[1] The appellant, a financial institution, appealed against the decision of the learned High Court judge for failing to enter judgment against the respondents for a sum exceeding RM120 million with interests and costs. There were two appeals by the appellant. The appeals number read as follows: Q-02(W)-1276 August 2015 ("1276") and Q-02(W)-1277 August 2015 ("1277"). Even though both of the appeals and the voluminous documents on the first instance appeared to be complicated, the only issue as framed by the appellant read as follows:

"The appellant's appeal herein is only based on the finding by the High Court that the Memoranda of Deposits (MODs) were not enforceable as the MODs were not authenticated pursuant to the Powers of Attorney Act, 1949. Further details are as set out in the Appellant's said Memorandum of Appeal."

[2] When the appellant demanded payment from the relevant parties, the respondents who were the borrowers ('1st respondent'), share chargors ('2nd to 9th respondents') and one Asia Bulkers Sdn Bhd ('10th respondent') filed a suit No. KCH-22-90-2011 (Appeal '1276') basically to deny the appellant's payment claimed. The declaratory prayers claimed by the respondents