Chin Ching untuk melabur dan/atau untuk membeli saham- saham PECOL dan Lim Say Thian telah memberitahu pengarah Plaintif, Tan Chin Ching, bahawa PECOL memerlukan pelaburan baru kerana sungguhpun syarikat PECOL mempunyai prospek perniagaan yang cerah dengan banyak permintaan pembelian daripada pembeli- pembeli produk syarikat PECOL tetapi syarikat PECOL sedang mengalami masalah kekurangan kewangan yang tenat ...” Paragraph 18: Paragraph 18 of the statement of 9 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Amended statement of claim in the References in the present suit First Suit and the Second Suit “Pada masa material tersebut juga Lim claim in the First Say Thian telah memberi gambaran Suit serta representasi-representasi bahawa dengan pelaburan Plaintif ke dalam PECOL, maka perniagaan serta keuntungan PECOL akan dapat dipulihkan sehingga dapat disenaraikan (listed) di dalam Bursa Saham Malaysia. Dengan itu, Plaintif pasti akan berjaya mencapai keuntungan daripada pelaburannya ...” Paragraph 19: Paragraph 19 of the statement of “Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif PECOL claim in the First tersebut iaitu Lim Say Thian telah juga Suit membuat beberapa cadangan (proposal) pelaburan dan juga telah memberikan representasi-representasi salah nyata laporan ramalan keuntungan (profit projection) yang bakal akan diterima oleh Plaintif jikalau Plaintif melabur serta membeli saham-saham dan/atau mengambil alih PECOL tersebut (termasuk representasi-representasi 10 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Amended statement of claim in the References in the present suit First Suit and the Second Suit yang butir-butirnya disenaraikan di bawah) kepada pengarah Plaintif (Tan Chin Ching) …” Paragraph 23: Paragraph 22 of the statement of “Plaintif telah memberi pinjaman jumlah claim in the First RM1,700,000.00 kepada PECOL atas Suit permintaan Defendan-Defendan untuk tujuan menolong aliran tunai (cash flow) PECOL dan ia adalah tertakluk kepada terma-terma perjanjian pinjaman persahabatan tersebut. Sehingga kini, baki jumlah yang masih terhutang kepada Plaintif adalah berjumlah RM993,540.00.” Paragraph 24: Paragraph 23 of the statement of “Walaupun Plaintif telah dipelawa untuk claim in the First melabur dan/atau untuk membeli saham- Suit saham PECOL dan Plaintif juga telah memberikan pinjaman persahabatan tanpa faedah kepada PECOL, namun pengarah-pengarah PECOL pada masa 11 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Amended statement of claim in the References in the present suit First Suit and the Second Suit tersebut telah tidak membenarkan Pengarah Plaintif (Tan Chin Ching) untuk dilantik sebagai seorang Pengarah PECOL dan Plaintif tidak diberikan sebarang akses kepada akaun serta dokumen-dokumen PECOL.” Paragraph 25: Paragraph 23 of the statement of “Pengarah Plaintif (Tan Chin Ching) claim in the First hanya telah diberikan suatu bilik kecil di Suit pejabat PECOL untuk memerhati aturcara dan belajar berkenaan perniagaan harian PECOL. Pengarah Plaintif tersebut hanya akan pergi ke pejabat PECOL satu (1) atau dua (2) hari setiap minggu dan untuk jangkamasa beberapa jam sahaja setiap kali.” Paragraph 27: Paragraph 24 of the statement of “Atas permintaan pengarah-pengarah claim in the First PECOL, Tan Chin Ching telah menolong Suit memperkenalkan Bun Seng Hardware Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat 96380-W) kepada 12 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Amended statement of claim in the References in the present suit First Suit and the Second Suit PECOL untuk membeli tanah tersebut Paragraph 22 of daripada PECOL untuk jumlah sebanyak the statement of RM20,700,000.00.” claim in the Second Suit. Paragraph 28: Paragraph 25 of the statement of “Selepas hasil jualan tanah tersebut claim in the First diterima oleh PECOL pada masa Suit material, Defendan-Defendan Pertama hingga Keenam (selaku Lembaga Paragraph 24(a) of Pengarah Plaintif terdahulu) telah the statement of mengisytiharkan dividen sejumlah claim in the RM14,000,000.00 kepada Defendan- Second Suit Defendan (selaku pemilik-pemilik saham PECOL pada masa tersebut).” Paragraph 31 of the amended statement Paragraph 27 of of claim in the present suit states: the statement of claim in the First “Plaintif juga memplidkan bahawa Lim Suit. Say Thian dan Defendan-Defendan (terutamanya Defendan Pertama) telah memujuk dan mendorong Plaintif untuk memasuki Perjanjian Jual Beli Saham 13 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Amended statement of claim in the References in the present suit First Suit and the Second Suit tersebut dengan secepat mungkin tanpa pemeriksaan dan ketentuan sewajarnya (“due dilligence”) oleh Plaintif pada masa yang material …” Paragraph 33: Paragraph 30 of the statement of “Selepas Plaintif mengambil alih claim in the First perniagaan PECOL, Pengarah Plaintif Suit (Tan Chin Ching) telah diberitahu oleh kakitangan akaun PECOL (iaitu Cik Lim Siew Wan) yang telah lama berkhidmat di PECOL bahawa akaun PECOL mempunyai banyak masalah serta disyaki adalah menyalahi undang- undang. Lim Siew Wan tersebut amat khuatir bahawa beliau akan dituduhi oleh Plaintif (selaku pemilik baru) bahawa beliau telah bersuhabat dengan pengarah-pengarah lama untuk memanipulasikan akaun PECOL sebelum itu.” Paragraph 34: Paragraph 31 of the statement of 14 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Amended statement of claim in the References in the present suit First Suit and the Second Suit “Pada masa yang sama juga, Plaintif claim in the First telah mendapati bahawa nama Suit. pengarah-pengarah baru dan pemilik- pemilik saham-saham baru tidak dapat didaftarkan dengan SuruhanjayaSyarikat Malaysia (SSM) kerana pemegangan saham-saham benifisial Defendan- defendan tidak dapat didaftarkan dalam SSM kerana beberapa persoalan SSM yang masih tidak dapat dijawab dan diselesaikan oleh PECOL dan Defendan- defendan, dan disebabkan oleh itu: i. PECOL telah tidak dapatmembuka akaun bank baru. ii. PECOL tidak boleh memohon sebarang pinjaman bank untuk memajukan perniagaannya iii. PECOL tidak dapat memohon mesin kredit kad dari bank untuk kegunaan perniagaan mereka; dan 15 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Amended statement of claim in the References in the present suit First Suit and the Second Suit iv. PECOL tidak dapat mengembangkan perniagaannya kerana nama pengarah-pengarah baru serta pemegang-pemegang saham baru PECOL tidak dapat didaftarkan dalam SSM dan dengan itu pelanggan-pelanggan potensi PECOL tidak dapat menaruh kepercayaan kepada PECOL dan pengarah-pengarah serta pemegang-pemegang saham baru PECOL dan ini telah menyebabkan kerugian perniagan yang teruk kepada PECOL. Semua ini berpunca kerana akaun- akaun PECOL bagi tahun 2013 dan 2014 masih tidak dapat diselesaikan oleh pengarah-pengarah PECOL yang lama kerana akaun PECOL pada masa itu bermasalah serta terdapat beberapa persoalan yang dikemukakan oleh SSM yang tidak dapat dipenuhi dan dijawab oleh PECOL dan Defendan-defendan.” 16 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Amended statement of claim in the References in the present suit First Suit and the Second Suit Paragraph 36: Paragraph 38 of the statement of “Pada masa material juga, peguam claim in the First Plaintif yang mengendalikan Perjanjian Suit Jualan Beli Saham tersebut (Tetuan Tan Chap & Associates) telah melalui surat Paragraph 28 of bertarikh 27.06.2016 dan 04.07.2016 the statement of memaklumkan kepada peguam claim in the Defendan-Defendan kedudukan akaun Second Suit. PECOL yang tidak kemas dan disyaki menyalahi undang-undang daripada syarikat pihak ketiga, inter alia, seperti yang berikut: a) terdapat kesalahan undang-undang yang disyaki timbul didalam akaun PECOL di mana terdapat banyak transaksi-transaksi yang tidak sah serta aktiviti pemalsuan di dalam AkaunPenerimaan (Accounts Receivables) berkenaan syarikat bernama Perigagah Sdn Bhd. 17 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Amended statement of claim in the References in the present suit First Suit and the Second Suit b) terdapat kesalahan undang-undang yang disyaki timbul didalam akaun PECOL di mana terdapat banyak transaksi-transaksi yang tidak sah serta aktiviti pemalsuan di dalam Akaun Pembayaran (Accounts Payable) berkenaan syarikat bernama Interaktif Prima Sdn Bhd dan Plaintif percaya bahawa pengarah- pengarah PECOL terdahulu telah menggunakan cara sedemikian supaya mereka dapat menggunakan kemudahan Bank Guarantee UOB PECOL pada masa dahulu untuk tujuan lain dan tidak wajar. (irregular and inappropriate).” Paragraph 37: Paragraph 39 of the statement of “Plaintif juga mendapati bahawa claim in the First Defendan-Defendan selaku pemilik Suit saham-saham PECOL telah meningkatkan saham-saham PECOL 18 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Amended statement of claim in the References in the present suit First Suit and the Second Suit daripada 350,000 kepada 1,000,000 supaya PECOL akan terus mendapatkan kemudahan bank Guarantee UOB tersebut. Namun begitu, pengeluaran 650,000 saham-saham tambahan PECOL pada tahum 2013 tersebut adalah salah dan tidak sah di sisi undang-undang kerana: a) Pemilik-Pemilik saham PECOL tidak pernah mengeluarkan wang mereka sendiri untuk membeli 650,000 saham-saham tambahan tersebut tetapi telah menggunakan wang PECOL (yang diperolehi melalui pemalsuan akaun PECOL) untuk melanggan dan/atau membayar (subscribe and pay) jumlah RM650,000.00 untuk memperolehi 650,000 saham- saham tambahan tersebut yang kononnya dikeluarkan pada tahun 2013. Ini jelas merupakan suatu kesalahan undang-undang dibawah S67 Akta Syarikat 1965 19 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Amended statement of claim in the References in the present suit First Suit and the Second Suit (atau peruntukan yang relevan dalam Akta Syarikat 2016). b) Setiausaha Syarikat PECOL pada segala masa material (Tetuan Mun Soo) dengan jelas telah memberitahu Plaintif bahawa pengeluaran dan penerbitan 650,000 saham-saham tambahan tersebut pada tahun 2013 adalah tidak mengikuti peruntukkan undang-undang berkenaan dengan pengeluaran dan penerbitan saham-saham tambahan yang diperuntukkan dibawah Akta Syarikat 1965 (atau peruntukan yang relevan dalam Akta Syarikat 2016). c) Akauntan juruaudit PECOL pada segala masa material (Tetuan Alan Yoon Associates) juga tidak dapat mengesahkan bahawa 650,000 saham-saham tambahan tersebut adalah sah dan telah dikeluarkan 20 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Amended statement of claim in the References in the present suit First Suit and the Second Suit mengikut peruntukkan undang- undang meskipun beliau telah membuat pernyataan kukuh (affirmation) melalui laporan audit tahun 2013 bahawa jumlah saham berbayar adalah 1,000,000.” Paragraph 38: Paragraph 40 of the statement of “Oleh itu, Plaintif memplidkan bahawa claim in the First kesalahan-kesalahan yang dinyatakan di Suit. atas oleh Pengarah-pengarah lama PECOL telah mengakibatkan akaun- akaun tahun 2014 dan 2015 PECOL tidak dapat diselesaikan dan oleh itu, tidak dapat difailkan oleh Lembaga Pengarah terdahulu PECOL di SSM dan segala fakta-fakta tingkah laku kesalahan akaun PECOL oleh Defendan-Defendan ini telah disembunyi daripada Plaintif oleh Defendan- Defendan.” Paragraph 39: Paragraph 41 of the statement of 21 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Amended statement of claim in the References in the present suit First Suit and the Second Suit “Maka dengan itu, melalui surat peguam claim in the First Plaintif bertarikh 06.09.2016 kepada Suit. Defendan-Defendan, Plaintif telah memberi notis sekali lagi kepada Defendan-Defendan berkenaan kesalahan-kesalahan akaun PECOL serta kesalahan undang-undang Defendan-Defendan di bawah S67 Akta Styarikat 1965 (atau peruntukan yang relevan dalam Akta Syarikat 2016) yang telah mengakibatkan akaun-akaun PECOL untuk tahun 2014 dan 2015 tidak dapat diselesaikan dan seterusnya telah mengakibatkan Plaintif mengalami kerugian dan kerosakan yang berterusan sebagai pemilik baru PECOL.” Paragraph 43: Paragraph 45 of the statement of “Maka dengan itu, Plaintif telah claim in the First mengalami kerugian dan kerosakan oleh Suit kerana masalah serta kesalahanundang- undang dalam akaun PECOL dan kesalahan undang-undang berkenaan pengeluaran dan penerbitan 22 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Amended statement of claim in the References in the present suit First Suit and the Second Suit 650,000 saham-saham tambahan PECOL tersebut.” Paragraph 44: Paragraph 46 of the statement of “Maka dengan itu, Plaintif memplidkan claim in the First bahawa Defendan-Defendan Pertama Suit hingga Keenam (selaku ahli Lembaga Pengarah PECOL pada masa material) Paragraph 33 of telah gagal dan/atau cuai dan/atau salah the statement of menjalankan tugas dan tanggungjawab claim in the mereka sebagai pengarah-pengarah Second Suit kerana: Butir-Butir kegagalan, kecuaian dan kesalahan Defendan-Defendan Pertama hingga Keenam (selaku Lembaga Pengarah PECOL pada masa material a) Menggunakan invois-invois melalui transaksi-transaksi yang dipalsukan untuk memanipulasi kegunaan kemudahan bank Guarantee UOB PECOL. 23 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Amended statement of claim in the References in the present suit First Suit and the Second Suit b) Melakukan kesalahan undang- undang di bawah S67 AktaSyarikat 1965 (atau peruntukan yang relevan dalam Akta Syarikat 2016) kerana membenarkan pengunaan wang PECOL untuk membiayai pembelian 650,000 saham-saham tambahan tersebut bagi faedah pemilik-pemilik saham. c) Membuat penerbitan 650,000 saham-saham tambahan pada tahun 2013 dengan cara yang tidak betul seperti yang diperuntukkan di dalam undang- undang terpakai kerana langsung tidak memanggil sebarang EGM untuk pengeluaran saham-saham tambahan tersebut serta tidak mengikut aturcara-aturcara penerbitan saham baru mengikut Akta Syarikat 1965 (atau 24 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Amended statement of claim in the References in the present suit First Suit and the Second Suit peruntukan yang relevan dalam Akta Syarikat 2016). d) Mengisytiharkan dividen sebanyak RM14,000,000.00 kepada pemilik- pemilik saham (iaitu kepada semua Defendan-Defendan yang termasuk semua Lembaga Pengarah) walaupun mengetahui bahawa 650,000 saham-saham tambahan tersebut tidak pernah dibayar atau dimiliki oleh mana- mana pemilik-pemilik saham (iaitu Defendan-Defendan) atau bahawa 650,000 saham-saham tambahan tersebut diterbitkan secara tidak sah mengikut aturcara penerbitan saham baru di bawah AktaSyarikat 1965 (atau peruntukan yang relevan dalam Akta Syarikat 2016). e) Mengisytiharkan dividen sebanyak RM14,000,000.00 kepada pemilik- pemilik saham walaupun 25 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Amended statement of claim in the References in the present suit First Suit and the Second Suit mengetahui bahawa kedudukan kewangan dan keuntungan PECOL telah dimanipulasikan pada setiap masa material dan kedudukan keseluruhan kewangan PECOL adalah masih tenat dan berlanjutan sertabahawa pengisytiharan dividen tersebut adalah berdasarkan kedudukan kewangan syarikat yang tidak menghiraukan aktivitidan transaksi manipulasi dalam akaun syarikat PECOL.” Paragraph 47: Paragraph 48 of the statement of “Plaintif memplidkan bahawa oleh claim in the First kerana tingkah laku Defendan-Defendan Suit yang memanipulasikan akaun serta melakukan kesalahan di PECOL pada Paragraph 34 of masa dahulu, seperti yang dinyatakan di the statement of dalam ini, maka potensi perniagaan serta claim in the kedudukan kewangan PECOL telah tidak Second Suit berupaya dipulihkan hingga kini dan Plaintif telah dan masih mengalami 26 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Amended statement of claim in the References in the present suit First Suit and the Second Suit kerugian. Plaintif juga terpaksa mengeluarkan wang mereka yang melebihi RM125,000.00 setiap bulan untuk meneruskan perniagaan PECOL.” Paragraph 48: Paragraph 50 of the statement of “Plaintif memplidkan bahawa sehingga claim in the First kini Saham Jualan tersebut tidak dapat Suit dipindah milik ke dalam nama Plaintif disebabkan oleh tingkah laku Defendan- Defendan yang telah menyalahi undang- undang dan bukan lagi disebabkan oleh hanya persoalan dengan SSM yang tidak membebankan PECOL seperti yang direpresentasikan oleh Defendan- defendan.” D. Considerations The Striking Out Applications [12] It is clear from the comparisons above that there are substantial similarities between the claims in this suit, with the claims in the First Suit and the Second Suit. Because of these substantial similarities, the 27 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal defendants filed the Striking Out Applications, pursuant to order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC”). The relevant provision reads: “(1) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order tobe struck out or amended any pleading or the endorsement, of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or in the endorsement, on the ground that – (a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be; (b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; (c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; or (d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court, and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly, as the case may be.” [13] In urging the court to exercise its powers to strike out the plaintiff’s action, the defendants relied on the doctrine of res judicata, and argued that the filing of this present suit, which is identical to and rested on the same facts and issues as the First Suit and the Second Suit, is clearly an abuse of the process of the court. The Law On Res Judicata 28 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [14] The law on res judicata is expounded clearly in Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v Kawal Teliti Sdn Bhd [1995] 3 MLJ 189, a case referred to by both the plaintiff and the defendants. The Supreme Court held as follows: “What is res judicata? It simply means a matter adjudged, and its significance lies in its effect of creating an estoppel per rem judicatum. When a matter between two parties has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction, the parties and their privies are not permitted to litigate once more the res judicata, because the judgment becomes the truth between such parties, or in other words, the parties should accept it as the truth; res judicata pro veritate accipitur. The public policy of the law is that, it is in the public interest that there should be finality in litigation – interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium. It is only just that no one ought to be vexed twice for the same cause of action – nemo debet bis vexari proeadem causa. Both maxims are the rationales for the doctrine of res judicata, but the earlier maxim has the further elevated status of a question of public policy. … The starting point ought to be the celebrated passage by Wigram VC in the case of Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 at p 115 which is: The plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to points upon which the court was 29 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence might have brought forward at the time. … To revert to that famous passage set out above, the next step is to state our view on its scope of operation or approach towards such scope which has given rise to certain controversial aspects referred to earlier. Bearing in mind the well-known relevancy of a previous judgment in barring a second suit, eg please see s 40 of the Evidence Act 1950, it will be readily understood that when Wigram VC spoke of 'points', the points should actually include causes of action, or all causes of action which one of the two parties has against the other, based on, or substantially on the same facts or issues, and not just all issues of law or of fact that are in dispute between the parties …” (emphasis added) [15] It is clear from Asia Commercial Finance (supra) that res judicata would apply not only to prevent the re-adjudication of issues that had already been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction. It would also apply to all issues that could have been brought forward by parties exercising reasonable diligence. 30 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Does Res Judicata Apply To This Suit? [16] The defendants argued that as this present suit is based on identical facts and issues as that of the First Suit and the Second Suit, res judicata would apply, to prevent a re-litigation of these issues. [17] The plaintiff on the other hand argued that this suit involves different causes of action than the causes of action in the First Suit and the Second Suit. The plaintiff relied on the judgment of Azizul Azmi Adnan J in the First Suit, where His Lordship struck out the First Suit on the following grounds: a. The plaintiff had no locus standi to sue the defendants. His Lordship held that the proper complainant, both on the alleged illegal or improper transactions within PECOL and for the Friendly Loan is PECOL. b. Even if there had been a breach of section 67(1) of the Companies Act 1965, such breach would not render the issuance of the disputed shares invalid or void. Further, the plaintiff would not be permitted to recover the amount of financial assistance that had purportedly been provided by PECOL to the defendants, because in the Shares Sale Agreement, it had specifically waived its rights and remedies against the defendants. c. The plaintiff was not the entity giving financial assistance for the issuance of the disputed shares in breach of 31 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal section 67 of the Companies Act 1965 and thus had no locus standi to rely on section 67 to recover its losses. d. The plaintiff had no locus standi under section 132 of the Companies Act 1965 to sue the defendants, as the plaintiff was not the entity to whom the shares were initially issued, but rather a subsequent purchaser of such shares. [18] The plaintiff claimed that the First Suit was not a suit based on the terms and conditions of the Shares Sale Agreement. This suit, on the other hand, is based on the Shares Sale Agreement, and specifically breaches of clause 1A.2(b)(ii) and clause 6.1. As the causes of action of these two suits are different, the plaintiff argued that res judicata does notapply. [19] I find myself unable to agree with the plaintiff’s argument. What is clear from the comparisons in the table in paragraph 12 above is that this suit is based on the same facts and issues previously raised not only in the First Suit, but also in the Second Suit. Further: a. the prayers sought by the plaintiff in paragraphs 58(a) and (b) of the amended statement of claim in this suit were previously sought in paragraphs 51(e) and (g) of the statement of claim in the First Suit; b. the prayers sought by the plaintiff in paragraphs 58(c) and (d) of the amended statement of claim in this suit were 32 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal previously sought in paragraphs 51(f) and (g) of the statement of claim in the First Suit; and c. the prayer sought by the plaintiff in paragraph 58(e) of the amended statement of claim in this suit was previously sought in paragraph 51(d) of the statement of claim in the First Suit. [20] With this suit containing substantially similar facts as the First Suit and the Second Suit, and with similar prayers being sought, if this suit is allowed to proceed, issues that had been raised in the First Suit and the Second Suit would be reconsidered and re-litigated. Thus the court finds that res judicata would apply. [21] The court’s finding is supported by a multitude of cases where it was held that res judicata applies in situations where an action is filed based on the same facts and issues as a prior action that had been previously decided upon (see Leong Yew Chin v Hock Hua Bank Bhd [2008] 3 MLJ 340, Dato’ Sivananthan a/l Shanmugam v Artisan Fokus Sdn Bhd [2016] 3 MLJ 122 and Sungai Dinar Sdn Bhd v Koperasi Pekebun Kecil Wilayah Johor Selatan Bhd [2016] 5 MLJ 823). [22] I must also touch on the plaintiff’s argument that unlike the previous two suits which are based on a breach of the Companies Act 1965, this suit is based on the terms and conditions of the Shares Sale Agreement. As such, the doctrine of res judicata cannot apply. I have already held that the narrower sense of the doctrine of res judicata applies, as any issues related to the breach of the Shares Sale Agreement are based on the same facts arising in the First Suit and the Second Suit. 33 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal I also hold that the wider sense of res judicata would equally be applicable, following Asia Commercial Finance (supra). Any issues related to the breach of specific provisions of the Shares Sale Agreement could have been raised by the plaintiff in the First Suit and the Second Suit, and should be precluded from being raised in this suit. Res Judicata As A Basis For Striking Out [23] The courts have exercised powers to strike out actions pursuant to order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 on the basis of the doctrine of res judicata. In Mayban Allied Bhd (formerly known as Phileo Allied Bank (M) Bhd) v Kenneth Godfrey Gomez & Anor [2011] 5 MLJ 219, Ramly Ali JCA (as His Lordship then was) held as follows: “[12] In determining whether a statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action or itself constitutes an abuse of process, the state of affairs to which the court must have regard is that which prevailed at the date the action is filed (see Court of Appeal decision in Gasing Heights Sdn Bhd v Aloyah bteAbdul Rahman & Ors [1996] 3 MLJ 259). The court is entitled tolook at the history of the case, where there is likelihood of the action being res judicata, to determine if there is a cause of action(see Jamir Hassan v Kang Min [1992] 2 MLJ 46 and Abdul Hamid bin Hj Rahmat & Anor v Development & Commercial Bank Bhd & Anor [1993] 1 MLJ 306). [13] The plea of res judicata applies not only to points which the court was required to form an opinion on but also to every point in the litigation which the parties could have 34 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal brought up at the time (see Othman & Anor v Mek [1971] 2 MLJ 214). [14] In addition, the court possesses an inherent jurisdiction to prevent an abuse of its process (see Raja Zainal Abidin bin Raja Haji Tachik & Ors v British-American Life & General Insurance Bhd [1993] 3 MLJ 16 (SC)). The use of the court process must be bona fide. [15] When a matter between two parties has been adjudicated and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, they and their privies are not permitted to litigate once more the res judicata as the determination or judgment becomes the truth between such parties. An estoppel for rem judicatum has been created as a result (per Peh Swee Chin FCJ in Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v Kawal Teliti Sdn Bhd [1995] 3 MLJ 189). The cause of action estoppel prevents reassertion of a cause of action which has been determined in a final judgment by the same parties in a subsequent proceeding. The court has the inherent jurisdiction to dismiss or strike out an action on the ground of res judicata. [16] In the present case, the statement of claim that was filed by the appellant in the first suit and the statement of claim filed in the second suit asked for the same remedy ie for damages and the refund of the action proceeds. Both statements of claim in both the first and second suits are in substance identical, resting on the same facts and issues.” (emphasis added) 35 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [24] In Sungai Dinar (supra), the Court of Appeal held as follows: “[17] In our judgment, one of the grounds upon which an application under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 can be made is provided in para (1)(b) which states that an action is scandalous, frivolous as vexatious and the most common instance of matters which are struck out on this ground are those which are res judicata (see Malaysian Court Practice, 2007 Desk Ed, Lexis Nexis at p 246).” (emphasis added) [25] The Court of Appeal then went on to refer to Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 3 MLJ 36, holding that the exercise of the summary powers of striking out should only be carried out in plain and obvious cases. The court held that the case was a plain and obvious case that would allow recourse to the summary procedure under order 18 rule 19. E. Decision [26] With the finding that res judicata applies to this suit, I find that this suit is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court. Therefore, this is a clear and obvious case for the court to exercise its powers to strike out the plaintiff’s claim against the defendants. 36 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [27] Premised on the above, I allowed Enclosure 61 (save for prayer (a) on stay of proceedings) and Enclosure 65, with costs. Dated 31 December 2021 - sgd - Adlin binti Abdul Majid Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Commercial Division (NCC6) Kuala Lumpur Counsel: Plaintiff : Low Joo Hean (Messrs. Ching Tan & Assoc) 1st to 3rd defendants, : Sharmini Natalie, Hanna Suhaila Haizal 5th to 12th defendants and Tee Vun Xin (Messrs. Zain & Co) 4th defendant : Krishna Dallumah and Y H Yong (Messrs. Krishna Dallumah & Indran) Legislation referred to: Rules of Court 2012, order 18 rule 19 Cases referred to: Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v Kawal Teliti Sdn Bhd [1995] 3 MLJ 189 37 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 3 MLJ 36 Dato’ Sivananthan a/l Shanmugam v Artisan Fokus Sdn Bhd [2016] 3 MLJ 122 Leong Yew Chin v Hock Hua Bank Bhd [2008] 3 MLJ 340 Mayban Allied Bhd (formerly known as Phileo Allied Bank (M) Bhd) v Kenneth Godfrey Gomez & Anor [2011] 5 MLJ 219 Sungai Dinar Sdn Bhd v Koperasi Pekebun Kecil Wilayah Johor Selatan Bhd [2016] 5 MLJ 823 38 S/N p0SlHBhUeEaBZyaJ1bqnHg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal