Ramly Ali J:

THE PARTIES

[1]The first plaintiff is a company having its registered office at Lot 2398, Jalan Connaught Bridge, 41300 Klang, Selangor. The second plaintiff is the Managing Director of the first plaintiff. The third plaintiff is the Deputy Managing Director of the first plaintiff. Initially, the second and third plaintiffs were parties to the present suit. However, they have been struck off as parties and the plaintiff company (first plaintiff) is now the sole plaintiff.

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

At all material times, the first plaintiff was a customer of the defendant operating the following accounts:

(a)one current Account No 1206–7074603–01–0 including an autopay system to pay salaries for its staff, employees and directors;

(b)one term loan facility account No: 1206–0000556–95–0;

(c)11 fixed deposit 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

The plaintiff's cause of action centers on two 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.

The defendant had received both the garnishee orders to show cause on 15 October 1999 at 11.30 am and thereafter the defendant had frozen all the plaintiff's accounts from 15 October 1996 to 22 October 1999 for eight days (or 7 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 10.00 am) 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

On 15 October 1999, at 14.30 pm 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 been allowed to be utilised by the plaintiff eventhough 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.

At the material time 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.

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 which had been dishonoured by the defendant and the words ‘FROZEN ACCOUNT’ printed and two cheques printed with the words ‘REFER TO DRAWER’.

Among the 14 cheques dishonoured by the defendant, there were 2 cheques (cheque No 292692 and 292693) issued to the EPF for the amount of RM15,734.00 and Perkeso (cheque No 292747) for the amount of RM890.50. The plaintiff had been imposed penalty by the EPF due to the dishonoured 2 cheques.

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

From the statement of claim, the plaintiff's claims are based on three allegations of facts, namely:

(a)the defendant had wrongly froze the plaintiff's account from 15 October 1999 to 22 October 1999 (first allegation);

(b)the defendant ha