Azmel Maamor J:

[1] This is an application by the plaintiff by way of a notis usul under encl. 201 seeking for an order that the defendant be committed to prison for committing several contempts of this Honourable Court. The acts of contempt of the defendant as alleged by the plaintiff are as follows:

(a) on 27.11.2000, published or distributed to the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board and the Investigating Tribunal defamatory words against the Plaintiff in breach of the Order of Injunction dated 22.1.2000; and

(b) undermined the integrity of the Judicial System and Administration of Law, Malaysia and brought the administration of law into disrespect in making the Order of Injunction and award of damages made by the High Court Judge on 22.1.2000. The trite aim of the Defendant in enclosing the documents in her letter dated 27.11.2000 is to show directly or indirectly that the judgment given by the Judge against her is wrong and should not be followed.

[2] The brief facts of the case that led to this action are as follows. It commenced when the plaintiff wrote a letter of complaint dated 27 January 1997 to the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board complaining against the conduct of the defendant, who is an advocate & solicitor, practising under the name and style of Messrs Mahadevi Nadchatiram & Partners. The gist of the complaint was:

...whilst acting as advocate & solicitor for the Defendants in the Seremban High Court Civil Suit No: 22-61-93 had made serious libelous and scandalous statements imputing criminal conduct on the part of the Plaintiff in a written submission dated 11.10.1993.

[3] Arising from the plaintiff's complaint the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board issued a show cause letter dated 14 March 1998 to the defendant asking her to give an explanation. In compliance with that show cause letter the defendant gave her explanation in a letter dated 8 April 1998 to the said Disciplinary Board, in the form of a reply to the complaint letter by the plaintiff. Following that an investigating tribunal of the advocates & solicitors was established to investigate into the said complaint. In the meantime the Kuala Lumpur Civil Suit No. S2(S3)23-04-1997 which involved the plaintiff and the defendant was heard by YA Dato' James Foong and on 22 January 2000 the learned judge made an order against the defendant. Part of the said Order states as follows:

Mahadevi a/p Nadchatiram, defendan yang dinamakan diatas, samada mewakili beliau sendiri, pengkhidmat-pengkhidmatnya atau wakil-wakilnya atau sesiapa pun dihalang secara kekal dan suatu injunksi kekal adalah dengan ini diberikan untuk menghalang Mahadevi a/p Nadchatiram daripada menerbitkan dalam apa-apa bentuk atau menyebabkan untuk menerbitkan penyataan-penyataan bersifat libel dan fitnah terhadap Plaintif.

[4] In other words, this is a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant from publishing any libelous and scandalous statements against the plaintiff.

[5] On 9 October 2000 the said investigating tribunal issued a letter to the defendant asking for an explanation in respect of her said conduct. This was followed by another letter from the said investigating tribunal dated 24 October 2000 to the defendant. On 27 October 2000 the defendant responded to the investigating tribunal letter of 24 October 2000. In this letter the defendant sought the direction from the investigating tribunal whether she could forward to the disciplinary board several documents that had been produced at the Kuala Lumpur Civil Suit before YA Dato' James Foong where the order of injunction against her had been issued on 22 January 2000. The relevant paragraph of the letter states:

In the above circumstances and in the light of the injunction against our client, as can be seen from (e) and (f) above we are humbly seeking directions from the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board pertaining to the fact that our client wishes to adduce further documentation and our client seeks