Dato' Hussian @ Rizal bin A. Rahman v Jayanthi A/P Kupusamy (Dalam Kapasiti Persendirian dan Sebagai Pengarah Pesuruhjaya Bangunan (COB) MBPJ) (BA-22NCvC-126-03/2024)

DATO’ HUSSIAN @ RIZAL BIN A. RAHMAN … PLAINTIFFS [IDENTITY CARD NO. : 620419-12-5345]

WAN BADRUL HISHAM BIN WAN ABDULLAH [IDENTITY CARD NO. : 611216-11-5169]

SYAMSUL ANWAR BIN ABDUL AZIZ [IDENTITY CARD NO. : 740711-10-5049]

JAYANTHI A/P KUPUSAMY … DEFENDANTS [IN A PRIVAVE CAPACITY AND AS DIRECTOR OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BUILDING (COB) PETALING JAYA CITY COUNCIL]

THE COMMISSIONER OF BUILDING

PARVEEN KAUR SINDHU A/P SARJIT SINGH SINDHU [UNIT OWNER A-12A-A09 ARMANEE TERRACE]

LOGENDRAN A/L S. POOBALASINGAM [UNIT OWNER A-02-B09 ARMANEE TERRACE]

SHAWN SURESH SELVENTHIRANATHAN [UNIT OWNER B-12-B06 ARMANEE TERRACE]

AHMAD FEIZAL BIN SULAIMAN KHAN [UNIT OWNER A-G-B09 ARMANEE TERRACE]

AMARJEET KAUR A/P BALWANT SINGH [IDENTITY CARD NO. : 631108-07-5962] 22/01/2025 16:16:32 BA-22NCvC-126-03/2024 Kand. 191 [UNIT OWNER B-12B-A07 ARMANEE TERRACE]

ASHOK KUMAR A/L JAYANTILAL [IDENTITY CARD NO. : 540625-71-5047] [UNIT OWNER A-15-B09 ARMANEE TERRACE]

CELESTINE A/L T.S. VINCENT [IDENTITY CARD NO. : 590722-10-6193] [UNIT OWNER A-11-C09 ARMANEE TERRACE]

GANANATHAN A/L SAMARASAN [IDENTITY CARD NO. : 630903-07-6281] [UNIT OWNER A-06-B06 ARMANEE TERRACE]

MEVIN NEVIS AF NEVIS [IDENTITY CARD NO. : 540728-10-5989] [UNIT OWNER A-11-A03A ARMANEE TERRACE]

SHAVAN A/L GOPALAKRISHNAN [IDENTITY CARD NO. : 871215-08-5317] [UNIT OWNER A-07-A01 ARMANEE TERRACE]

SONIA MICHELLE A/P MICHAEL [IDENTITY CARD NO. : 890811-14-5746] [UNIT OWNER B-12A-B08 ARMANEE TERRACE] GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 4) A. INTRODUCTION [1] This Court granted the plaintiffs an ex-parte Interim Injunction Order on 27.3.2024. Enclosure 4 was then heard inter parte, and on 22.11.2024 this Court dismissed it with costs. B. SALIENT FACTS [2] The plaintiffs are the residents of the unit in Armanee Terrace Condominium as well as the 3rd to the 13th Defendants. The 1st defendant is the Director of the 2nd defendant. [3] On 24.09.2023, an Annual General Meeting for the 13 th Joint Management Committee of Armanee Terrace Condominium (‘13th AGM ATC’) was held at Dewan Komuniti BU11, Perumahan BU 11/12 Bandar Utama, 47400 Petaling Jaya, Selangor. [4] In the Statement of Claim, the 1st plaintiff is introduced as the Chairman of JMC and the 2nd and 3rd plaintiff as members of JMC. [5] The conflict between the plaintiffs and the 3rd to 6th defendants arose from this 13th AGM ATC. The plaintiffs averred that the 3rd defendant made three attempts to seize the power and authority of the 1st plaintiff. The plaintiff pleaded that the meeting registration process could not be carried out smoothly because the 3rd defendant, 4th defendant and some of the 3rd defendant's cronies had caused a commotion by preventing proxies from registering and entering the meeting hall. [6] The Chairman of the AGM has informed the parties that there are 13 nominees for JMC members for the 2023/2024 term, which was subsequently reduced to 12 nominees. These include the 6th defendant, 1st plaintiff, 4th defendant, 3rd defendant, and 3rd and 2nd plaintiff. According to the plaintiffs, the Joint Management Body (JMB) has decided that the issuance of absence does not affect and impair the selection and membership of the candidates. This was because the proxies representing them were present at the material time, and the representatives of the 2nd defendant did not make any objection. [7] The plaintiff further pleaded that the third defendant continued her attempt to seize power in the first JMC meeting, which was held on 7.10.2023. The members of the JMC have nominated two names to hold the position of Chairman of Armanee Terrace JMC, the first plaintiff and the third defendant, and the first plaintiff has been appointed as the Chairman. [8] The plaintiff discovered that the 3rd defendant and the Office Manager had rummaged through all the proxy forms for the AGM-13 and complained to the 2nd defendant that the plaintiff's membership was invalid. [9] The counsel for 3rd to 6th defendants summarise the facts of this case as follows-

During the 13th AGM ATC, there were certain irregularities as follows: - i) The 1st Plaintiff claimed that he was representing four units, whereas the four units belonged to a company, which is LMS Digital Sdn Bhd and LMS Technology Distributions Sdn Bhd. No proxy forms and letters of authorisation from these companies were submitted. ii) During the election, the 1st Plaintiff was not present, and an owner named Natasha De Alwis came forward and claimed that she was the proxy for the 1st Plaintiff. However, in the attendance list, Ms. Natasha was only representing her own unit, which is A-12A-C03A. iii) The 2nd Plaintiff, had appointed Ms. Chin Yuen Wen as a proxy for his unit, unit B-8-B02A. However, Ms. Chin Yuen Wen was a registered proxy for unit B-17-C01, her jointly owned unit with Mr. Lim See Ann. Furthermore, during the 13th AGM, Ms. Chin Yuen Wen claimed that she did not know who the 2nd Plaintiff was. iv) During the 13th JMC ATC, Third Plaintiff was not present for the nomination and election of the new 13th JMC of Armanee Terrace. He further did not appoint any proxy to be his representative during the AGM.

(b)

On 5.1.2024, the 2nd Defendant had replied to the 3rd Defendant whereby it was stated that they could not verify the Plaintiffs’ validity as members of the 13th JMC ATC.

Subsequently, on 27.02.2024, the 2nd Defendant issued a letter to request the 13th JMB ATC to hold an Emergency General Meeting (‘EGM’) to appoint new members for the 13th JMC ATC. [10] The 7th to 13th defendants are also residents of Armanee Terrace Condominium. They applied to intervene in this proceeding, and this court allowed their Notice of Application (Enclosure 72). C. THE INJUNCTION APPLICATION [11] The plaintiffs are seeking an interim injunction as follows –

Plaintif-plaintif diberi kebenaran untuk memfailkan permohonan ini;

Satu perintah injunksi interim terhadap defendan pertama dan kedua daripada mengambil sebarang langkah-langkah lanjut bagi persiapan bagi Mesyuarat Agung Luar Biasa (EGM) sehingga satu Agen Pengurusan berkecuali dilantik bagi tujuan tersebut;

Satu perintah injunksi terhadap defendan ketiga, keempat, kelima dan keenam dan/atau melalui agen atau proksi dalam apa jua cara daripada mengambil sebarang langkah untuk mengendalikan Mesyuarat Agung Luar Biasa (EGM) sehingga satu Agen Pengurusan dilantik di bawah Akta 757;

Satu perintah injunksi interim terhadap defendan ketiga, defendan keempat, defendan kelima dan defendan keenam daripada menggunakan dana JMB bagi membiayai Guaman ini;

Satu perintah menghalang defendan-defendan sama ada secara kediri dan/atau melalui agen dan/atau proksi mengambil sebarang langkah yang menganggu gugat keupayaan plaintif-plaintif daripada menjalankan obligasi mereka sebagai Pengerusi dan Ahli JMC;

Satu perintah injunksi menghalang defendan-defendan ketiga, keempat, kelima dan keenam secara kediri dan/atau melalui agen dan/atau proksinya daripada menulis, mengedarkan atau pun menyebabkan penerbitan sebarang majalah dan/atau risalah dan /atau memo dan/atau sebarang penerbitan yang bertujuan atau berpotensi menganggu gugat keharmonian dan ketenteraman di Armanee Terrace;

Satu perintah bahawa defendan kedua menggunakan kuasa di bawah Akta 757 bagi melantik seorang Agen Pengurus (Managing Agent) untuk mengendalikan EGM dan AGM untuk memastikan EGM dan AGM dijalankan dengan telus dan berintegrasi. D. LEGAL PRINCIPLES [12] The principle of granting an interlocutory injunction is settled. In the application of an interlocutory injunction, I am guided by the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Alor Janggus Soon Seng Trading Sdn Bhd & Ors v Sey Hoe Sdn Bhd & Ors [1995] 1 CLJ 461 as follows: [5] at an interlocutory proceeding for an injunction, the Court must be satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried, which issue, before anything else, must first be established by the applicant. [13] This Court is also guided by the principle laid in Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v Mohd Noor bin Abdullah [1995] 1 MLJ 193. The Court of Appeal summarise that a judge hearing an application for an interlocutory injunction should undertake an inquiry along the following lines:

The judge asks himself whether the totality of the facts presented before him discloses a bona fidei serious issue to be tried. When considering this question, he must remember that the pleadings and evidence are incomplete. Above all, he must refrain from determining the merits of the claim or any defence to it. It is sufficient if he identifies with precision the issues raised on the joinder and decides whether these are serious enough to merit a trial. Next, after finding a serious question to be tried, this court should move on to its next inquiry step as follows-

(ii) I must consider where the justice of this case lies. In making this assessment, I must consider all relevant matters, including the practical realities of the case before me. I must also weigh the harm that the injunction would produce by its grant against the harm resulting from its refusal. This court is entitled to consider, inter alia, the relative financial standing of the litigants. If, after weighing all matters, this court concludes that the plaintiff would suffer greater injustice if relief is withheld, then the plaintiff is entitled to the relief, especially if this court is satisfied that the plaintiff is in a financial position to meet his undertaking in damages. Similarly, if this court concludes that the defendant would suffer the greater injustice by granting an injunction, this court would be entitled to refuse relief.

(iii) This Court is also entitled to consider all discretionary considerations, such as delay in making the application or any question going to the public interest. E. ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED [14] The relevant issue to be decided by this Court are as follows:

Whether there is a bona fidei serious issue that needs to be tried.

(ii) Whether the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction.

(iii) Whether damages are an adequate remedy Issue 1: Whether there is a bona fidei serious issue that needs to be tried. [15] Guided by the above principle and after reading and evaluating the affidavits and submissions by both parties, this Court finds that the affidavits filed by all parties establish conflicting facts and issues regarding the validity of the plaintiff's membership in the JMC Armanee Terrace and the allegation that the 1st and 2nd defendants misused their power. [16] If I were to consider the legality of the said nomination and allegation as a serious question, it requires consideration at the trial and should not have been discussed in detail at this stage. [17] However, after reading and evaluating the submission by all parties, I am of the view that the crux of the issues in this matter is related to the function of 1st defendant and JMC as stipulated under the Strata Management Act 2013 (SMA 2013). [18] The defendants submit that the Plaintiffs' actions during the 13th AGM ATC were not in accordance with SMA 2013. In the case of Innab Salil & Ors v Verve Suites Mont' Kiara Management Corp [2020] 12 MLJ 1622, the Federal Court held that – [25] A statute is said to be a 'social legislation' when Parliament passes the statute for a beneficent reason with the intention to ease or facilitate the affairs of or protect a certain section or group of persons (see Hoh Kiang Ngan v Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia & Anor (1995) 3 MLJ 369; Veronica Lee Ha Ling & Ors v Maxisegar Sdn Bhd (2011) 2 MLJ 141). [26] The SMA 2013 is, without doubt, a social legislation. It was passed to facilitate the affairs of strata living for the good of the community or owners of the strata title. Being social in nature, the provisions of the SMA 2013, which safeguard community interests ought to receive a liberal interpretation and not a restricted or rigid one... [19] As the issue of proxy has emerged in the submission by parties, this Court refers to the following provisions in the SMA 2013 as follows –

Subparagraph 2 (7) (b) of Second Schedule SMA 2013 A person shall not be eligible for election as a member of the management corporation unless he is an individual of at least twenty-one years of age and who-is nominated for election by a proprietor of a parcel which is a company, society, statutory body or any other body;

(ii) Subparagraph 2 (8) (b) of Second Schedule SMA 2013 For the avoidance of doubt, a proxy appointed by a proprietor shall not be eligible for election.

(iii) Subparagraph 2 (13) of Second Schedule SMA 2013 An absent proprietor shall not be nominated for election as a member of the management committee unless he has appointed a proxy and has given his written consent to be nominated and elected as a member of the management committee.

(iv) Subparagraph 18 (1) (b) of Second Schedule SMA 2013 An instrument appointing a proxy, who need not be a proprietor, shall be in in writing - If the proprietor appointing the proxy is a company, society, statutory body or any other body, either under seal or under the hand of an officer or its attorney duly authorised.

Subparagraph 18 (2) of Second Schedule SMA 2013 An instrument appointing a proxy if made under the hand of an attorney shall be accompanied with a copy of the power of attorney.

(vi) Subparagraph 18 (4) of Second Schedule SMA 2013 A person may act as proxy for only the proprietor at any one general meeting.

(vii) Subparagraph 18 (5) of Second Schedule SMA 2013 The instrument appointing proxy shall be deposited at the registered address of the management corporation not less than forty-eight hours before the time for holding the meeting or any adjournment of the meeting at which the person named in the instrument proposes to vote, failing which the proxy shall not be entitled to attend or vote.

(viii) Subparagraph 23 of Second Schedule SMA 2013 A proprietor who is not a natural person may be represented in any meeting as follows:

If the proprietor is a company, by its representative duly authorized under its seal or the hand of its director, or by any duly authorized attorney or by its appointed proxy.

If the proprietor is a company where a receiver or a receiver and manager is appointed, by the receiver or the receiver and manager or a person duly authorized by the receiver or the receiver and manager or by its appointed proxy. [20] Furthermore, the plaintiffs have questioned the 1st defendant’s letter dated 16.1.2024 responding to the 3rd defendant's complaint. According to the plaintiffs, the 1st defendant did not make any investigation and decided that the dismissal of the 3rd defendant during the 3rd JMC meeting on 19.12.2023 is invalid, and the 1st defendant has acted bias and unprofessionalism by interfering in the JMC’s internal affairs. The 1st defendant’s letter has stated as follows –

The 3rd defendant was dismissed by two members of the JMC, namely the 1st plaintiff and Francis Tan Loke Sing;

(ii) That the action of the two individuals in question to fire the 3rd defendant is not in accordance with the provisions of Act 757;

(iii) That the dismissal of the members of the management committee should be through a resolution at an extraordinary general meeting. [21] The defendants also questioned the legality in the appointment of Plaintiffs during the 13th AGM of Armanee Terrace Condominium on 24th September 2023. Defendants submit that due to that issue, the 3rd Defendant had written a letter to the Second Defendant to investigate the matter. The 2nd Defendant letter had issued out a letter dated 5.1.2024. In the said letter, the 2nd Defendant mentioned that they are unable to verify the Plaintiffs’ validity as the members of the 13th JMC and subsequently issued a letter dated 27.02.2024 and 08.03.2024, in which the letter had requested the 13th JMC ATC to hold an EGM in 6 weeks from the date of the letter. However, the plaintiffs remain silent. Instead, they have filed an injunction against the defendants from holding the EGM. [22] In support of their argument, the defendants refer to the case of Muhamad Nazri bin Muhamad v JMB Menara Rajawali & Anor [2020] 3 MLJ 64517, which held – [36] As a creature of statute, the powers of the JMB are limited and circumscribed by the SMA 2013 which regulate it, and extend no further than is expressly stated therein, or is necessarily and properly required for carrying into effect the purposes of its establishment, or may be fairly regarded as incidental to, or consequential upon, those things which the legislature has authorised. What the SMA 2013 does not expressly or impliedly authorize is to be taken to be prohibited. [23] Given the above principle, I am with the defendants. In any event, as the 2nd defendant, via its letter dated 27.02.2024, has authorised the EGM, Plaintiff, if unsatisfied with the 2nd defendant’s decision, should either refer the matter to the Strata Management Tribunal ("Tribunal"), which is a recourse provided under the Fourth Schedule, Part 1 of SMA 2013, instead of filing an originating summons against the Defendants. The disputes and relief sought by the Plaintiff fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. [24] In Perbadanan Pengurusan Bay Avenue v. Leong Wooi Kit [2022] 1 LNS 103218 the court held that - [21] In this case, there was an order by the COB that prevented the Plaintiff from conducting the election. This order stands, until it is varied by the COB. The fact that the Plaintiff is complaining that the COB doesn't have the power to stop the election is not for this court to decide. If any, the Plaintiff should have acted against the COB. As far as this court is concerned, that issue is irrelevant for this court to decide. These disputes can only be solved through a domestic avenue between the management and the COB. On the issues of mismanagement, fraud, and elections, all are within the power of the residents to solve through the EGM or AGM. This was not done. In this case, the immunity under Paragraph 8, Second Schedule of the Strata Management Act 2013 is also in dispute. [25] I was also guided by the principle in Sri Bangunan Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang & Anor [2007] 5 CLJ 673, in which the Federal Court held that – Court duty is limited to interpreting the words used by the legislature and to give effect to the words used by it. [26] Therefore, as laid out in the above cases, JMC being the creatures of the SMA 2013, all parties concerned should follow the provision in the SMA, including the appointment and disqualification of the JMC members. [27] I also refer to my grounds of judgment for Enclosure 18, the defendants' application to set aside the ex-parte interim injunction. Without repeating the reasons herein, I shall state that one of the reasons this Court allowed the application was that the plaintiffs failed to make full and frank disclosure. [28] In this regard, the learned counsel for the 7th to 13th defendants refer to the Court of Appeal decision in Damayanti Kantilal Doshi & Anor v Jigarlal Kantilal Doshi [2004] 1 MLJ 45621, where Richard Malanjum JCA held that: [23] Next, on the issue of material non-disclosure of the earlier orders we are inclined to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the paramount consideration is whether the justice of the case requires the granting of the interim injunction on the facts presented in an inter parte hearing despite the making of an ex parte order earlier on. Of course, that would entail an examination of the manner in which the non-disclosure was carried out. Indeed, if it amounted to an abuse of process then that would have justified the court in taking the punitive step in not only setting aside the ex parte order but also refusing the subsequent application irrespective of its merits. There are a host of judicial pronouncements on this point. We need only to cite a few. [29] In the case of Salcon Engineering Sdn Bhd v PRM Energy Systems (M) Sdn Bhd [1993] 3 MLJ 64, Anuar J (as he then was) said this at p 66: …In my judgment, where the non-disclosure is very serious so as to amount to a positive misleading of the court, then it becomes a matter which goes into the balance when considering the probity and bona fides of the applicant. In such circumstances, the court will look at the applicant with a high degree of circumspection… [30] In answering the 1st issue, this Court finds that no serious issues need to be tried. Issue 2: Whether the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction. [31] The plaintiff averred that the balance of convenience tilts toward granting the injunction because, among other things, the 3rd to 6th defendants, through the 1st and 2nd defendants, have taken active steps to seize the power of the 1st plaintiff as the Chairman of the KMC of Armanee Terrace. [32] As decided in the case of Keet Gerald Francis Noel John, the Court of Appeal in SV Beverages Holdings Sdn Bhd & Ors v Kickapoo

(M) Sdn Bhd [2008] 4 MLJ 187 also held that public interest is a relevant consideration in granting an interim injunction. As clearly mentioned in the case of Innab Salil & Ors v Verve Suites Mont' Kiara Management Corp (supra), the SMA 2013 is a social legislation statute to facilitate the affairs and to protect certain group of persons. [33] After considering all relevant matters, including the practical realities of this case, I believe granting an injunction would cause the defendants to suffer greater injustice. [34] I agree with the defendant's submission that the balance of convenience must be weighed in favour of dismissing the inter partes injunction application because the harm outweighs the benefit of granting the injunction. Furthermore, the first and second defendants averred that they are public officers under section 145 and protected under section 147 of the Strata Management Act 2013. Section 417 provides as follows-

Public servant The Commissioner, any Deputy Commissioner or other officer appointed under subsection 4(1), or any authorized officer referred to in subsection 125(1) while discharging his duty or performing his functions or exercising his powers under this Act in such capacity shall be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of the Penal Code [Act 574].” [35] This Court refers to section 145 of the SMA 2013 which states – “No action, suit, prosecution or other proceedings shall lie or be brought, instituted or maintained in any court against — (a) the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or other officers appointed under subsection 4(1); … …in respect of any act, neglect or default done or committed by him or it, in good faith or any omission by him or it in good faith, in such capacity.”. [36] Based on the contemporaneous documents exhibited before this Court, I find that the 1st and 2nd defendant did not act in their own personal capacity. [37] By letter dated 27.2.2024, the 1st defendant instructed the JMC of Armanee Terrace to conduct an Extraordinary General Meeting pursuant to subparagraph 11(2)(b), Second Schedule of Act 757. Paragraph 3 of the said letter stated as follows –

Sehubungan itu, selaras dengan peruntukan subperenggan 11(2)(b), Jadual kedua Akta 757, pentadbiran ini mengarahkan pihak tuan untuk mengadakan mesyuarat agung luar biasa (EGM) dengan agenda pembubaran dan pemilihan semula anggota jawatankuasa pengurusan. [38] Until now, the issue of the legality of the Plaintiffs’ nomination and appointment remains unresolved. If the injunction order is granted, the Plaintiffs would be allowed to prolong their tenure as chairman and members of JMC. Any decision made by the Plaintiffs would have legal repercussions on the rights and interests of Armanee Terrace Condominium unit owners and the successors of JMC. Besides that, the 7th to 13th defendants and all other Armanee Terrace Condominium unit owners are deprived of their voting rights in the next AGM/EGM. [39] The 1st and 2nd defendants refer to paragraph 11 Second Schedule of SMA 2013 which provides as follows –

Extraordinary general meetings

A general meeting of the management corporation other than the annual general meeting shall be known as the extraordinary general meeting.

The management committee—

shall convene an extraordinary general meeting upon a requisition in writing made by the proprietors who are together entitled to at least one-quarter of the aggregate share units;

shall convene an extraordinary general meeting upon receiving a direction in writing from the Commissioner for the transaction of such business as the Commissioner may direct; and

may convene an extraordinary general meeting on such other occasion as it thinks fit.

The requisition shall state the objects of the meeting and shall be signed by the requisitionist and deposited at the registered office of the management corporation, and may consist of several documents in like form each signed by one or more requisitionists.

The extraordinary general meeting shall be held as soon as practicable but in any case not later than six weeks after—

the requisition has been deposited at the registered office of the management corporation; or

receiving a direction in writing from the Commissioner under subsubparagraph (2)(b).

If—

the Commissioner is satisfied that the management committee has not been properly constituted; or

the management committee fails to convene the extraordinary general meeting within the time period stipulated in subparagraph

(4), the Commissioner may authorize in writing any person to convene an extraordinary general meeting for such purposes as may be approved by the Commissioner. [40] Based on the above reasons, this Court find that the balance of convenience must be weighed in favour of dismissing the inter partes injunction. Issue 3: Whether damages are an adequate remedy [41] The 3rd to 6th defendants submitted that under the SMA 2013, an EGM is the only avenue available to Armanee Terrace Condominium unit owners to demand a proper election committee of the 13th JMC ATC to be conducted according to SMA 2013. I agree with the learned counsel for the 3rd to 6th defendants that Enclosure 4 relies on grounds centred on the interest of the plaintiffs and not for the benefits of the unit owners as a whole. [42] Having perused the affidavits filed by the plaintiff, I am with the defendants that the plaintiff has also failed to show this Court any damage they would suffer if the injunction order was not granted. In Network Pet Products (M) Sdn Bhd v Royal Canin SAS & Anor [2013] 8 MLJ 713, the court held that – … The plaintiff also have failed to show that irreparable harm or damage would be caused to them and that such harm or damage would place them in an irretrievable position incapable of remedy by way of damages. F. CONCLUSION [43] In the end, the plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 4 has no merit. Therefore, Enclosure 4 is dismissed, with costs of RM3,000.00 to each of the defendant subject to the allocator. [44] The Court also ordered that the management of the JMC shall be surrendered to the Committee members who were appointed in the EGM on 30.3.2023 within 2 days of working days from the date of this Order. Dated: 22nd January 2025 Signed ........................................................... HAZIZAH KASSIM Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya at Shah Alam (NCvC10)

For the Plaintiff : Vigneswaran Raju dan Sheela Das Tetuan The Chambers of Waran (Kajang, Selangor)

For the 1st and 2nd : Eng Yi Wang Defendant Tetuan Armiy Rais (Petaling Jaya, Selangor) For the 3rd to : Danaashini a/p Thiruselvam 6th Defendant Tetuan Law Chambers of Vin Sa & Ian (Johor Bahru, Johor) For the 7th to 13th : Dinesh Praveen Nair Defendant Tetuan Dinesh Praveen Nair (Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur)