The facts of this case are that Pertubuhan Kebajikan Pekerja-Pekerja India Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (Association), is an Association registered with the Registrar of Societies. The Association is required to hold an Annual General Meeting (AGM) every two years under its constitution. The office bearers elected at each AGM, hold office for two years following the AGM. At the AGM held on 15th March 2006, the Fourth Defendant (D4) was elected the President, the Second Defendant (D2) as a Secretary, the Fifth Defendant (D5) as a Assistant Secretary and the Sixth Defendant (D6) Treasurer. In other words, the term of office of these officer bearers was to expire on 15th March 2008. Sometime after this meeting, the Plaintiff, as the Association's Bankers was notified of the authorised signatories of the Association's bank account operated with the Plaintiff. They were D4, D2, and D6 (see Exh. CIMB 3 to Enc. 2).

On 9th August 2007, during the presidency of D4, D2 gave notice of a committee meeting of the Association to be held on 16th August 2007 (see exh. PR2- Enc. 7). This meeting was convened by D2 in his capacity as the Secretary of the Association. The agenda for the meeting did not include any item for the removal of D4. However, the agenda did include the tabling of the Secretary's and Treasurer's reports. According to article 14(a) of the constitution of the Association, the committee of the Association was required to meet, at least, once three monthly. The Secretary claims to have convened this meeting to meet this requirement. The list of attendees at this meeting purported to include twelve Committee Members and their respective signatures. It is not disputed that the quorum for a valid meeting is eleven, as the number of office bearers was twenty two. At the Committee Meeting of 16th August 2007, D4 and D6 were removed as President and Treasurer of the Association, respectively. The Registrar of Societies was notified of the change of the office bearers in due course. The Association also informed the Plaintiff of the change in the signatories to the bank account of the Association operated with the Plaintiff in that D1 as a new President and D3 as a new Treasurer replaced D4 and D6 as signatories to the bank account. D2 as a Secretary remained a signatory (see Exh. CIMB 7 to Enc. 2). This exhibit containing the specimen signatures of D1, D2 and D3 is dated 22 August 2007 (CIMB 7 to enc. 2) and intended to replace the earlier notification of signatories dated 12th July 2007 (Exh. CIMB 3 to Enc. 2).

It appears that D4, first came to know about the meeting of 16th August 2007 when he received a copy of the notice of the Association to the Plaintiff (Ext. CIMB 4 to Enc. 2) concerning the change of the signatories of the bank account. D4 promptly informed the Secretary by letter dated 28th August 2007, copied to the Plaintiff, that he did not recognise the validity of the meeting of 16th August 2007 (see Exh. CIMB 8 to Enc. 2). D4 then caused a committee meeting to be convened, at his instance, and reinstated himself and D6 as signatories to the bank account of the Association with the Plaintiff together with D5, the Assistant Secretary of the Association. This committee meeting convened by D4 was held on 12th September 2007. The Plaintiff was duly provided with the specimen signature of the new signatories appearing in Exhibit CIMB 11 to Enc. 2. The Plaintiff unable to determine who are the valid signatories to the bank account of the Association with the Plaintiff as between the two factions namely D1, D2, D3 and D4, D5 and D6, filed this summons with the court seeking the ruling of this court as to the lawful authorised signatories of the Association's account with the Plaintiff.

The thrust of the complaint of D4 is that the meeting of 16th August 2007 convened by D2 is invalid and consequently the letter dated 17th August 2007 (CIMB 4 to enc. 2) notifying the Plaintiff that D1, D2 and D3 are the new sign