Elizabeth A/P Pariyanan v Morgun A/L V.Nadesan (BA-24NCvC-979-05/2025)

ELIZABETH A/P PARIYANAN (No. K/P: 711213-02-5668)

JOHNSON RAMASAMY A/L MARAN (No. K/P: 530924-08-5445)

NANTHINE A/P THIRUVENGIDAM (No. K/P: 820702-02-5696)

GUNASEKARAN A/L MARAN (No. K/P: 640425-08-6301) … PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF

MORGUN A/L V.NADESAN (No. K/P: 571221-01-6209) [Disaman sebagai Pengerusi Persatuan

USHAH DEVI A/P RAJAMANIKAM (No. K/P: 740521-14-5242)

MANISHADEVIE A/P MANIKUMAR (No. K/P: 901208-10-5070)

SANUSHA A/P MURUGAYA (No. K/P: 920528-14-5294)

MAYA VESVANATHAN (No. K/P: 860110-56-6022)

UTHAYARAAJ A/L BALAKRISHNAN (No. K/P: 851126-08-7005) ... DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT

This is an originating summons filed by the Plaintiffs, who are members and former office bearers of Persatuan Jagaan Kanak-Kanak Ekliptik Klang (“the Association”), seeking declaratory and injunctive reliefs concerning the validity of their removal and the appointment of new committee members. The controversy arises from the unilateral action of the First Defendant in removing the Plaintiffs from their positions and replacing them with the Second to Sixth Defendants.

At all material times, the Plaintiffs were members of the Association and held office as committee members, with the First S/N DtR6O0JfzEmf3J6nyiYag Plaintiff serving as Secretary. Their case is that the entire process by which they were removed and the Second to Sixth Defendants installed was unconstitutional, irregular and unlawful.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Second to Sixth Defendants were never validly admitted as members in accordance with clause 4(2) of the Association’s constitution. Without regularisation of membership, they could not lawfully be nominated nor elected to office.

The Plaintiffs further argue that no valid Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) was convened in compliance with clause 7(3)(c) of the constitution. The constitution requires that office bearers be elected at a duly convened Annual General Meeting. They emphasise that the Secretary, under clause 7(4), is the proper officer to issue notices of meetings and circulate agendas, yet the First Plaintiff was never directed to issue such notices.

It is also their case that the documentary trail relied on by the Defendants — including a notice of committee meeting dated 14 March 2025 and a letter of appointment of the Third Defendant as Secretary — is irregular. The attendance list includes individuals who were not valid members at the material time, the dates on proxies are inconsistent, and the minutes do not tally with contemporaneous records.

The Plaintiffs also rely on WhatsApp communications in which the First Defendant admitted to making changes in the Registrar S/N DtR6O0JfzEmf3J6nyiYag of Societies records to insert the names of the Second to Sixth Defendants as committee members. On 14 April 2025, the First Plaintiff was even barred from entering the Association’s premises, further evidencing the unilateral nature of the takeover.

The Defendants, in resisting the application, contend that this Court ought not to intervene. They submit that section 16 of the Societies Act 1966 vests the Registrar of Societies (“ROS”) with authority to resolve disputes of this nature. In their view, the Plaintiffs’ grievances fall squarely within the Registrar of Societies’ purview.

They also maintain that the Plaintiffs were validly removed at a committee meeting held on 22 March 2025. The First Plaintiff, in particular, was said to have been removed unanimously for failing to attend meetings and for dereliction of duty. In that same meeting, the Third Defendant was purportedly appointed as Secretary.

The Defendants further argue that the Plaintiffs’ allegations of fabricated documents and irregular minutes involve factual disputes that cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence alone. They say the matter should have proceeded by way of writ action rather than originating summons.

During the course of proceedings, it became apparent that the First, Second, Fifth and Sixth Defendants no longer held themselves out as office bearers of the Association. Only the S/N DtR6O0JfzEmf3J6nyiYag Third and Fourth Defendants continued to assert their positions as Secretary and Treasurer respectively.

Having considered the evidence and submissions, I am satisfied that the Plaintiffs have established serious irregularities in the removal and appointment exercise. The membership of the Second to Sixth Defendants was never regularised under clause 4(2) of the constitution. No valid Annual General Meeting was convened under clause 7(3)(c). The constitutional role of the Secretary under clause 7(4) was ignored.

The documentary evidence relied upon by the Defendants, including the notice of meeting of 14 March 2025 and the appointment letter of the Third Defendant, contains material inconsistencies when compared with contemporaneous exhibits. The Defendants have not discharged their burden of proving that the Plaintiffs were validly removed or that the Second to Sixth Defendants were lawfully appointed.

I, therefore find that the unilateral acts of the First Defendant in effecting changes to the Association’s committee and altering the Registrar of Societies records were unconstitutional and without lawful mandate. Such defects cannot be cured retrospectively by subsequent resolutions or adjustments.

On the preliminary objection, I do not accept that this Court lacks jurisdiction. Section 16 of the Societies Act 1966 does vest the Registrar of Societies with supervisory powers, but the courts have consistently held that judicial intervention is warranted where there is a breach of a society’s constitution or denial of natural justice. This principle was affirmed in Perak Indian Chamber of Commerce & Ors v Persons Unknown Who Claimed Themselves to Be Council Members of The Perak Indian Chamber of Commerce & Ors [2015] 3 MLRH 711 and Goh Say Joo and Others v Dato' Lim Ah Chap (disaman dalam jawatannya sebagai Presiden Persatuan Dewan Perniagaan Cina Jerantut, Pahang) [2004] MLJU 741.

The submission that this matter must proceed by way of writ action is similarly without merit. While allegations of fabrication are serious, the essential issue here is whether the constitutional procedures were observed. That question is capable of resolution on the affidavit and documentary record before the Court.

The Court must, however, approach relief with caution. It is not for the Court to entrench one faction over another but to restore constitutional order and allow the Association’s members to determine their leadership democratically.

In that light, I am of the view that the most just and equitable order is to reinstate the First Plaintiff (Secretary) and the First Defendant (President) for the limited purpose of convening and S/N DtR6O0JfzEmf3J6nyiYag conducting a lawful Annual General Meeting of the Association. Such Annual General Meeting must be held within 2 months of this judgment.

This approach restores constitutional balance, ensures that the Association’s membership exercises its rights through proper procedures, and avoids further unilateral control by either side.

For the reasons above, the Court makes the following declarations and orders: Declarations

The purported removal of the Plaintiffs and appointment of the Second to Sixth Defendants as committee members of the Association are unconstitutional, null and void.

All meetings, decisions and actions taken by the Second to Sixth Defendants in their purported capacity as committee members are invalid. Reinstatement for Annual General Meeting

The First Plaintiff and First Defendant are reinstated as Secretary and President respectively for the sole purpose of S/N DtR6O0JfzEmf3J6nyiYag convening and conducting a valid Annual General Meeting of the Association.

The Annual General Meeting shall be convened and concluded within 2 months from the date of this judgment in strict accordance with the constitution of the Association. Registrar of Societies (ROS)

The Registrar of Societies shall rectify its records to reflect the reinstatement of the First Plaintiff and First Defendant as Secretary and President respectively, pending the conduct of the Annual General Meeting as directed above. Costs

Costs of RM3,000.00 are awarded to the Plaintiffs. Dated: 24 November 2025 -sgd-DATO’ ANITA BINTI HARUN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA SHAH ALAM SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN S/N DtR6O0JfzEmf3J6nyiYag To the parties’ solicitors: For the Plaintiffs : Tan Zhi Xian (Messrs Kuek, Ong & Associates) For the Defendants : Ravindran a/l Kumarayeloo (Messrs Chew & Saifullah) S/N DtR6O0JfzEmf3J6nyiYag