1. ) Umar Bin Ali Bashah @ Ali Bashah v 1. ) Mujur Zaman Sdn. Bhd. (WA-22NCvC-575-08/2021)

UMAR BIN ALI BASHAH @ ALI BASAH (bagi pihak dirinya dan semua anggota Jawatankuasa Bertindak Projek Terbengkalai Alam Mutiara Dan Alam Utama [seperti yang disenaraikan dalam Bahagian A di Jadual 1 bagi Perjanjian Penyelesaian antara persatuan tersebut, Defendan Pertama dan Ke-2 dan Paragon Pinnacle Sdn Bhd bertarikh 11-1-2016 dan yang mewakili peneroka-peneroka yang disenaraikan dalam Lampiran 1 dan 2 bagi Perjanjian tersebut termasuk 987 peneroka yang berhak mendapat unit perumahan])

LOGHAN LAW OFFICE (suatu firma) … PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF

1.

2.

3.

ABRAHAM OOI & PARTNERS (suatu firma) 27/08/2025 17:01:44 WA-22NCvC-575-08/2021 Kand. 245 … DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN (TINDAKAN ASAL)

1.

LIPUTAN CANGGIH SDN BHD … PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF

TETUAN DAIM & GAMANY (didakwa sebagai suatu firma guaman)

LOGHAN LAW OFFICE (didakwa sebagai suatu firma guaman)

HADRONS CONSULTING SDN BHD … DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN (TUNTUTAN BALAS) GROUNDS OF DECISION [Encl. 226 Plaintiffs’ (Main Action) & 1st & 2nd Defendants’ (Counterclaim) Application to Strike Out Encl. 212 Amended Defence of 1st & 2nd Defendants (Main Action) & Plaintiffs (Counterclaim) and Stay of Proceedings]

This is an application in Encl. 226 by the Plaintiffs in the Main Action and the 1st & 2nd Defendants in the counterclaim dated 26.9.2024 (Encl. 212) under Order 18 rule 19 (1) (b) dan (d) and/or Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 and/or the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to enter judgment against them and to dismiss the counterclaim or for a stay of proceedings as follows:

Bahawa tarikh-tarikh perbicaraan keseluruhan tindakan ini pada 26 hingga 28 Ogos 2025 dilapangkan (the trial dates fixed on 26 – 28 August 2025 be vacated); dan

Bahawa Pembelaan Terpinda Defendan Pertama dan Ke- 2 dan Tuntutan Balas Terpinda Plaintif Pertama dan Ke-2 bertarikh 26-9-2024 (Lampiran 212) dibatalkan, dan penghakiman dimasukkan bagi Plaintif-Plaintif dalam Tindakan Asal dan tuntutan balas Plaintif-Plaintif dalam Tuntutan Balas ditolak masing-masing (the amended defence in Encl. 212 to be stuck off, judgment be entered for the Plaintiffs and counter claim be dismissed); atau

Secara alternatif, bahawa kesemua prosiding di sini berkenaan Tindakan Asal dan Tuntutan Balas digantung sehingga pelupusan Rayuan-Rayuan Sivil W- 02(NCvC)(W)-146-01/2025 dan W-02(NCvC)(W)-147- 01/2025 di Mahkamah Rayuan (all proceedings in the Main Claim and counterclaim be stayed pending disposal of the Civil Suits in the Court of Appeal);

Kos ditanggung oleh Defendan Pertama dan Kedua dalam Tindakan Asal dan Plaintif-Plaintif dalam Tuntutan Balas (the 1st & 2nd Defendants to bear the cost in the Main Action and Plaintiffs in the Counterclaim); dan

Apa-apa perintah atau arahan lain atau yang selanjutnya yang dianggap perlu atau sesuai dalam keadaan kes ini (Such further and/or other reliefs as the Court deems fit).

Umar and the Settlers’ Solicitors (the Plaintiffs) filed their application in Encl. 226 under O. 18 r 19(1)(b) and (d) and O. r 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 or its inherent jurisdiction; and contend that consistent with the decision in the Kuala Lumpur Civil Suit No. WA-22- NCvC-215-05/2020 and WA-22-NCvC-227- 05/2020 on 23.1.2025 (Civil Suits):

That Mujur Zaman and Liputan Canggih’s (1st & 2nd Defendants) Amended Defence and Counterclaim dated 26-9-2024 (Encl. 212) has been rendered academic, and therefore is vexatious and an abuse of the process of this

That Mujur Zaman and Liputan Canggih no longer has the locus standi to make their respective claims in the Original Action and the Counterclaim, and therefore the aforesaid pleading filed by them is an abuse of the process of this

That the trial fixed on 26th to 28th August 2025 with respect to the Original Action and the Counterclaim will result in an injustice, that is, a wastage of judicial resources and the costs and time for parties.

The cause papers filed in pursuant to Encl. 266 are as follows:

Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support of Loghanayakee a/p Subramaniam filed on 18.4.2025 (Encl. 227) and Reply Affidavit of filed on 21.5.2025 (Encl. 233);

Defendant’s Affidavit in Reply of Sam Hui Mei filed on 13.5.2025 (Encl. 232);

Plaintiffs’’ Written Submissions (Encl. 236), Bundle of Authorities (Encl. 237), Reply Submissions (Encl. 239) &

1st & 2nd Defendants’ Written Submissions (Encl. 234), Bundle of Authorities (Encl. 235) and Reply Submissions (Encl. 238). Facts leading to this application

The action here is brought by the 1st Plaintiff in a representative capacity for land settlers under O. 15 r 12 of the Rules of Court 2012 (Encl. 237, pp. 3 – 9), and the 2nd Plaintiff, being the said settlers’ solicitors for breach of contract. They seek declarations with respect to their entitlements under the law in the given circumstance.

The Settlement Agreement dated 11-1-2016 (Encl. 13, pp. 48 – 106), was entered into between Mujur Zaman and Liputan Canggih, the Settlers’ Committee and Paragon Pinnacle Sdn. Bhd. and governs the relationship between the said parties with respect to the settlement of cash compensation to the eligible settlers and the delivery of housing units to the eligible settlers including the payment of legal fees and disbursements due to the Settlers’ Solicitors. The subject matter of this case is on the payment of legal fees and disbursements due to the Settlers’ Solicitors.

Preceding this case, there was a dispute with respect to inter alia the 3rd Defendant (Hadrons Consulting) as agent and Mujur Zaman and Liputan Canggih as principals. Mujur Zaman and Liputan Canggih were disputing the instructions given by Hadrons on the payment of legal fees and disbursements due to the Settlers’ Solicitors pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. This instruction can be gleaned from the Letter of Instructions dated 24-2-2020 addressed to the 4th Defendant (Abraham Ooi & Partners) as stakeholders (Encl. 227 pp. 8 & 9) as follows: “We refer to the Co-mingled Account currently held by Messrs Abraham Ooi & Partners and are pleased to give you the instructions to make the following payments: …… 3) Pay a sum of RM 1,538,832.00 to Messrs Daim & Gamany, by way of cheque to be delivered to Messrs Daim & Gamany, being payment of outstanding professional fees, disbursements, and 6% SST where applicable; 4) Pay a sum of RM 410,476.00 to Messrs Loghan Law Office, by way of cheque to be delivered to Messrs Loghan Law Office, being payment of outstanding professional fees, disbursements, and 6% SST where applicable; 5) Retain a sum of RM725,238.02 in Co-mingled Funds, for the purpose of meeting the professional fees, disbursements, and 6% SST where applicable, payable to Messrs Loghan Law Office pending the final completion of the legal works associated with the RRH Settlers’ Cash Compensation and Housing Units; 7) Pay a sum of RM 26,287,971.75 to Hadrons Consulting Sdn. Bhd. by way of bank transfer to CIMB Babk Bhd. account no. 8007 692 531 (account name: Hadrons Consulting Sdn. Bhd) being outstanding professional fees and performance incentive, and 6% SST where applicable; 10) Reimburse a sum of RM599,488.00 to Hadrons Consulting Sdn. Bhd. by way of bank transfer to CIMB Bank Bhd account no 8007 692 531 (account name: Hadrons Consulting Sdn. Bhd) being reimbursement of legal fees incurred by Hadrons Consulting Sdn. Bhd. with regards to Shah Alam High Court Civil Suit No. BA-22 NCvC-534- 10/2018.”

Hadrons, Mujur Zaman and Liputan Canggih filed the following cases collectively referred to as the Civil Suits as below:

Kuala Lumpur Civil Suit No. WA-22NCVC-215-05/2020 (Hadrons Consulting Sdn. Bhd. v. Mujur Zaman Sdn. Bhd. and Liputan Canggih Sdn. Bhd.); and

Kuala Lumpur Civil Suit No. WA-22NCVC-227-05/2020 (Mujur Zaman Sdn. and Liputan Canggih Bhd. v. Hadrons Consulting Sdn. Bhd.).

The Plaintiffs submissions in a nutshell are as follows:

Disputes with respect to agency, fees and instruction between Hadrons and Mujur Zaman and Liputan Canggih, including the carrying out of the Letter of Instruction, were finally and conclusively disposed of in the Civil Suits on 23- 1-2025 (Encl. 227 p. 19).

As such, Mujur Zaman and Liputan Canggih’s Amended Defence and Counterclaim (Encl. 212) is academic and therefore is vexatious and an abuse of the process of this Court.

The 1st Plaintiff and the Settlers’ Solicitors are seeking for the trial dates to be vacated and a striking out of Mujur Zaman and Liputan Canggih’s Amended Defence and Counterclaim (Encl. 212) with judgment to be entered and the counterclaim dismissed, or a stay of proceedings pending the disposal of Mujur Zaman and Liputan Canggih’s appeals against the Civil Suits in the Court of Appeal, with costs.

The Plaintiffs in their reply submitted that the mishmashes of cobbled-up arguments of the 1st & 2nd Defendants remain to be part of the same embarrassing legal strategy of Mujur Zaman and Liputan Canggih to stir up strife and litigation with a view to interfering with the delivery of housing units to the eligible settlers and the upshot of this remains to be no more than a deprivation of the Settlers of their housing units; and is disdainfully reprehensible. The Plaintiffs pray for the appropriate orders in Encl. 226 to be granted with costs. 1st & 2nd Defendants Submissions (Encl. 234) & Reply Submissions (Encl. 238)

The 1st & 2nd Defendants submits that Encl. 226 ought to be dismissed with costs. The submissions are as follows:

Suit 575 is in relation to legal fee bills issued by the 1st Defendant Daim & Gamany (counterclaim) and the 2nd Plaintiff that is purportedly payable by the 1st & 2nd Defendants pursuant to Clauses 4.1, 4.2 & 12.3 of the Settlement Agreement dated 11.1.2016.

The 1st & 2nd Defendants defence and counterclaim is that these legal bills should be addressed to the buyer Paragon Pinnacle Sdn. Bhd. and not to the 1st & 2nd Defendants pursuant to Clauses 4.2.4 & 4.2.5 of the Settlement Agreement dated 11.1.2016 and Clauses 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 22 of the Entitlement Agreement.

The letters of instructions dated 24.2.2020 (paras. 7 & 10) from Hadrons to Messrs Abraham Ooi & Partners is only relevant to Suits 215/217 limited to and only to the extent of Hadron’s claim for Hadrons themselves (Encl. 227 pp. 8 & 9).

The amounts stated in paras. 7 & 10 of the said letters of instructions are the very same amounts claimed by Hadrons in Suits 215/217.

Suits 215/217 has not been disposed of conclusively and finally all the disputes that arise in Suit 575.

The legal bills issued which are the subject matter of Suit 575 were all issued prior to the issuance of the letters of instructions from Hadrons dated 24.2.2020.

As a result of this stay order by the Court of Appeal, the averments of the Plaintiffs at paras. 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Encl. 227, is of no consequence and becomes irrelevant.

The Plaintiffs abandoned consolidation of Suit 575 with Suit 215 in 2021 when the application to consolidate the Suit 575 with Suit 215 (Encl.9) was withdrawn and struck off on 23.12.2021. Basis of the Plaintiffs’ claim in Suit 575 is Clauses 4.1, 4.2 and 12.3 of Settlement Agreement dated 11.01.2016

Suit 575 is in relation to the Plaintiffs’ claim for legal fee bills issued by 1st & 2nd Defendants (counter claim) prior to 24.02.2020. (Encl. p. 42) based on Clauses 4.1, 4.2 and 12.3 of the Settlement Agreement dated 11.01.2016. (Encl. 217 p. 37) where the Plaintiffs pray for a declaration that they are entitled to said legal fees.

These legal fee bills were issued prior to 24.02.2020 being the date of the letters of instructions from Hadrons to Messrs Abraham Ooi & Partners to pay 1st & 2nd Defendants (counter claim) (Encl. 227 p. 8).

The first issue to be tried raised by the Plaintiffs is whether the 1st & 2nd Defendants ought to pay the Plaintiffs legal fee bills issued by 1st & 2nd Defendants (counter claim) prior to 24.02.2020

5.3, 5.4 and 22 of the Entitlement Agreement. (Encl. 212 pp 4 – 12) and the amended issues to be tried. (Encl. 215 pp 4 & 5) The defence and issues formed the basis of 1st & 2nd Defendant’s counterclaim in Suit 575. The Plaintiffs’ claim in present Suit 575 is not based on Hadrons letter of instructions dated 24.02.2020

The Plaintiffs’ claim in Suit 575 is not based on the letters of instructions dated 24.02.2020 from Hadrons to Messrs Abraham Ooi & Partners. Their pleaded case in Suit 575 is for a declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to legal fees pursuant to Clauses 4.1, 4.2 and 12.3 of the Settlement Agreement dated 11.01.2016. The letters of instructions dated 24.02.2020 from Hadrons to Messrs Abraham Ooi & Partners referred to in Suit 215/227 limited to Hadrons’ claim in particular paragraph 7 and 10 of the said letter of instructions (Encl. 227 pp 8 & 9).

The amounts stated at paragraphs 7 and 10 of the said letter of instructions are the very same amounts claimed by Hadrons in Suit 215/227 for Hadrons themselves. The 1st and 2nd Defendants submit that all other purported instructions for purported payments to other parties mentioned in the said letters of instructions dated 24.02.2020, who were not parties in Suit 215/227, did not form part of the subject matter for determination in Suit 215/227. Issues in Encl.

The issues to be determined in this application are as follows:

Whether the amended defence (Encl. 212) is an abuse of process of the Court?

Whether there is any basis to strike out the 1st & 2nd Defendants pleadings?

Whether judgment be entered for the Plaintiffs and the counter claim be dismissed?

Whether all proceedings in the Main Claim and counterclaim be stayed pending disposal of the Civil Suits in the Court of Appeal? The law on striking out

The law pertaining to striking out of a party’s pleading under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 is settled. It is only in a plain and obvious case that recourse should be had to the summary process under this rule. This summary procedure should only be adopted when it can be clearly seen that a claim is on the face of it obviously unsustainable. It cannot be exercised by a minute examination of the documents and facts of the case, in order to see whether the party has a cause of action. (see the Supreme Court case of Bandofar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v. United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 4 CLJ 7 and High Court case of S.L. Ng Trading Agency Sdn. Bhd. v. Tohtonku Sdn. Bhd. [2025] CLJU 1373 pp. 10 -12).

I have read and perused the Affidavits in Support, Written Submissions and Authorities filed by the Plaintiff and Defendant. I have also considered the Oral Submissions and Arguments forwarded and articulated by the respective parties’ counsel.

The Court shall deal with prayers (a), (b) & (c) of Encl. pertaining to the following:

the trial dates fixed on 26 – 28 August 2025 be vacated;

the amended defence in Encl. 212 to be stuck off, judgment be entered for the Plaintiffs and counter claim be dismissed; and

all proceedings in the Main Claim and counterclaim be stayed pending disposal of the Civil Suits in the Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. W-02(NCvC)(W)-146-01/2025 dan W-02(NCvC)(W)-147-01/2025.

Order 18 rule 19 (1) of the Rules of Court 2012 (Encl. 237, p. 10) reads: “19. Striking out pleadings and endorsements (O. 18 r. 19)

The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading or the endorsement, of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or in the endorsement, on the ground that-

it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be;

it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious;

it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; or

it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court, and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly, as the case may be.”

The powers of the Court are wide under this rule. It may order a striking out or amendment of a pleading, and may order a stay or dismissal of an action or entry of judgment. In this application the Court must determine whether that that the Amended Defence and Counterclaim (Encl. 212) is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the process of the Court. Applying these legal principles, I am of the considered view that Encl. 212 is not an abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, this is not a plain and obvious case for striking out the Amended Defence. The Court is mindful that this matter is required to be dealt with expeditiously, efficiently and effectively in the interest of justice,

Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 reads: “4. Inherent powers of the Court (O. 92 r. 4) For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court.”

The 1st & 2nd Defendants submissions that if the Plaintiffs take the position that the relief claimed by them in Suit 575 has already been obtained through decision in Suit 215/227 then it is only proper for the Plaintiffs to withdraw their original action in Suit 575, and accordingly only the counterclaim in Suit 575 ought to proceed to trial and be determined by this Court is devoid of any merits

The Court of Appeal in Ling Peek Hoe & Anor v. Golden Star & Ors. [2020] 9 CLJ 601 lists the precise considerations for the Court to take into account when “a stay application is founded on the contention that the outcome of another case will significantly influence the outcome of the instant case”, i.e the outcome of the appeals of Suits 215/227 in the Court of Appeal.

In this action, Umar and the Settlers’ Solicitors contend that the Settlement Agreement, read with all other related written agreements and the Federal Court Order dated 17-5-2016 (Encl. 13, pp. 160 – 174), provides that the payment of legal fees and disbursements due to the Settlers’ Solicitors shall be borne by Mujur Zaman and Liputan Canggih. Mujur Zaman and Liputan Canggih have, through their solicitors’ correspondence since 17- 6-2020 and 27-7-2020 (Encl. 14, pp. 240 – 241 and 248 – 251), objected to this; arguing that the payment of legal fees and disbursements due to the Settlers’ Solicitors shall be borne by the white knight Paragon Pinnacle Sdn Bhd. Whether stay of proceedings to be allowed pending the disposal of 1st & 2nd Defendants appeals against the Civil Suits in the Court of Appeal?

The Court of Appeal had on 24.04.2025 (Encl. 232 p. 36 - 41) stayed the execution of certain parts of Suits 215/227 decision until the disposal of Appeal 146 and Appeal 147. One such part is minute (6) which states as follows: “Messrs Abraham Ooi & Partners be hereby ordered to carry out all the outstanding instructions which has not been so carried out and/or effected by Messrs Abraham Ooi & Partners, as per the letters of instructions from Hadrons Consulting Sdn Bhd to Messrs Abraham Ooi & Partners dated 24.02.2020.”

The High Court in the case of Low Eng Yew v. Low Eng Hock & Ors. [2025] 1 CLJ 765 at p. 780 discussed succinctly on the principles governing the grant of a stay of proceedings. The Federal Court in the case of PP v. Dato’ Sri Mohd. Najib Hj. Abd. Razak [2019] 6 CLJ 561 referred to the case of AB (Sudan) v. Secretary of State For The Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 921 sets out the principles governing on the grant of stay as follows: “A stay on proceedings may be associated with the grant of interim relief but it is essentially different. In determining whether proceedings should be stayed, the concerns of the court itself have to be taken into the balance. Decisions as to listing, and decisions as to which cases are to be heard at any particular time are matters for the court itself and no party to a claim can demand that it be heard before or after any other claim. The court will want to deal with claims before it as expeditiously as is consistent with justice. But on the other hand, it is unlikely to want to waste time and other valuable resources on an exercise that may well be pointless if conducted too soon. If, therefore, the court is shown that there will be, or there is likely to be, some event in the foreseeable future that may have an impact on the way a claim is decided, it may decide to stay proceedings in the claim until after that event. It may be more inclined to grant a stay if there is agreement between the parties. It may not need to grant a stay if the pattern of work shows that the matter will not come on for trial before the event in question. The starting point must however be that a Claimant seeks expeditious determination of his claim and that delay will be ordered only if good reason is shown.”

The English Court in R (on the application of AO & AM) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKUT 168 (1AC) referred to AB (Sudan) (supra) and stated as follows:

Every claimant is entitled to expect expeditious judicial adjudication. The strength of this expectation will be calibrated according to the individual litigation equation.

(ii) The judicially imposed delay flowing from a stay order requires good reason.

(iii) Judicial choreography whereby one case is frozen awaiting the outcome of another is justified for example where the assessment is that the latter will have a critical impact upon the former.

(iv) Great caution is to be exercised where a stay application is founded on the contention that the outcome of another case will significantly influence the outcome of the instant case.

The Court is empowered under Order 92 rule 4 ROC 2012 in exercising its inherent jurisdiction which includes the granting of a stay of proceedings; where the Court will have to be satisfied that the granting of the same will prevent an injustice or prevent an abuse of its process. see Jaya Harta Realty Sdn Bhd v. Koperasi Kemajuan Pekerja-Pekerja Ladang Bhd; Tetuan Isharidah, Ho, Chong & Menon (Garnishee) [2000] 3 CLJ 361 at 367.

Any stay of proceedings order if to be granted must be founded on the contention that the result of another suit (the appeal) will significantly affect this instant suit. Needless to say, in exercising the inherent powers of the Court to make any order as may be necessary to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court under O. 92 rule 4 ROC 2012, the Court hereby orders that all proceedings in the Main Claim and counterclaim be stayed pending disposal of the Civil Suits 215/227 in the Court of Appeal which will be heard on 12.1.2026. Nexus between the present case and the Civil Suits

For ease of reference, the relevant contemporaneous documents, reference and dates can be gleaned from the table below: No. Documents Reference Date 1 Settlement Agreement Encl. 13 pp. 48-106 11.6.2016 2 Letters of Instructions Encl. 227 pp. 8 & 9 24.2.2020 3 Civil Suits 215/227 Encl. 28 pp. 25 - 55 6 &13.5.2020 4 Judgment Encl. 227 pp. 17 - 65 19.3.2025 5 Court of Appeal Encl. 227 pp. 68 - 77 23.1.2025 6 Court of Appeal (Stay) Encl. 232 pp. 36 - 41 24.5.2025

The 1st Plaintiff evidence on behalf of Hadrons is reflected in the Notes of Evidence of the Civil Suits 215/227 (Encl. 28 pp. 25 - 55). The existence of the Civil Suits was also pleaded by the 1st Plaintiff and the Settlers’ Solicitors and Hadrons in their pleadings in Encl. 214, para 28 (vi), 30 and 31 and Encl. 21, para. respectively.

The Civil Suits 215/227 were disposed of in Hadrons’ favour on 23.1.2025 (Encl. 232 pp. 31 & 32, paras 6, 9 & 11) as reflected in the Judgment (Encl. 227 pp. 17-65) dated 19.3.2025 with the following orders:

Abraham Ooi is ordered to carry out all the outstanding instructions which has not been so carried out and/or effected by Abraham Ooi, as per the letters of instructions from Hadrons to Abraham Ooi & Partners dated 24-2-2020 (Order to Carry Out);

Mujur Zaman and Liputan Canggih are refrained from interfering with Abraham Ooi from carrying out their duties as stakeholder of the Stakeholders’/Co-Mingled Accounts pursuant to the Settlement Agreement including the obligation above (Non-Interference Order); and

Mujur Zaman and Liputan Canggih are restrained from bringing any further action and/or claims and/or demands against Hadrons and/or their associates and/or all and any of the parties appointed by Hadrons to carry out and give effect to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Federal Court Order, the Memorandum of Agreement dated 2-8-2018 (MOA), the Variation to MOA dated 22-8- 2019, and the Further Variation to MOA dated 19-9-2019. (Anti-Suit Order).

The 1st & 2nd Defendants filed their appeal against the High Court decision to the Court of Appeal via Civil Appeal Nos. W- 02(NCvC)(W)-146-01/2025 and W-02(NCvC)(W)-147-01/2025 (Encl. 227 pp. 68 – 77).

On 24.4.2025 Mujur Zaman and Liputan Canggih secured a stay of execution from the Court of Appeal only with respect to the Order to Carry Out. There is no stay of execution granted with respect to the Non-Interference Order and the Anti-Suit Order.

The Court is inclined to agree with the contention of the Plaintiffs and the Settlers’ Solicitors that the Settlement Agreement, read with other related written agreements and the Federal Court Order dated 17-5-2016 (Encl. 13, pp. 160 – 174), provides that the payment of legal fees and disbursements due to the Settlers’ Solicitors shall be borne by Mujur Zaman and Liputan Canggih.

Mujur Zaman and Liputan Canggih have, through their solicitors’ correspondence since 17.6.2020 and 27.7.2020 (Encl. 14 pp. – 241 & 248 – 251) objected to this, arguing that the payment of legal fees and disbursements due to the Settlers’ Solicitors shall be borne by the white knight Paragon Pinnacle Sdn Bhd. Summary of Court’s analysis.

The Court makes the following findings:

the amended defence and counterclaim (Encl. 212) is not vexatious or an abuse of process of the Court;

there is no basis to strike out the 1st & 2nd Defendants pleadings;

the Plaintiffs’ prayer (b) that judgment be entered for the Plaintiffs and the counter claim be dismissed is disallowed;

all proceedings in the Main Claim and counterclaim be stayed pending disposal of the Civil Suits 215/227 in the

consequently, the trial dates of 26 – 28 August 2025 are to be vacated and rescheduled. New trial dates to be fixed after 12.1.2026 (hearing of Court of Appeal).

Based on the reasons adumbrated above, the Plaintiffs’ Application in Encl. 226 is hereby allowed in respect of prayers

and (c). The Plaintiffs’ application in Encl. 226 in respect of prayer (b) is hereby dismissed. Each party to bear their own costs. Dated: 13 August 2025 sgd. ………………………………………….. (EDDIE YEO SOON CHYE) Judge Commissioner High Court of Malaya Kuala Lumpur Counsel for the Plaintiffs: Aston Paiva & Haikal Akiemy bin Hamzah Messrs. Vazeer Akbar Majid & Co. Petaling Jaya. Counsel for the 1st & 2nd Puthan Perumal Defendants: Messrs. Perumal Brothers Kuala Lumpur.