Teo Yun Hock v 1. ) Autohome Motor Sdn Bhd (WA-22NCC-70-02/2025)

This is an ex-parte application [Enclosure 6] dated 14-01-2025, but according to the CMS system filed on 05-02-2025], by the plaintiff for a mareva injunction against nineteen defendants.

To avoid confusion when looking at the cause papers, I should say at the outset that the suit particulars when filed had changed subsequently.

The reason is as follows. When it was filed in the civil division it was titled (Bahagian Sivil) Guaman No.: WA-22NCVC-28-01/2025. When it was transferred to the commercial division by a High Court order dated 24-01-2025 [Enclosure 15], the suit particulars were changed to (Bahagian Dagang) Writ Saman No.: WA-22NCC-70-02/2025.

I heard the mareva injunction application inter-partes. All the defendants except for the 9th defendant were represented by one set of solicitors and counsel. The 9th defendant was represented by its own solicitors and counsel. I do not need to say more of the 9th defendant as ultimately, I didn’t grant a mareva injunction against the 9th defendant and no appeal was lodged by the plaintiff against this order of mine.

For the mareva injunction the plaintiff filed an Executive Summary [Enclosure 34 - The Plaintiff’s Executive Summary (In Support of Enclosure 6 for a Mareva Injunction – Inter-Partes) and a written submission [Enclosure 32 - The Plaintiff’s Written Submissions (In Support of Enclosure 6 for a Mareva Injunction – Inter-Partes)].

The defendants other than the 9th defendant filed an Executive Summary [Enclosure 38 - Executive Summary Of The Defendants (Except Ninth Defendant) [Enclosure 6 : Application For Mareva Injunction] and a reply written submission [Enclosure 37 - Written Submission Of The Defendants (Except Ninth Defendant) [Enclosure 6 : Application For Mareva Injunction] which the plaintiff responded with a reply written submission [Enclosure 46 - The Plaintiff’s Written Submissions In Reply (All Defendants Except The 9th Defendant) (In Support of Enclosure 6 for a Mareva Injunction)].

On 11-03-2025, after having gone through carefully the claim against each defendant one by one, I had allowed the mareva application against only the 1st to 4th, 6th and 14th defendants.

Besides reducing the number of defendants enjoined by the mareva injunction, I also reduced the sum that is enjoined by the mareva from RM 4,103,359.94 to RM 3,532,000. The sealed order can be seen in Enclosure 68.

In essence, I found that there is a good arguable case from the plaintiff to justify the grant of a mareva injunction against the 1st to 4th, 6th and 14th defendants. I also found there is a risk of the assets being removed before judgment could be satisfied. The 3rd and 14th defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal

On 10-04-2025, the 3rd defendant Sheikh Mohamad Azli Bin Sheikh Mohamad Nasimuddin Kamal and the 14th defendant Farok Bin Maasom have appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The 1st, 2nd ,4th and 6th defendants did not file any appeal. The plaintiff also did not file any appeal. For these reasons my Grounds of Judgment here will be confined mainly to the plaintiff’s case against the 3rd and 14th defendants only.

In my Grounds of Judgment, the defendants will be identified as D1 or 1st defendant, D2 or 2nd defendant, etc.

The facts that I shall set out below are gleaned from the plaintiff’s supporting affidavit Enclosure 5 English translation at paragraphs 4 to 42 and from the plaintiff’s written submission Enclosure 32 at paragraphs 4 to 22.

All the defendants other than the 9th defendant filed one joint reply affidavit affirmed on their behalf by D5 in Enclosure 25 Afidavit Jawapan defendan-defendan. They also filed one Written Submission of The Defendants (Except Ninth Defendant) in Enclosure 37.

At the outset I should say that the reply affidavit and Written Submission of The Defendants (Except Ninth Defendant) are very economical in their response to the facts averred by the plaintiff. What we have is basically a bare denial by these defendants with virtually no 7 supporting documents adduced to support their denials. To that extent then the background facts I set out below from the plaintiff’s evidence are not specifically disputed by them.

The plaintiff is a 75% shareholder of D1 from its incorporation to 20-08-

The other 25% shareholder of D1 is one Lai Li Fa. The plaintiff is the beneficial owner of this 25% shares. [See supporting affidavit Enclosure 5 at paragraphs 4 and 5 and the plaintiff’s written submission Enclosure 32 at paragraph 4]. [17] D1/Autohome Motor Sdn. Bhd was incorporated on 28-12-2018 and is a sale and service car workshop centre and is an authorised car dealer for the Proton-brand motor vehicles. [See supporting affidavit Enclosure 5 at paragraph 6 and the plaintiff’s written submission Enclosure 32 at paragraph 4]. [18] D2/Go Auto Sales Sdn. Bhd. is a private limited company having a business address at No. 4, Jalan Pengarah U1/29, HICOM Glenmarie Industry Park, 40000 Shah Alam, Selangor. [19] D3/Sheikh Mohamad Azli Bin Sheikh Mohamad Nasimuddin Kamal, one of the two appellants against my mareva order, is an individual known as “Azli”. [20] He a director of D2, D6, D7 (resigned on 25-03-2024), D8, D10, D11, D12 and D13. [21] D3 is also a shareholder of D2, D6, D7, D11, D12, D13 and D19. D3 also has indirect shareholding (not including through representatives, agents or proxies) in D8(70% through D7), D9(0.00196% through D7) and in D17 (through D19). [See supporting affidavit Enclosure 5 at paragraph 6 and the plaintiff’s written submission Enclosure 32 at paragraph 4]. [22] D4/Sheikh Mohamad Azrul Bin Sheikh Mohamad Nasimuddin Kamal is also known as "Azrul”. He is a brother of D3. At the time of hearing this mareva application D4 has become the sole shareholder and director of D1. D4 is also the sole shareholder and director of D18. i. It is the plaintiff’s contention that D4 is now the sole shareholder of D1 as “D2 and/or D3 have been perpetrating an actual and/or equitable fraud and/or fraudulent misrepresentation upon him. D2 and/or D3 have wrongfully and in breach of trust and confidence transferred all of D1’s shares to D4, i.e. a non-party to the Agreement, in order to not only defraud the Plaintiff of his ownership in D1, but also to evade liability, thereby intentionally and deliberately in bad faith placing the assets and shares of the D1 beyond the reach of the law.” [See supporting affidavit Enclosure 5 at paragraph 9 and the plaintiff’s written submission Enclosure 32 at paragraphs 4 and 20]. ii. I shall elaborate more on the plaintiff’s allegation against D2, D3 and D4 concerning D3’s transfer to D4 of all the shares of D2 in D1 when I consider below the issue whether the plaintiff has shown that he has a good arguable case against D3 for the grant of a mareva injunction. [23] D5/Ahmad Azam Bin Sulaiman is a director in D2. Known as "Ahmad Azam" he is also a shareholder of D19, holding 130,000 shares (11% of D19) and a director of D2-D5. He was also a director of D7 from 16- 07-2021 to 25-03-2024. [24] D6/Go Auto Services Sdn Bhd is a private limited company with a business address at No. 4, Jalan Pengarah U1/29, HICOM Glenmarie Industry Park, 40000 Shah Alam, Selangor. D6 is a shareholder in D2. [25] D7/GoAuto Group Sdn Bhd is a private limited company with a business address at No. 4, Jalan Pengarah U1/29, HICOM Glenmarie Industry Park, 40000 Shah Alam, Selangor. [26] D8/Intro Synergy Sdn Bhd is a private limited company having a business address at No.4, Jalan Pengarah U1/29, HICOM Glenmarie Industry Park, 40000 Shah Alam, Selangor. D8 is involved in the manufacturing, distribution, sale, service and/or assembling electric vehicles and other types of cars. [27] D9/Nexv Manufacturing Sdn. Bhd. is a private limited company having an address at Third Floor, No. 77, 79 & 81, Jalan SS21/60, Damansara Utama, 47400 Petaling Jaya, Selangor. D9 is involved in the manufacturing, distribution, sale, service and/or assembling electric vehicles and other types of cars. [28] D10/SPE Foundation is a public company limited by Guarantee having an address at Unit 19-02, Level 19, Binjai 8 Suite, No. 2, Lorong Binjai, 50450 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur. [29] D11/Aspire Arena Sdn. Bhd. is a private limited company having an address at No. 4, Jalan Pengarah U1/29, HICOM Glenmarie Industry Park, 40000 Shah Alam, Selangor. [30] D12/SMS Auto World Sdn. Bhd. is a private limited company having an address at 75-1A, Jalan Melati Utama 4, Taman Melati Utama, 53100 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur. [31] D13/Phoenix Pinnacle Sdn. Bhd. is a private limited company having an address at No.4, Jalan Pengarah U1/29, HICOM Glenmarie Industry Park, 40000 Shah Alam, Selangor. [32] D14/Farok Bin Maasom is one of the two appellants against my mareva order. Known as "Farok" he was a previous director of D7 who resigned on 25-03-2024. Currently is a director of D6, D8, D17 and D19. He is also a shareholder of D6 (8%), D7 (25%), and D19 (34%). [33] D15/Dato’ Sheikh Mohamad Shalahuddin Ayubi Kamal Azad Bin Sheikh Mohamad Amin is known as "Dato' SM Shalahuddin". D15 is a director and shareholder of D12. He is the majority shareholder of D6 (51%). [34] D16/Wan Ahmad Bin Wan Omar Is known as "Wan". D16 was a director of D2 from 12-12-2010 to 15-10-2020 and also a shareholder of D7 (25%). D16 is a director of D17 and D19. He is a shareholder of D19 (36%). [35] D17/Go Automobile Manufacturing Sdn. Bhd. is a private limited company having an address at No. 5-4-2, Jalan 2/50 Diamond Square Off Jalan Gombak 53000 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur. D17 is involved in the manufacturing, distribution, sale, service and/or assembling electric vehicles and other types of cars. [36] D18/Joy Design Studio Sdn. Bhd. is a private limited company having a registered address at No. 5-4-2, Jalan 2/50 Diamond Square Off Jalan Gombak 53000 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur. D18 is involved in the manufacturing, distribution, sale, service and/or assembling electric vehicles and other types of cars. [37] D19/W & R Resources Sdn. Bhd. is a private limited company having a registered address at No. 20-2, Jalan 65C, Off Jalan Pahang Barat, Pekeliling Business Centre, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur. D19 is involved in the manufacturing, distribution, sale, service and/or assembling electric vehicles and other types of cars. D3 expressed interest in buying over the plaintiff's company, D1 [38] As mentioned earlier, D1 was at all material times a sale and service car workshop centre and is an authorised 3S car dealer for the Proton-brand motor vehicles. As such, D1 was able to obtain direct support, automobile parts and vehicle stocks directly from Proton Holdings Berhad (623177-A) (“Proton”) subject to conditions imposed by Proton. [39] In or around August 2020, D3 approached the plaintiff expressing an interest in buying over the plaintiff's company, D1. [40] Terms were agreed between the plaintiff and D3. Share Sale Agreement dated 04-02-2021 between the plaintiff [holding 75% shares in D1] and Lai Li Fa [holding 25% shares in D1 on trust for the plaintiff] as vendors and D2 as purchaser [“Share Sale Agreement”] [41] D3 used D2 as his corporate vehicle to buy D1. D2 [42] D3 and D5 are directors in D2. D3 is the major shareholder in D2 holding 13,493,390 shares while D6 holds 244,995 shares in D2. [See supporting affidavit Enclosure 5 at Exhibit “TYH-4” for D2's SSM record]. D6 [43] D3 is also a director in D6 together with D14 and D16. D3 is also a major shareholder in D6. The other shareholders are D14 to D16. [See supporting affidavit Enclosure 5 at Exhibit “TYH-4” for D6's SSM record]. [44] D2 and D6 have the same business address. Share Sale Agreement [45] A Share Sale Agreement dated 04-02-2021 between the plaintiff [holding 75% shares in D1] and Lai Li Fa [holding 25% shares in D1 on trust for the plaintiff] as vendors and D2 as purchaser was then signed. [“Share Sale Agreement”] [See the Share Sale Agreement dated 04-02-2021 at PDF page 18 of the Affidavit in Enclosure 7 Exhibit TYH- 9]. [46] By the Share Sale Agreement, the plaintiff sold all his 100% shares in D1 as well as the business of D1 to D2 for RM 6,480,000. [See plaintiff’s supporting affidavit Enclosure 5 English translation at paragraph 30]. D3 took control of D1 on 20-08-2021 [47] On 20-08-2021, the plaintiff [and Lai La Fa as his nominee] executed the transfer of all the plaintiff’s shares in D1 to D2, the plaintiff [and Lai La Fa] resigned as directors of D1, and D3 was appointed as the new director of D1. [For the appointment of D3 as the new director and the resignations of the plaintiff and Lai La Fa as directors of D1 see the Affidavit in Support at Enclosure 7 at PDF page 69 Exhibit TYH-10] [For the transfer of all the shares of the plaintiff and [Lai La Fa as his nominee] in D1 to D2 see the Affidavit in Support at Enclosure 7 at PDF pages 71 - 73 Exhibit TYH-10] Default in payment of the balance purchase price of RM 5,832,000 [48] Prior to the execution of the Share Sale Agreement, D2 had already made a deposit payment of RM 648,000.00 towards the total purchase consideration around the end of 2020. [49] Pursuant to clause 3.2 of the Share Sale Agreement, D2 was obliged to pay the remainder of RM 5,832,000.00 upon the completion of the Share Sale Agreement on or before 31-01-2021. As the shares of D1 have been fully transferred by the plaintiff to D2, the remainder of RM 5,832,000 was already due. [50] However, subsequently, on 23-08-2021, at a meeting between D3 and the plaintiff (“Extension Meeting”), D3 informed the plaintiff that D2 was not able to pay and asked for more time. [51] D3 and the plaintiff then agreed at the Extension Meeting to enter into a Supplementary Agreement to the Share Sale Agreement dated 10- 09-2021 (“Supplementary Agreement”) to allow D2 to use D1 company to procure loans and/or financial assistance to settle the balance purchase price. [A copy of the Supplementary Agreement dated 10-09-2021 can be seen on PDF pages 77 to 87 of the Affidavit in Enclosure 7 Exhibit TYH- 11] [52] D3 also executed a personal guarantee dated 21-09-2021 to guarantee the payment of the balance purchase price. A copy of the Deed of Guarantee dated 21-09-2021 can be seen on PDF pages 90 to 97 of the plaintiff’s Affidavit in Enclosure 7 Exhibit TYH-12]. [53] Under the Supplementary Agreement, the balance purchase price of RM 5,832,000 must be paid at the latest on 30-12-2021. [See Clauses 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 of the Supplementary Agreement]. [54] At D3’s request, the plaintiff even assisted D2 in expediting and obtaining the release of a payment of around RM 4,384,452.36 and RM 622,433.16 due from the Ministry of Defence to D2. This has been confirmed and admitted by D3 himself through a WhatsApp message on 24-10-2022. [A copy of the letter dated 16-04-2021 issued by D2 to the Secretary General of the Ministry of Defence of Malaysia can be seen on PDF page 100 of the plaintiff’s Affidavit in Enclosure 7 at Exhibit TYH-13]. [The WhatsApp messages dated 24-10-2022 between the plaintiff and D3 can be seen on PDF page 102 of the plaintiff’s Affidavit in Enclosure 7 at Exhibit TYH-13]. [55] However, D2 only made a total payment of RM 2,948,000.00 paid through various sporadic payments on 22-12-2021, 16-02-2022 and 28-03-2022. As of to-date, there is an outstanding balance of RM 3,532,000. [56] Despite numerous reminders, the 2nd defendant failed, refused and/or neglected to make payment of the balance purchase price in the sum of RM 3,532,000. [57] The defendants in their reply affidavit and in their written submissions merely denied owing the balance purchase price to the plaintiff. No proof was produced to show the balance purchase price had been fully paid. [58] In any event, it is clear from the WhatsApp messages dated 24-10- 2022 between the plaintiff and D3 that I have referred to earlier that D3 has admitted the balance purchase price has not been fully paid. [59] I shall elaborate more on these admissions by D3 when I consider below the issue whether the plaintiff has shown that he has a good arguable case against D3 for the grant of a mareva injunction. Plaintiff alleged fraud by D3 and the defendants [60] The plaintiff contends D3 and D2 have not fully paid the balance purchase price because, and I quote, – i. However, upon further investigation and revelation, the Plaintiff realised that D2 and/or D3 have been perpetrating an actual and/or equitable fraud and/or fraudulent misrepresentation upon him. D2 and/or D3 have wrongfully and in breach of trust and confidence transferred all of D1’s shares to D4, i.e. a non-party to the Agreement, in order to not only defraud the Plaintiff of his ownership in D1, but also to evade liability, thereby intentionally and deliberately in bad faith placing the assets and shares of the D1 beyond the reach of the law. ii. D3 has also deliberately used various companies under his control as his vehicles of fraud to conceal and/or evade liability. In order to evade and/or conceal liability to the Plaintiff, D3 has orchestrated various unlawful tactical manoeuvres to shift the business operation of D2 to various other companies controlled directly or indirectly by him. This has been performed in order to fraudulently, unlawfully, cunningly and/or maliciously move, appropriate and/or transfer the monies and assets derived from the revenue and business of D2 to agents, representatives and/or proxies of D3, including but not limited to D4, D5, D14, D15 and/or D16 and other entities under the direct or indirect control of D3, including but not limited to D6, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, D12, D13, D17, D18 and/or D19. [unquote]. D2, D3 and/or D4 have successfully secured a RM 4 million financial assistance from Perbadanan Usahawan Nasional Berhad using an Open charge from Public bank on D1 [61] The plaintiff also contends that the representations made by D3 that he is unable to settle the balance purchase price in the sum of RM 3,532,000 owed to the plaintiff because he and D2 had no funds are false. [62] The evidence shows that D2, D3 and/or D4 have successfully secured a RM 4 million financial assistance from Perbadanan Usahawan Nasional Berhad (Registration no. 199101010745 (221057-V)) under a Tawarruq Facility Agreement through a charge created on 15-05-2024 and a financing facility through an open charge on the assets of D1 from Public Bank Berhad through a Certificate of Registration of Charge dated 05-08-2022. [See paragraphs 44.15 to 44.19 of the Affidavit in Support at PDF pages 89 to 94 of Enclosure 5] [A copy of the D1’s particulars of charges showing the receipt of financing can be seen on PDF pages 237 to 239 of the Affidavit in Enclosure 7 at Exhibit TYH 15]. [63] These monies were never used to pay the plaintiff the balance purchase price. Suit filed [64] Consequently, the plaintiff filed this suit against the nineteen defendants on 05-02-2025 and applied for a mareva injunction. Mareva allowed [65] On 11-03-2025 I had allowed the mareva application against only the 1st to 4th, 6th and 14th defendants. The sealed order can be seen in Enclosure 68. The order I made as set out in the sealed order in Enclosure 68 is-It Is Hereby Ordered That: -

The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 14th defendants must not remove from Malaysia in any way any of their assets which are in Malaysia whether in their own names or not and whether solely or jointly owned up to the value of RM 3,532,000.00;

The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 14th defendants must not in any way, dispose or deal with or diminish the value of any of their assets whether they are in or outside Malaysia, whether in their own names or not and whether solely or jointly owned up to the value of RM 3,532,000.00;

The prohibition in this order includes the following assets, in particular:

3.1. Any credit balance or monies as may or may hereafter be held at any bank, finance company or other financial institution including but not limited to: -

The 1st defendant’s bank account held in Public Bank Berhad with the account number: 3815769402;

(ii) The 1st defendant’s bank account held in Maybank Banking Berhad or Maybank Islamic Berhad with the account number: 514879103890;

(iii) The 3rd defendant’s bank accounts held in RHB Bank Berhad with the account numbers: 26230800003689, 26225000023093 and 20206900050020;

If the total unencumbered value of the 2nd and 3rd defendants’ assets in Malaysia exceeds RM 3,532,000.00: -

4.1. The 2nd and 3rd defendants may remove any of those assets from Malaysia or may dispose of or deal with them so long as the total unencumbered value of their assets still in Malaysia remains not less than RM 3,532,000.00; and

4.2. The 4th, 6th and 14th defendants may remove any of those assets from Malaysia or may dispose of or deal with them so long as the total unencumbered value of the 2nd and 3rd defendants’ assets in Malaysia exceeds RM 3,532,000.00.

But if the total unencumbered value of the 2nd and 3rd defendants’ assets in Malaysia does not exceed RM 3,532,000.00:

5.1 If the total unencumbered value of the 4th defendant’s assets in Malaysia exceeds RM 3,532,000.00, the 4th defendant may remove any of those assets from Malaysia or may dispose of or deal with them so long as the total unencumbered value of the 4th defendant’s assets still in Malaysia remains not less than RM 3,532,000.00; and

5.2 The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 14th defendants may remove any of those assets from Malaysia or may dispose of or deal with them so long as the total unencumbered value of the 4th defendants’ assets in Malaysia exceeds RM 3,532,000.00.

5.3 Any of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 14th defendants may remove any of those assets from Malaysia or may dispose of or deal with them (referred to as the “Proposed Dealings”), provided that:

Any one or more of the said defendants, intending to do so, shall ensure that:

The total unencumbered value of their assets still in Malaysia remains not less than RM 3,532,000.00 even after the said Proposed Dealings with the said assets;

(ii) The Proposed Dealings shall not in any way diminish the total unencumbered value of their assets;

(iii) All information disclosure requirements, as contained in this order, have been fully complied with;

(iv) If any of the said defendants is a corporation, all directors of such defendant (or defendants) shall, in their personal capacity, provide a written undertaking to indemnify the plaintiff for any losses, costs, and/or damages suffered as a result of the said defendants’ non-compliance with the terms of this order;

The said defendant (or defendants), intending to execute the Proposed Dealings, shall provide the plaintiff with all relevant information about the

(vi) The plaintiff’s solicitors shall be served, at least three

full working days in advance of the Proposed Dealings, with a statement on affidavit providing all relevant details of the Proposed Dealings, including but not limited to the source of the monies involved, its subject matter and the identities of all parties involved, confirming and certifying all of the above requirements as stated herein, together with documentary evidence supporting the information provided in the affidavit; and

The plaintiff shall reserve the right to request further information about the Proposed Dealings and the right to reject the Proposed Dealings on a reasonable basis;

In the event of the need for any of the said defendants to provide, convey or disclose any confidential information to the plaintiff for the purpose of complying with this order, the plaintiff shall undertake that such confidential information shall be used solely for the purpose of ensuring and monitoring compliance with this order and for no other purpose whatsoever; and

A letter of no objection has been issued by the plaintiff in respect of the Proposed Dealings. The plaintiff’s solicitors shall issue the said letter of no objection to the said defendant (or defendants) in respect of the Proposed Dealings, provided that the plaintiff is satisfied that the said defendant (or defendants) has fully complied with the terms of this order; For the avoidance of doubt, the plaintiff shall, upon determining compliance by the said defendant(or defendants) and being satisfied with their compliance, promptly issue such a letter of no objection for execution of the Proposed Dealings.

This order does not prohibit each of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 14th defendants from spending up to RM 30,000.00 a month towards their ordinary living expenses and/or expenses and also a reasonable sum for legal advice and representation. But before spending any money, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 14th defendants must inform the plaintiff’s solicitors where the money is to come from.

The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 14th defendants may agree with the plaintiff’s solicitors that the above spending limits should be increased or that this order should be varied in any other respect but any such agreement must be in writing.

The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 14th defendants who are individuals who are ordered not to do something must not do it themselves or in any other way. They must not do it through others acting on their behalf or on their instructions or with their encouragement.

The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 14th defendants which are corporations and which are ordered not to do something must not do it itself or through its directors, officers, employees or agents or in any other way.

The effect of this order is that it is a contempt of Court for any person notified of this order knowingly to assist in or permit a breach of the order. Any person doing so may be sent to prison and/or fined.

This injunction herein does not prevent any bank from exercising any right of set-off it may have in respect of any facility which it gave to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 14th defendants before it was notified of the order. Withdrawal by any defendant

No bank need enquire as to the application or proposed application of any money withdrawn by the defendants if the withdrawal appears to be permitted by this order.

The plaintiff gives to the Court the undertakings set out in