Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] This is the judgment of the court.

[2] This appeal is directed against the order of the Kuantan High Court dismissing the appellants' application for an interlocutory injunction restraining the receivers and managers appointed by Pengurusan Danaharta Nasional Berhad (Danaharta), the 3rd respondent before us.

[3] We will assume, without deciding, only for the purposes of this appeal, that the material produced before the learned judge and before us discloses serious questions to be tried. The only issue before us is whether the grant of an injunction in the terms sought is barred by s. 72 of the Pengurusan Danaharta Nasional Berhad Act 1998 ("the act"). There has been quite a lot of litigation about the act and for that reason we will not say much about the body it created. We will go straight into s. 72. That section provides:

72. Notwithstanding any law, an order of a court cannot be granted:

(a) which stays, restrains or affects the powers of the Corporation, Oversight Committee, Special Administrator or Independent Advisor under the Act;

(b) which stays, restrains or affects any action taken, or proposed to be taken, by the Corporation, Oversight Committee, Special Administrator or Independent Advisor under the Act;

(c) which compels the Corporation, Oversight Committee, Special Administrator or Independent Advisor to do or perform any act,

and any such order, if granted shall, be void and unenforceable and shall not be the subject of any process of execution whether for the purpose of compelling obedience of the order or otherwise.

[4] It has already been decided that the section is constitutional and bars the grant of injunctions against Danaharta (see Danaharta Urus Sdn Bhd v. Kekatong Sdn Bhd [2004] 1 CLJ 701) and that it excludes judicial review (see Pengurusan Danaharta Nasional Bhd v. Tang Kwor Ham & Ors and Anor Appeal [2007] 4 CLJ 513). But it must be said in fairness to the appellants that their counsel has reserved the right to re-argue the constitutionality point at the appropriate stage.

[5] The question we have to decide is this. Would the grant of an injunction against the receivers and managers appointed by Danaharta offend s. 72? The identical question came up before this court in the case of Marina Mohd Yusoff v. Pekeliling Triangle Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals [2008] 1 CLJ 169 where at p. 187, the court reproduced the following passage from the judgment of the High Court:

The Defendant by encl. 13 is in effect attempting to obtain indirectly an injunction against Danaharta. By stopping the Receiver and Manager from obtaining possession of the said building the defendant would have restrained Danaharta from its right to realize to charge over the land and building. Under section 72 of the Pengurusan Danaharta Nasional Berhad Act 1998 (Act 587) no injunctions order can be made against Danaharta or to affect its decision ...

Sulaiman Daud JCA after quoting the above passage went on to say this:

We fully agree with the learned Judge. In Pengurusan Danaharta Nasional Bhd v. Tang Kwor Ham & Ors And Another Appeal [2007] 4 CLJ 513, the Federal Court adopted with approval the decision in Tan Sri Dato' Tajuddin Ramli v. Pengurusan Danaharta Nasional Bhd & Ors [2002] 2 CLJ 758 and Kekatong Sdn Bhd v. Bumiputra-Commerce Bank Bhd & Anor [2002] 7 CLJ 175, which held that the court is precluded by the expressed provisions in the said s. 72 from granting any injunction or other restraining orders against the Corporation. Here we would add that the said prohibition also apply to a subsidiary of the Corporation by virtue of s. 60 of the Act.

[6] It is implicit that this court has already held in Marina Mohd Yusoff v. Pekeliling Triangle Sdn Bhd that an injunction granted against a receiver and manager would indirectly contravene s. 72 of the act. We must adopt and apply the decision in Marina Mohd Yusoff because this court is bound by it own decisions: Hendry v. Druz; [1949] MLJ Supp 25. We have