The court can grant injunctions in committal proceedings to ensure compliance with court orders, emphasizing the importance of preventing injustice rather than solely punishing contempt.

Query: whether a Court hearing committal proceedings may grant an injunction order instead.

Introduction

[1] Instead of making a decision during committal proceedings on whether a contempt had been committed for allegedly disobeying an order for specific performance, this Court had deferred the decision of that question to a further and final hearing and made an order for injunction on 11 July 2023. Dissatisfied, the proposed contemnors appealed and these are the grounds for the decision made.

Salient Facts

[2] The dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant is over a parcel of land held under freehold title under Geran 218971 Lot No 1119, Bandar Sri Sendayan, Daerah Seremban, Negeri Sembilan (the said "Property").

[3] The said Property is charged to Maybank Islamic Berhad (the "Bank").

[4] Pursuant to an Option To Purchase Agreement ("OTP") dated 5 January 2018, the plaintiff exercised its option to purchase the said Property for Ringgit Malaysia ("RM")45,725,091.48 by way of a letter dated 6 January 2020. This OTP was given to the plaintiff in consideration of the deposit amount of RM7,000,000.00 paid to and received by the defendant.

[5] At the time the plaintiff exercised its option to purchase the said Property under the OTP, the plaintiff was aware that the Bank had commenced an action to secure an order for sale of the said Property ("Foreclosure Proceedings"). A sale and purchase agreement was drawn up and executed by the plaintiff (the "SPA") but the defendant asserted it is futile to execute it without the consent of the Bank.

[6] On the premise that it is entitled to specific performance of the OTP, the plaintiff commenced this action. Besides seeking for an order for specific performance, the plaintiff prayed for consequential orders for the defendant to execute the SPA and all relevant documents, and to forward other relevant documents in relation to the sale transaction of the said Property to effect the registration of the Property in favour of the plaintiff.

[7] The plaintiff also sued for general damages, interest thereon at 5% per annum from the date of assessment until full settlement, costs on a solicitor client indemnity basis and such further or other reliefs as this Honourable Court deems fit and just.

[8] The defendant opposed the action. In its defence, it asserted that the transaction between the parties was in actual fact a money lending transaction wherein the plaintiff would loan the defendant RM7,000,000.00 with a tenure of two years with agreed interest of RM600,000.00 to be paid at the expiry of the first year or RM1,500,000.00 as agreed interest at the expiry of the second year.

[9] As for the OTP the defendant asserted it was to serve only as a form of security for the money lending transaction.

Application For Summary Judgment At The High Court

[10] The plaintiff took out an application (Encl 14) on 5 August 2020 pursuant to O 81 and or O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (" ROC ") for an Order that the plaintiff be given liberty to inter alia enter summary judgment against the defendant for specific performance of the OTP and the SPA, or alternatively the refund of the RM7,000,000.00 and or the difference between the purchase price of RM45,725,091.48 and the market value of the said Property, general damages, interest thereon, costs, such further or o