Sim Cheng Young v 1. ) 3LYON Holdings Berhad (BA-22NCC-171-12/2023)

3LYON HOLDINGS BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT: 201801046206 (1308238-U)

DATUK WIRA RANJEET SINGH SIDHU (NO. K/P: 700201-03-5371)

DATO’ HAJI CHE PEE BIN SAMSUDIN (NO. K/P: 571015-02-5307)

DATUK MANIBALAN KUTTY A/L RAGAVAN (NO. K/P: 660518-10-5039) KEEMPAT

The present matter concerns the Orders made by this Court on 16 May, 2025, following the examination of one of the directors of the First Defendant, pursuant to a Judgment Debtor Summons filed by the Plaintiff (in Enclosure 20) on 7 June 2024 against the First Defendant. The said Judgment Debtor Summons was filed as a consequence of a consent judgment recorded between the Plaintiff and the First Defendant on 17 April 2024, for the sum of RM4,369,520.55, which was to be paid by the First Defendant to the Plaintiff on or before 31 May 2024 (Enclosure 18).

For purposes of the present matter, the Plaintiff shall be referred to as the Judgment Creditor and the First Defendant shall be referred to as the Judgment Debtor.

The Orders made by this Court on 16 May, 2025 (in Enclosure 66) were as follows:

Penghutang Penghakiman hendaklah membayar sejumlah RM25,000.00 kepada Pemiutang Penghakiman pada atau sebelum hari ke-7 setiap bulan, bermula dari Jun 2025 sehingga penyelesaian penuh jumlah penghakiman; dan

Penghutang Penghakiman hendaklah membayar sejumlah RM1,000,000.00 kepada Pemiutang Penghakiman pada atau sebelum 31 Januari 2026.

The Judgment Debtor filed a Notice of Appeal against the above Orders made by this Court on 9 June, 2025 (Enclosure 67).

As the Judgment Debtor is a corporation, Ranjeet Singh Sidhu was summoned to the court in his capacity as one of the directors of the Judgment Debtor to be orally examined. This oral examination before this Court was for the purpose of determining the latter’s means of satisfying the judgment debt under section 4 of the Debtors Act 1957.

The oral examination of the Judgment Debtor took place on 4 March, 2025 and 27 March, 2025.

During oral examination by counsel for the Judgment Creditor on 4 March, 2025, the director of the Judgment Debtor had testified, inter alia, that:

Monies that have been collected from investors – under the Judgment Debtor’s Redeemable Preference Shares Scheme – amounted to about RM130,000.000.00 – RM140,000.000.00.

From the sum collected, the Judgment Debtor paid out commissions (to the agents who bring the transactions to the company), set aside 10% for working capital and the balance invested, “through private equity companies, small companies or we do loans through our subsidiary”.

The Judgment Debtor does not have any fixed assets.

“ … the company is not doing well because we are not able to collect back the interest from the clients. So, what we are doing is we are trying to structure to redeem all our investors. It is just that it has taken a lot longer than we expected. It is an exercise to redeem all our investors.”

It would take about 24 months to recover the loans given out by the Judgment Debtor.

The Judgment Debtor has not initiated any legal proceedings against any of the borrowers “because we are trying to rehabilitate them and if we go to court, they're just going to declare they can't pay us and we'll end up losing the opportunity of even collecting back half or 50%.”.

On the time taken to redeem the investments the Judgment Debtor have made: “ … the redemptions from the investing companies back to us, for us to clear all our investors, will take us a maximum of 24 months … “.

“We are earning. We are getting money in. But it's not the huge amount that we used to get where we could declare dividends. We are still earning.”

The Judgment Debtor is “in the midst of doing 2022 audit” and it made a loss in 2022.

The oral examination was adjourned to 27 March, 2025 for the Judgment Debtor to produce documents regarding the details of the Judgment Debtor’s investments from 2019 – 2023.

During oral examination on 27 March, 2025, Ranjeet Singh Sidhu testified, inter alia, that:

“ … there is a management plan now to recover money from the subsidiary up so that we start getting some money before the end of the year”.

That there would be monies coming in by the end of the year, between the sum of RM2,000,000.00 to

That the Judgment Creditor would be in a position to pay an instalment sum and a separate lump sum payment. I think initially, it would be a small amount, maybe 20, 30,000. But as collections start coming back, after the year is over, it should be much larger amounts. In your opinion, or knowing the financial position of the judgment debtor, and money coming in by the end of this year, 2025, would you be able to extrapolate, come January 2026, how much can the judgment debtor offer to pay in sum? I would estimate at least 50,000. YA : At least what? 50,000, Your Honour. Would the judgment debtor be in a position to pay a lump sum that is larger than 50,000? Between now and the end of the year or end of 202..inaudible. Sorry, I don't understand. Would you be able to extrapolate that, given the financial situation of 3Lyon Holdings, the judgment debtor currently able to offer a sum.. inaudible. You mean the lump sum? Yes By the end of 2026? By the end of 2026. I would think definitely there would be a lump sum by the end of 2026. Would you be in a position to name a figure? It's okay if you can't. At least a million ringgit in a separate lump sum. My Lord, if I may, just ask one more question. Other than this borrowing, earlier my learned friend had asked you on the last occasion, what the judgment debtor has done to raise its funds. Is there anything that the judgment debtor has done to try to raise more funds, whether by prescribing new shares or having the current shareholders to pump in money to increase its capital? At the moment, the present shareholders are basically me. I've applied for facilities to draw, to clear up all the outstanding. So I'm waiting for that to happen.

Section 4 of the Debtors Act 1957 states as follows: Judgment debtor summons

4.

Where the judgment of a court is for the recovery or payment of money whether by instalments or otherwise the party entitled to enforce it (hereinafter called the judgment creditor) may, subject to and in accordance with any rules of court, summon the judgment debtor, or if the judgment debtor is a corporation an officer of that corporation, to be orally examined before the court respecting the judgment debtor’s ability to pay or satisfy the judgment debt, and for the discovery of property applicable to such payment and to the disposal that the judgment debtor has made of such property.

The judgment debtor, or, where the judgment debtor is a corporation, the officer thereof who has been summoned, shall, when called upon, produce all books, papers or documents in his possession or power relating to such property.

The judgment creditor may subpoena as a witness any person whom he considers likely to be able to supply information respecting the judgment debtor’s ability to pay the judgment debt or respecting his property.

Whether the judgment debtor, or, where the judgment debtor is a corporation, the officer thereof, appears or not the judgment creditor and other witnesses may be examined on oath respecting the matters aforesaid.

If the judgment debtor, or, where the judgment debtor is a corporation, the officer thereof having been duly served does not appear, the court may —

order him to be arrested and brought before the court to be examined; or

make an order against the judgment debtor ex-parte.

Upon such examination or non-appearance as aforesaid the court may order the judgment debtor to pay the judgment debt either —

in one sum whether forthwith or within such period as the court may fix; or

by such instalments payable at such times as the court may fix.

If the judgment debtor makes default in payment according to any such order, a notice in the form prescribed by rules of court may be issued, on the request of the judgment creditor, calling upon the judgment debtor to attend before the court at a time therein stated and show cause why he should not be committed to prison for such default.

Any such notice shall be personally served upon the judgment debtor; and if, on the day so named, or on any subsequent day to which the matter may be adjourned, no sufficient cause is shown by the judgment debtor, the court may commit him to the civil prison for a term which may extend to six weeks or until earlier payment of any instalment or instalments or other sum due.

A debtor shall not be committed to prison under this section unless it appears that, since the date of the order directing payment, whether forthwith, or within a specified period or by instalments, he has had sufficient means to comply with the order.

Order 74 rule 11A of the Rules of Court 2012 provides as follows: Request for judgment debtor summons (O. 74, r. 11A)

Any person entitled to enforce a judgment or an order for the payment of money, whether by instalments or otherwise, may apply for a judgment debtor summons under section 4 of the Act by filling a request in Form 174 signed by the applicant or his solicitor.

In making the Orders dated 16 May, 2025, this Court was mindful of the principle that it has to be satisfied that the Judgment Debtor has the means and ability to pay before making any order for the Judgment Debtor to pay one lump sum forthwith or within a specified period fixed by the court or instalments at the times fixed by the court.

The Orders of this Court dated 16 May, 2025 were made pursuant to the powers conferred on this Court under section 4(6)(a) and (b) of the Debtors Act 1957, after having taken into consideration the testimony provided by Ranjeet Singh Sidhu, a director of the Judgment Debtor. Dated: 17 July, 2025 sgd (CHOONG YEOW CHOY) JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR Counsel: For the Plaintif : Sabreena Mohd Sab Fatin Nadzirah binti Hasan (Messrs. Alwin Rajasurya) For the for 1stDefendant : Not represented & not present