Ramly Ali J:

The Parties

[1] The 1st plaintiff at the material times is a company having it's registered office at Lot 2398, Jalan Connaught Bridge, 41300 Klang, Selangor. The 2nd plaintiff is the Managing Director of the 1st plaintiff. The 3rd plaintiff is the Deputy Managing Director of the 1st plaintiff. Initially, the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs were parties to the present suit. However, they have been struck off as parties and the plaintiff company (1st plaintiff) is now the sole plaintiff.

[2] The defendant, at the material times, is a licensed bank with a branch office at No: 1, Lorong Batu Tiga, 41300 Klang, Selangor.

[3] At all material times, the 1st plaintiff was a customer of the defendant operating the following accounts:

(a) 1 Current Account No: 1206-7074603-01-0 including an Autopay System to pay salaries for its staff and employees and directors;

(b) 1 Term Loan Facility Account No: 1206-0000556-95-0;

(c) 11 Fixed Deposits Accounts Nos:

1206-0275306-68-2; 1206-0275471-68-8;

1206-0275377-68-3; 1206-0275376-68-0;

1206-0275472-68-0; 1206-0275473-68-3;

1206-0275307-68-5; 1206-0275295-68-8;

1206-0275375-68-8; 1206-0275308-68-8;

and 1206-0271108-68-0.

Plaintiff's Causes of Action

[4] The plaintiff's cause of action centers on 2 Garnishee Orders to Show Cause both dated 5 July 1999 respectively by Apex Robot System (M) Sdn. Bhd. under Kuala Lumpur Magistrate Court Summon No: 72-15354-96 and Cheso Machinery Sdn. Bhd. under Kuala Lumpur Magistrate Court Summons No: 72-15355-96 as judgment creditors and the defendant as garnishee.

[5] The defendant had received both the garnishee orders to show cause on 15 October 1999 at 11.30am, and thereafter the defendant had frozen all the plaintiff's accounts from 15 October 1996 to 22 October 1999 for eight days (or seven banking days), without informing the plaintiffs by written notice nor verbally, nor by telephone, nor by facsimile nor by any other means. The plaintiff only came to know about the frozen account when, on 18 October 1999 (at 10am) one of its employees had phoned the plaintiff complaining that two cheques issued by the plaintiff for payment were rejected by the defendant upon presentation.

[6] On 15 October 1999, at 14.30pm after the plaintiff's current account had been frozen by the defendant, there was a sum of RM98,888.06 directly paid into the already frozen current account of the plaintiff from USA by telegraph transfer. This sum of RM98.888.06 was never allowed to be utilised by the plaintiff even though it was deposited after the plaintiff's current account had been frozen. This sum of money was never put into another separate account or temporary separate account by the defendant.

[7] At the material times from 15 October 1999 to 22 October 1999 the total sum frozen by the defendant was RM443,619.54 (including the aforesaid sum of RM98,888.06). If added together with the fixed deposit account sum of RM211,469.17, the total sum is RM655.088.66.

[8] During the same period (15 October 1999 to 22 October 1999), out of the cheques issued by the plaintiff and paid in by the relevant parties for payment, there were 12 cheques had been dishonoured by the defendant and printed the words "FROZEN ACCOUNT" and two cheques had been printed with the word "REFER TO DRAWER".

[9] Among the 14 cheques dishonoured by the defendant, there were two cheques (cheque No: 292692 and 292693) issued to the EPF for the amount of RM15,734 and Perkeso (cheque No: 292747) for the amount of RM890.50. The plaintiff had been imposed a penalty by the EPF due to the 2 dishonoured cheques.

[10] The Autopay System for the payment of the half-monthly salaries and wages to 153 employees of the plaintiff for the amount of RM7.449.50 was not allowed to be debited from the current account of the plaintiff until 20 October 1999.

Plaintiff's Claim

[11] From the statement of claim, the plaintiff's claims are based on three (3) allegations of facts, namely:

(a) the defendant had wrongly frozen the