SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 MarsdenLR 1564

HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
TUNG AH LEEK & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
PERUNDING DJA SDN BHD & 9 ORS – Respondent
[Guaman No: D5-22-1570-2002]



GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

The Plaintiffs filed a Writ against the Defendants (encl. 1) and further filed for an interlocutory injunction (encl. 4) for the following prayers:-

"1. (i) Suatu perintah interim agar Defendan-Defendan, dan setiap satu daripada mereka, secara peribadi atau melalui agen mereka, pengkhidmat mereka, pekerja mereka atau melalui apa cara lain juga, dihalang daripada berurusan dengan wang yang telah, sedang dan akan dibayar bagi Projek tersebut kecuali Defendan Kedua mendapat 1% dari jumlah pembayaran oleh majikan bagi Projek tersebut, tanpa kebenaran pihak Plaintif-Plaintif;

(ii) Suatu perintah agar Plaintif Pertama dijadikan signatori wajib bagi setiap cek yang dikeluarkan oleh Defendan Pertama.

2. Suatu perintah agar Defendan Kedua dengan serta-merta membayar segala jumlah wang berkaitan dengan projek tersebut yang telah, sedang dan akan diterima daripada majikan bagi Projek tersebut, selain daripada 1% daripada jumlah pembayaran oleh majikan bagi projek tersebut.

3. Suatu perintah agar Defendan Pertama, Ketiga hingga Ketujuh dihalang sama ada secara peribadi atau melalui agen mereka, pengkhidmat mereka, pekerja mereka atau melalui apa cara lain juga daripada menyingkirkan Plaintif-Plaintif daripada Lembaga Pengarah Defendan Pertama.

4. Suatu perintah supaya Defendan-Defendan Ketiga hingga Keenam serta Ketujuah dan Kelapan dan Kesembilan dan Kesepuluh tidak menghalang Plaintif-Plaintif daripada meneliti dan mengambil segala rekod berkaitan dengan Defendan Pertama.

5. (i) Defendan Pertama dibubarkan dengan liquidator yang dianggap sesuai dan suaimanafaat dilantik oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini;

Dalam alternatif

(ii) Penerima dan Pengurus yang sesuai dan suaimanafaat dilantik oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia untuk mentadbir Defendan Pertama daripada 31.8.2002."

(The prayers in the Writ included the above prayers and also included a prayer for damages).

Subsequently the Plaintiffs filed for the second interim injunction (encl. 21) seeking the following prayer:-

"1. Suatu perintah interim agar Defendan-Defendan Ketiga, Keempat, Keenam dan Ketujuh setiap satu daripada mereka, sama ada secara peribadi atau melalui ejen mereka, pengkhidmat mereka, pekerja mereka atau melalui apa cara lain juga, dihalang daripada mengambil sebarang tindakan dalam apa juga bentuk untuk mengubah nisbah saham di dalam Defendan Pertama sehingga perbicaraan tindakan ini atau perintah selanjutnya oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini."

Factual Background

The 1st Defendant was incorporated as a private limited company on 24.9.1999 with initially 4 shareholders namely 1st Plaintiff, 2nd Plaintiff, 3rd Defendant and 4th Defendant. The 2nd, 5th, 6th, and 7th Defendants become shareholders of the 1st Defendant after the incorporation. The 6th and 7th Defendants were holding shares on trust for the 8th Defendant. The 9th and 10th Defendants were the secretaries of the 1st Defendant.

The 1st Defendant's Memorandum and Articles of Associations states that the 1st Defendant's principal activities are "building and road construction contractors, builders, carpenters, general decorators, civil, electrical and mechanical engineering".

The 2nd Defendant was awarded a contract by Jabatan Kerja Raya, Selangor (JKR) for a project called "Cadangan Kerja-Kerja Ubahsuai dan Tambahan Defendan melibatkan State Banquet Hall, Ruang Tamu Utama, Ruang Buffet, Foyer, Dapor, Dewan DiRaja, Pejabat Tuanku dan Kerja-Kerja Berkaitan di Istana Alam Shah, Kelang" (Main Contract). The 2nd Defendant had on 18.9.2000 subcontracted the Main Contract to the 1st Defendant. The total sum for the Main Contract was RM70 million, nevertheless, the said sum was increased to RM75.5 million, which included an element of acceleration, where JKR (as the Employer) had agreed to pay an additional sum of RM5.5 million to the 2nd Defendant if the 2nd Defendent completes the constructions on or before 6.1.2002. The 1st Defendant did not complete the said project on or before 6.1.2002 and therefore the sum of RM5.5 million was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top