Haidar Mohd. Noor J:

The plaintiffs filed this Suit No. 19 of 1989 against the defendant on 17 May 1989. On 5 June 1989 the plaintiffs filed the amended statement of claim. There is nothing on record to show under what provisions or order the amended statement of claim was filed by the plaintiffs. I take it that the amended statement of claim was filed pursuant to O. 20 of Rules of the High Court 1980, that is, without the leave of the Court or at any time before the pleadings are deemed to be closed.

According to para. 23 of the amended statement of claim, the plaintiffs claim for:

(i) A declaration that the defendant has a vested interest in the outcome of Suit Nos. 17 of 1989, 23 of 1984 and 34 of 1984 and hence the defendant should refrain from participating in any discussions and/or decisions to be made by the board of directors in respect of the afore-mentioned suits and should be restrained from voting on issues concerning the said suits as per the provisions of Article 73 of the memorandum and articles of association of the bank.

(ii) An injunction restraining the defendant whether by himself, his servant or agent or proxy, or otherwise howsoever from attending participating in any discussions on the agenda and/or voting at the said directors meeting to be held on 9 June 1989 at 3 p.m. at No. 21, Wong Nai Siong Road, Sibu particularly in so far as it relates to Sibu High Court Suit No. 17 of 1989.

(iii) An injunction restraining the defendant whether by himself, his servant or agent or proxy, or otherwise howsoever from attending participating in any discussions and/or voting at any directors meeting to be held in the future in so far as it relates to matters arising from or connected in anyway whatsoever with decisions to be made or resolved in respect of Sibu High Court Suit Nos. 17 of 1989, 23 of 1984 and 34 of 1984.

(iv) An injunction restraining the defendant whether by himself his servant or agent or proxy, or otherwise howsoever from doing any other acts at any board of directors meeting which may prejudice the interest of the bank.

(v) Damages

(vi) Costs

(vii) Such further or other relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit and just in the circumstances.

On 8 June 1989, the plaintiffs filed a summons in chambers (Encl. 16) seeking for the following orders:

(i) An injunction to restrain the defendant from voting at the board of directors meeting of the Kong Ming Bank Berhad (hereinafter called the Bank) to be held on 9 June 1989 at 3.00 p.m. at No. 21, Wong Nai Siong Road, Sibu, in so far as it relates to Sibu High Court Suit No. 17 of 1989.

(ii) An injunction to restrain the defendant from voting at any board of directors meeting of the bank to be held in the future in so far as it relates to matters arising from or connected in anyway whatsoever with decisions to be made or resolved in connection with Sibu High Court Suit No. 17 of 1989.

(iii) An injunction to restrain the defendant from voting at any board of directors meeting of the bank to be held in the future in so far as it relates to matters arising from or connected in any way whatsoever with decisions to be made or resolved in connection with Sibu High Court Suit Nos. 23 of 1984 and 34 of 1984.

(iv) That the costs of this application be provided for.

The summons is supported by the affidavit of the second plaintiff, Dato Ling Beng King and also on behalf of the other plaintiffs.

The summons and the writ of summons with the amended statement of claim were personally served on the defendant on 8 June itself (Encl. 18 and 19). As the summons and the writ were served late on the defendant, Mr. Wong, Counsel for the defendant sought an adjournment and the application was granted with an undertaking by Mr. Wong that no consideration and decision will be taken on item 2 of the agenda of the board of directors meetings of the Kong Ming Bank Berhad till after disposal of the summons. The summons was accordingly adjourned to 11 August 1989.

When the