Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka's Board of Control is the legal entity for contractual obligations under Malaysian law.

[1] This judgment raises a novel question of whether "Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka" (DBP) is a legal entity against whom legal proceedings can be instituted.

[2] The plaintiff is a partnership which is an exclusive distributor of an Islamic religious book, "Mushaf Al Quran Bertajwid dan Berwarna" (Book).

[3] By a letter dated 19 April 2016, the Ministry of Education appointed the plaintiff to supply the Book for the use of primary school students throughout Malaysia in 2017. On 2 September 2016, the plaintiff entered into a contract with DBP to, among others, print, supply and distribute the Book (Contract).

[4] On 18 September 2017 DBP issued an open tender inviting Bumiputera book suppliers registered with DBP to bid for a contract to print, bind and supply the Book for 2018 (Tender).

B. Proceedings

[5] The plaintiff commenced this suit against DBP based on DBP's alleged breaches of the Contract (This Action). In This Action, the plaintiff filed an application for an interlocutory injunction (encl 4) to restrain DBP from:

(1) acting on the Tender; and

(2) performing any work on the printing and supply of the Book without the plaintiff's written consent

- pending the disposal of This Action.

C. Court's Approach In Deciding Interlocutory Restraining Injunction Applications

[6] In La Kaffa International Co Ltd v. Loob Holdings Sdn Bhd , at para 28, I have adopted the following approach in determining interim prohibitory injunction applications:

"28. In deciding how the Court may exercise its discretion to grant an interim prohibitory injunction, the following considerations are relevant:

(1) whether a plaintiff has satisfied the Court that there is at least a bona fide and serious question to be tried in respect of the plaintiff's cause of action against the defendant - please see the Supreme Court's judgment delivered by Mohd Jemuri Serjan CJ (Borneo) in Alor Janggus Soon Seng Trading Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Sey Hoe Sdn Bhd & Ors, . If a plaintiff cannot satisfy the Court that there is at least a bona fide and serious issue to be tried in respect of the plaintiff's cause of action against the defendant, the Court shall refuse to grant an interim restraining injunction on this ground alone; and

(2) if a plaintiff satisfies the Court that there is at least a bona fide and serious question to be tried:

(a) whether damages constitute an adequate remedy for the plaintiff. If damages are a sufficient relief for the plaintiff, the Court may refuse to give an interim prohibitory injunction - please see the decision of Hashim Yeop Sani CJ (Malaya) in the Supreme Court case of Associated Tractors Sdn. Bhd v. Chan Boon Heng & Anor, ;

(b) if damages do not constitute an adequate remedy for the plaintiff, whether the "balance of convenience" (some cases use the phrase "balance of justice") lies in favour of the grant or refusal of an interim restraining injunction. If the balance of convenience is not in favour of the grant of an interim prohibitory injunction, the interim prohibitory injunction should be refused on this ground alone - Alor Janggus Soon Seng Trading; and

(c) if the balance of convenience is in favour of granting an interim restraining injunction, is there any policy or equitable consideration which militates against the grant of an interim restraining injunction? [please see Gopal Sri Ram JCA's (as he then was) judgment in the Court of Appeal case of Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v. Mohd Noor Harun Abdullah & Ors, ].

Even if a plaintiff has satisfied the Court:

(i) of the existence of a bona fide and serious issue to be tried;

(ii) damages are not an adequate remedy; and

(iii) the balance of convenience lies in favour of a grant of an interim restraining injunction,

the Court may still exercise its discretion to refuse an interim prohibitory inju