Back
2025 MarsdenLR 6253
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA KUANTAN
GOLDEN MINERALS SDN BHD LWN. THARMANANDAN THANGAMUTHU
[Guaman Sivil No: CA-22NCVC-44-11/2019]
The court upheld the principle that a corporate veil may only be lifted in instances of fraud or misuse, reinforcing ownership rights of legitimate asset holders against wrongful seizures.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Writ of Seizure and Sale - Principles of corporate veil lifting - Defendan issued writ against Plaintiff's assets believing they belonged to a different company; Plaintiff claimed wrongful seizure leading to losses of RM627,400.12. Court established principle of corporate separateness and legislative framework under Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah (KKM) 2012, A 45 k 1(1) confirming enforcement procedures and burden of proof for ownership during asset seizure - (Paras 15, 36, 50).
(B) Ownership and Possession - The court found that at the time of seizure, the assets rightfully belonged to the Plaintiff, demonstrated by corporate resolutions confirming title transfer, thus ruling that Defendant, as the judgment debtor, was liable for the wrongful seizure. Tindakan Defendan menyesatkan peruntukan undang-undang dan menempatkan beban pembuktian yang salah - (Paras 40, 43, 54).
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, a registered company, claimed that the Defendant seized its assets under the mistaken belief they were owned by Alam Etikaa Resources (M) Sdn Bhd, leading to significant economic losses for the Plaintiff due to inability to lease machinery. The Defendant asserted knowledge of the ownership structure - (Paras 3, 9, 10).
Findings of Court:
The Court found the Plaintiff had demonstrated ownership of the seized assets and the Defendant's actions to seize them were unjustified. Damages for loss of rental income were awarded - (Paras 53, 54).
Issues: The court addressed whether the Plaintiff's assets were subject to seizure and if corporate structures conceal liability for execution creditors. The permissibility of lifting the corporate veil based on evidence of fraud or misuse was also examined - (Paras 36, 37).
Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that the Plaintiff’s ownership was substantively supported by corporate documents that legitimized ownership transfer and that the Defendant failed to adequately prove an ownership claim, leading the Court to uphold the Plaintiff's right against wrongful acts - (Paras 41, 42).
Result: Plaintiff's claim allowed; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed, with damages awarded totaling RM102,461.88 and costs of RM10,000.00 - (Paras 54).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of case filed and judgments observed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. agreed facts regarding execution of orders. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. claims and defenses of parties presented. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. analysis of enforcement principles under the law. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. legal standards for proving ownership in asset seizure cases. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. evidence reviewed regarding asset ownership and transactions. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 7. testimonies analyzed regarding asset sales and implications. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 8. corporate veil lifting principles discussed. (Para 35 , 36) |
| 9. discussion on whether to pierce the corporate veil. (Para 37 , 38) |
| 10. court decision on asset ownership and actions by defendants. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 11. counterclaims raised and court's observations. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 12. analysis of counterclaims and rulings. (Para 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 13. determination of damages. (Para 52 , 53) |
Pendahuluan
[1] Kes ini asalnya difailkan di Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Kuantan, Pahang. Pada 11 Disember 2019 penghakiman ingkar kehadiran telah dimasukkan terhadap Defendan bagi jumlah RM1,127,400.12.
[2] Permohonan dikemukakan di hadapan Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Kuantan untuk mengenepikan penghakiman ingkar kehadiran tersebut. Ia telah ditolak pada 4 Mac 2021. Pada 8 September 2022 Mahkamah Rayuan telah membenarkan rayuan dan mengenepikan penghakiman ingkar kehadiran. Mahkamah Rayuan memerintahkan kes ini didengar oleh Mahkamah ini.
[3] Plaintif adalah sebuah syarikat berdaftar. Sementara Defendan adalah seorang individu.
[4] Pada 12 Februari 2019 Defendan telah hadir ke pejabat perniagaan Plaintif untuk melaksanakan writ penyitaan dan penjualan bertarikh 20 Disember 2018 bagi kes CA-56WSL-3-01/2019. Ia adalah melalui tindakan Defendan terhadap Alam Etikaa Resources (M) Sdn Bhd.
[5] Penelitian kepada dokumen di KM 119 (Ikatan Dokumen C) mendapati bahawa writ penyitaan dan penjualan itu berasal dari award Mahkamah Perusahaan No 669 Tahun 2018 Tharmanandan Thangamuthu v. Alam Etikaa Resources Sdn Bhd iaitu award asal Mahkamah Perusahaan.
[6] Sementara itu, kes Tharmanandan Thangamuthu v. Alam Etikaa Resources (m) Sdn Bhd ; [2017] 2 ILR 631 iaitu award ketidakpatuhan award Mahkamah Perusahaan No 584 Tahun 2017 yang mengesahkan ketidakpatuhan award asal oleh Alam Etikaa Resources (M) Sdn Bhd. Ia kemudiannya didaftarkan di Mahkamah Sesyen melalui Borang T di bawah s 56(4). Ia kemudiannya didaftarkan sebagai WA-56WS-219-12/2018 yang menjadi asas kepada writ penyitaan dan pelaksanaan seperti di ms 44 KM 119.
Fakta Yang Dipersetujui Oleh Pihak-Pihak
[7] Fakta-fakta yang dipersetujui oleh pihak-pihak dalam kes ini ialah pada 12 Februari 2019 Defendan bersama-sama wakil daripada Mahkamah Sesyen Kuantan, Pahang telah berada di alamat B-238, Tingkat 2, Jalan Dato' Lim Hoe Leck, 25200 Kuantan, Pahang yang dikenali sebagai Premis A untuk melaksanakan perintah writ penyitaan dan penjualan bertarikh 20 Disember 2018 terhadap syarikat Alam Etikaa Resources (M) Sdn Bhd.
[8] Pada 28 Februari 2019 Defendan bersama-sama wakil daripada Mahkamah Sesyen Kuantan, Pahang telah hadir ke premis di Lot No 123926 (PA 138132), Kawasan Sungai Panching Utara, Mukim Kuala Kuantan, Daerah Kuantan, Pahang iaitu Premis B untuk melaksanakan writ penyitaan dan penjualan terhadap Alam Etikaa Resources (M) Sdn Bhd.
Tuntutan Pihak Plaintif Dan Pembelaan Defendan
[9] Asas kepada tuntutan pihak Plaintif ialah dakwaan yang menyatakan bahawa Defendan telah melakukan writ penyitaan dan penjualan terhadap jentera-jentera yang dimiliki oleh Plaintif dan bukannya milik Alam Etikaa Resources (M) Sdn Bhd. Ekoran daripada penerusan writ penyitaan dan penjualan tersebut, Plaintif menyatakan dia telah mengalami kerugian yang dinyatakan di perenggan [23] penyata tuntutan sebanyak RM 627,400.12. Ia adalah ekoran daripada jentera-jentera kepunyaan Plaintif tidak dapat disewakan ke
