On April 12 1982 an ex parte injunction was granted to restrain the defendants in the suit either by themselves or their agents or otherwise howsoever from acting in the capacity of elected members of the Committee of Management of the Mercantile Co-operative Thrift & Loan Society Limited Selangor (hereafter referred to as the "Society") and from taking control of the offices of the said Society at Bangunan Koperasi Mercantile, 54A Masjid India, Kuala Lumpur and from taking possession of any document, papers and files belonging to the said Society and from convening meetings of the said Society or in any way interfering or intermeddling in the business of the Society.

On April 22, 1982 the defendants applied to set aside the interlocutory injunction. Soon thereafter the defendants made another application to set aside the writ on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and want of authority in suing the said Society.

On May 6, 1982 the application to set aside the interlocutory injunction was heard. The defendants sought to set aside the interlocutory injunction on broadly the following grounds—

(1) there is a dispute among the members of the Society or between certain members and the Committee of Management of the Society and in view of the provision of section 49 of the Co-operative Society Ordinance 1948 relating to any dispute "touching the business of a registered society" the issue of the writ and the application for the interlocutory injunction were premature as the remedies provided by the statute have not been exhausted;

(2) the writ and the application were taken out without the authority of the third plaintiff; and

(3) the ex parte injunction was obtained by suppression or omission of material facts and there was deliberate misrepresentation of material facts.

As the second application of the defendants to set aside the writ is also based on the first two grounds set out above, counsel accordingly submitted primarily on the third ground. The issue in the present application is therefore confined to the question whether there was suppression or omission of material facts and whether there was deliberate misrepresentation of material facts when the plaintiffs applied for the ex parte injunction.

The application for interlocutory injunction was supported by the affidavit of the first plaintiff, Prof. Kahar Bador, dated April 8, 1982. The affidavit sets out briefly the background of the dispute. The material date was April 4, 1982 being the date of the 48th Annual General Meeting of the Society. In accordance with By-law 88 of the Society's By-laws ballot papers had been sent to members of the Society together with notice of the general meeting. The election was supervised by the Senior Co-operative Development Officer. According to the affidavit all the plaintiffs were then duly elected as members of the Committee of Management for the year 1982.

The affidavit concluded with the statement that the election of the defendants were however not in accordance with the by-laws of the Society and was therefore null and void and as such they have no right to meddle in the affairs of the Society. Because the assets of the Society exceeds $19 million as shown in the balance sheet of the Society as at December 31, 1980, the plaintiffs urged that the injunction be issued to restrain the defendants from causing incalculable loss to the Society.

In the affidavit of one Ho Tiap Guan dated April 9 1982 he stated that he was a member of the Society and was appointed as Assistant Chief Supervisor in the election of the Committee Members at the Annual General Meeting concerned. He stated that none of the persons elected from the floor, namely the defendants, were elected by ballot papers. He attached to his affidavit a photostat copy of the results of voting by ballot as shown in the exhibit which indicates that the first plaintiff obtained 2,666 votes, the second plaintiff obtained 2,088 votes and the third plaintiff 1,