VISIBER SDN BHD v 1. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Petaling (BA-24NCvC-771-04/2025)

KOK LOW KAU (No. K/P: 561124-08-5051) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN 21/07/2025 12:33:49 BA-24NCvC-771-04/2025 Kand. 43

At the core of the Plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 1 lies a principal request. The relief sought is the immediate withdrawal and cancellation of the Registrar’s Caveat. In addition, the Plaintiff seeks further reliefs specifically directed against the Second Defendant.

The submissions exchanged between the parties reveal a striking feature, that is, each side accuses the other of resorting to a 'backdoor approach' in pursuit of their respective objectives. These allegations underscore the contentious and tactical nature of the proceedings.

The principal issues are: First, whether the Plaintiff is entitled to have the Registrar’s Caveat withdrawn and cancelled; and Second, whether the Plaintiff is entitled to general, exemplary and injunctive reliefs against the Second Defendant.

In determining the first of the two principal issues, questions that have arisen include (i) whether the Plaintiff is entitled to rely on the doctrine of res judicata; and (ii) whether fraud has been established, as averred by the Defendants.

The Plaintiff, Visiber Sdn Bhd, is a company registered in Malaysia pursuant to the provisions of the Companies Act 1965 and is the registered owner of the land held under Hakmilik No.PM 3812 Lot 13964 Tempat Kampong Sungai Kayu Ara, Pekan Kayu Ara, Daerah Petaling, Negeri Selangor (“Kayu Ara Land”).

The First Defendant is the Pejabat Daerah dan Tanah Petaling, a government body involved with the administration of land matters in the District of Petaling.

The Second Defendant, Kok Low Kau, is an individual having an address at No. 212, Kg. Cempedak, Sungai Way, Selangor.

By way of Enclosure 1, the Plaintiff had prayed for the following reliefs:

for an order that the Registrar’s Caveat [RC] bearing presentation number 08B4381/2024 lodged unlawfully and without basis on land held under Hakmilik No.PM 3812 Lot 13964 Tempat Kampong Sungai Kayu Ara, Pekan Kayu Ara, Daerah Petaling, Negeri Selangor [Kayu Ara Land] on 18/10/2024 at 12.21 p.m. by the Pendaftar Pejabat Daerah dan Tanah Petaling pursuant to a police report bearing number DAMANSARA /014514/24 lodged by the Second Defendant [D2] on 27/9/2024 at Petaling Jaya Police Station be withdrawn and cancelled forthwith. b) for an order that D2 pay general damages to the Plaintiff for all losses arising from the lodging of the RC which has caused a breach of the Joint Venture Agreement dated 5/1/2018 between the Plaintiff and the Developer, Laubros Ion World Sdn Bhd. c) D2 by himself and/or his agents and/or his nominees and or partners and or anyone instructed by D2 be prohibited from commencing, filing or proceeding with any Court action and/or Court proceeding including but not limited to any application for any injunction and/or interim injunction and/or ad interim injunction and/or any other application in any form whatsoever in order to affect, prejudice, halt, hinder and /or to cause a failure of the Joint Venture Project between the Plaintiff and other parties or the management of the said Kayu Ara Land.

General damages be assessed and be paid by D2;

Exemplary damages be paid by D2;

Costs; and

Any further or other relief that the Court deems fit and proper.

This Originating Summons in Enclosure 1 is resisted by the First and the Second Defendants.

The Plaintiff asserted that it had purchased the Kayu Ara Land from a company, Shabana Sdn Bhd, by way of a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 31 December, 2013.

There was a civil suit filed by the Second Defendant, as plaintiff, in civil suit No. BA-22NCVC-576-12/2019 (“Suit 576”). In this Suit 576, the Second Defendant as plaintiff, prayed for various reliefs and it included a prayer for a declaration that the Plaintiff herein, Visiber Sdn Bhd, return and handover the original document of title for the Kayu Ara Land free from encumbrances to the Second Defendant. After a full hearing, the High Court dismissed the Second Defendant’s claim and allowed Visiber Sdn Bhd’s counterclaim. An essential feature of the counterclaim that was allowed by High Court in Suit 576 was that the Second Defendant be prohibited from:

dealing with the Kayu Ara Land and interfering with the said land;

lodging a private caveat; and/or

imposing any restraints on the said land which would hamper the interest of Visiber Sdn Bhd over the said land.

The Plaintiff averred that it became aware of the existence of the Registrar’s Caveat on or around 5 February, 2025, when it was informed by the solicitor acting for the chargee bank, RHB Bank Berhad, that a Registrar’s Caveat had been lodged over the Kayu Ara Land. This notification arose when the solicitor attempted to register the discharge of charge over the said land. A subsequent land search conducted by the Plaintiff confirmed that the Registrar’s Caveat had been entered on 18 October 2024.

The Plaintiff stated that it then instructed its solicitors to apply to the First Defendant’s office to obtain a certified true copy of the document relating to the Registrar’s Caveat but the First Defendant did not forward any document except to say that the Registrar’s Caveat is “sulit”.

This was followed by an official letter dated 26 February, 2025 from the Plaintiff’s solicitors to the First Defendant seeking further particulars about the Registrar’s Caveat. The Plaintiff’s solicitors were then requested to refer the matter to the Investigating Officer, one Inspector Noraqilah binti Abdul Hassan, at the Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah Petaling Jaya concerning the police report which led to the lodging of the Registrar’s Caveat.

Inquiries with the police led the Plaintiff to believe that that the Second Defendant had lodged a police report requesting the police to protect and safeguard the Kayu Ara Land by lodging a Registrar’s Caveat over the said land.

It was submitted by the Plaintiff that all these came as a total surprise to it as at no time did the police contact the Plaintiff to give any evidence or statement concerning the Second Defendant’s police report before the Registrar Caveat was lodged. What was abundantly clear, according to the Plaintiff, was that “without any investigation whatsoever and merely based on a police report by D2 the contents of which are questionable the Police requested D1 to register the RC and D1 without any query merely followed the wishes of the police”. In short, the Plaintiff highlighted the absence of any investigation by the police.

The Plaintiff through its solicitors issued a letter dated 17 March, 2025 to the Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah Petaling Jaya wherein the Plaintiff explained that the complainant/Second Defendant had lost a civil suit concerning the Kayu Ara Land and that the judgment of the High Court was that the Second Defendant is not to interfere with the land. A copy of the High Court’s Judgment dated 28 July, 2023 was attached to the said letter.

The above events led the Plaintiff to the filing of its own police report stating that:

The Second Defendant had made a false police report against the Plaintiff;

The Second Defendant is not the owner of the said Kayu Ara Land since the Plaintiff had bought the said Kayu Ara Land from Shabana Sdn Bhd, by way of an SPA for RM4 million;

Shabana Sdn Bhd was represented by Messrs Gan Lau & Associates and the entire purchase price has been paid to Shabana Sdn Bhd’s solicitors since 2014 and the Plaintiff was registered as the registered owner of the said

The report by the Second Defendant is false, “since by virtue of the judgment dated 28/7/2023 in the Civil Suit 576, whereby D2’s claim against the Plaintiff was dismissed”; and

The said judgment prohibited the Second Defendant from interfering with the said Kayu Ara Land, or lodging a caveat by himself or through others.

In short, the Plaintiff’s contention was that the Second Defendant has achieved his objective in circumventing the judgment in Suit 576 “through the backdoor”.

In support of the above contentions, the Plaintiff relied on authorities such as Moden Hartawan Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Johor Bahru [2015] 1 CLJ 822; [2015] 11 MLJ 191; [2014] MLRHU 1489, Secure Plantations Sdn Bhd v Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Negeri Pulau Pinang & Ors [2025] AMEJ 0034; [2025] CLJU 54; [2025] MLJU 82; [2025] MLRHU 29, Development & Commercial Bank Bhd v Land Administrator Wilayah Persekutuan & Anor [1991] 2 MTC 83; [1991] 2 MLJ 180; [1991] 1 MLRA 309 and Taipan Focus Sdn Bhd v Tunku Mudzaffar Tunku Mustapha [2011] 1 CLJ 133; [2011] 1 MLJ 441; [2010] 3 MLRA 8.

The First Defendant outlined the “kronologi berkenaan pendaftaran Kaveat Pendaftar tersebut berdasarkan rekod Defendan Pertama yang dinyatakan di dalam Afidavit Jawapan Defendan Pertama” as follows.

4.1 Defendan Pertama telah menerima surat bertarikh 30.9.2024 daripada Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Komersial Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah Petaling Jaya berkaitan Permohonan Untuk Kemasukan Kaveat Pendafiar ke atas Hartanah tersebut (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai "Surat tersebut") (Eksibit "KH-2" dalam Afidavit Jawapan Defendan Pertama adalah dirujuk).

4.2 Selepas menerima Surat tersebut, pihak Defendan Pertama berpandangan bahawa suatu Kaveat Pendaftar wajar didaftarkan untuk mencegah urusniaga yang tidak patut ke atas Hartanah tersebut dan untuk pihak polis menjalankan siasatan sebagaimana Repot Polis Damansara Rpt: 14514/2024 dan Kaveat Pendaftar tersebut telah didaftarkan pada 18.10.2024. (Sesalinan Borang 19F Kemasukan Kaveat Pendaftar Atas Tanah yang dilampirkan sebagai Eksibit "KH-3" dalam Afidavit Jawapan Defendan Pertama adalah dirujuk).

4.3 Selanjutnya, Notis Mengenai Kemasukan Kaveat Pendaftar (Borang 19A) telah dikeluarkan kepada Visiber Sdn Bhd dan RHB Bank Berhad pada 18.10.2024. (Sesalinan Borang 19A kepada Visiber Sdn Bhd dan RHB Bank Berhad yang dilampirkan sebagai Eksibit "KH-4" dalam Afidavit Jawapan Defendan Pertama adalah dirujuk).

4.4 Melalui surat bertarikh 21.10.2024, pihak Defendan Pertama telah mengemukakan surat kepada Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Komersial memaklumkan berkenaan kemasukan Kaveat Pendaftar tersebut. (Sesalinan surat bertarikh 21.10.2024 dilampirkan sebagai Eksibit "KH-5" dalam Afidavit Jawapan Defendan Pertama adalah dirujuk).

4.5 Selanjutnya, pihak Defendan Pertama telah menerima surat daripada peguamcara pihak PlaintiT bertarikh 26.2.2025 tersebut yang memohon butiran lanjut berkenaan kemasukan Kaveat Pendaftar tersebut.

4.6 Defendan Pertama telah membalas surat tersebut melalui surat bertarikh 17.3.2025 memaklumkan bahawa tujuan bagi kemasukan Kaveat Pendaftar tersebut adalah untuk menghalang sebarang urusniaga ke atas tanah dan bagi membolehkan pihak polis membuat siasatan lanjut berkenaan aduan yang diterima. (Sesalinan surat Defendan Pertama bertarikh 17.3.2025 dilampirkan sebagai Eksibit "KH-6" dalam Afidavit Jawapan Defendan Pertama adalah dirujuk).

Based on the above chronology of events, the First Defendant averred that it had “exercised its discretion and was of the opinion that a Registrar's Caveat should be registered against the said land to prevent fraud and any improper transactions registered against the said land and to enable the police to investigate the ownership of the said land and to maintain the status quo of ownership of the said land” pursuant to the powers conferred on it by section 320(1) of the National Land Code.

The First Defendant relied on cases such as Registrar of Titles, Johore v Temenggong Securities Ltd [1976] CLJU 135; [1976] 2 MLJ 44; [1976] 1 MLRA 180, Dayang Khatijah binti Jahan & Ors v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Seberang Perai Utara Pulau Pinang [2018] CLJU 236; [2018] 9 MLJ 22 and Agrimal Project Sdn Bhd v Pendaftar Hakmilik Pejabat Tanah Dan Galian Johor & Ors [1997] 4 AMR 3398; [1997] 3 CLJ 491; [1998] 5 MLJ 673; [1997] 1 MLRH 650 to support its contention.

References and reliance were also made to sections 321(3), 417 and 418 of the National Land Code. The nub of this ground was that the Plaintiff had failed to exhaust the remedy as prescribed by the National Land Code.

The First Defendant highlighted that section 321(3) of the National Land Code only provides for the cancellation of a Regsitrar’s Caveat under any one of the following three circumstances provided thereto and the Plaintiff has failed to bring its case under any one of the three grounds pursuant to section 321(3) of the National Land Code.

The First Defendant drew this Court’s attention to the Federal Court case of Tan Soo Bing & Ors v Tan Kooi Fook [1997] 1 AMR 249; [1997] 1 CLJ 556; [1996] 3 MLJ 547; [1996] 2 MLRA 164 which it submitted as having clarified the provisions of sections 417 and 418 of the National Land Code as follows: In our view, the words ' ... be necessary to give effect to any judgment or order given or made in any proceedings' in s 417(1) are very important. These words limit the power of the court to give directions to the registrar. The court can only give directions to the registrar if such directions are necessary to give effect to any judgment or order of the court. There must first be a final judgment or order of the court. Then only, in order to give effect to such judgment or order, the court can give directions to the registrar.

Reliance was also made to the case of Malayan Banking Bhd v Pendaftar Hakmilik, Negeri Pahanq & Anor [1991] 1 MLJ 119 for the proposition that a proprietor of a land wishing for a Registrar’s Caveat to be cancelled must first apply to the Registrar to cancel the Registrar’s Caveat as required by section 321(3)(b) of the National Land Code. If the Registrar refuses to cancel it, then the proprietor, as the dissatisfied party, may bring the matter on appeal to the High Court under section 418 of the National Land Code.

The First Defendant also averred that the Shah Alam High Court's decision in Suit 576 referred to by the Plaintiff did not involve the First Defendant as it was a claim between the Plaintiff and the Second Defendant.

The First Defendant thus argued that the Registrar's Caveat was registered in accordance with the provisions of the National Land Code and that the Registrar had acted in accordance with the provisions of the law.

The salient facts, according to the Second Defendant, were that:

At all material times and prior to the 2nd Defendant resignation in 2016, the 2nd Defendant was a director of Shabana (M) Sdn Bhd (Company No. 149568-A) (“Shabana”) and is currently a shareholder in the company together with the 2nd Defendant’s brother Kok Wang.

Prior to 2014, Shabana was the registered owner of a plot of land situated at PM3812, Lot 13694, Tempat Sungai Kayu Ara, Pekan Kayu Ara, Petaling District, Selangor (“the said Land”).

The Plaintiff’s directors, namely Dato Hew Choong Jeng (‘Dato Hew’), Dato Eng Chip Jin and Dato Kwan Hep Chuen and the 2nd Defendant on behalf of Shabana had reached an agreement that the sale price of the land was RM6 million but due to the Plaintiff’s inability to pay the said RM6 million, the parties had agreed to reflect only RM 4 million as the sale price in the said Agreement.

In addition, it was also agreed between the parties that the 2nd Defendant should return all monies of 4 million upon receipt from the Plaintiff and that the 2nd Defendant would receive RM6 million in cash or shares worth the same amount within 12 months from the date of the said Agreement and the said Irrevocable Letter of Guarantee. On the above inducement, the 2nd Defendant agreed to their proposal to sell the land at a sale price of RM4 million although the actual sale price was RM6 million.

In accordance with the said inducement, the 2nd Defendant had channelled RM3.5 million to the Plaintiff's solicitors, Messrs Lily Ho and RM500,000.00 to companies related to Dato' Hew. At that time, the 2nd Defendant had no knowledge of how the RM4 million was used by the Plaintiff, Messrs Lily Ho and also Dato' Hew's companies.

However, the 2nd Defendant did not get any monies or shares even after the Irrevocable Letter of Guarantee expired. To make matters worse, they also made 6 separate Irrevocable Letters of Guarantee

The Second Defendant further submitted that at all material times, he was the beneficial owner of the said Land and this is within the full knowledge of the Plaintiff. The Second Defendant stated that this was reflected in the Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 31 December, 2013, read together with the Irrevocable Letter of Guarantee dated 31 December, 2013. However, after the Second Defendant filed Suit 576, “suddenly on 6.3.2020, the directors of Visiber gave the 2nd Defendant 1,125 million units of OTCQB shares through the company Visiber 57 Corp”.

The Second Defendant referred to case of Kerajaan Malaysia & Anor v Dr Vijaendreh a/l Subramaniam & Anor [2025] 3 AMR 337; [2025] 4 CLJ 234; [2025] 2 MLJ 701; [2025] 3 MLRA 169 (“Dr Vijaendreh a/l Subramaniam”), where it was submitted that the Federal Court had held that a declaration cannot be given to impede on a criminal proceeding.

The Second Defendant also submitted that the Plaintiff should have invoked section 418 of the National Land Code, as that provision “allows for an appeal in the event the Registrar does not remove the caveat upon the Plaintiff’s application under Section 321(3)(b) of the NLC”.

Expectedly, the Second Defendant argued that the First Defendant had acted rightfully in accordance with the provisions of the National Land Code.

On the issue of whether the Plaintiff is entitled for general damages and exemplary damages from the Second Defendant, the Second Defendant submitted that in the event the Plaintiff is successful in Enclosure 1, the answer should be in the negative. This is because, according to the Second Defendant, he “has not committed any wrongdoing against the Plaintiff”. The Second Defendant emphasized that “the decision to enter the Registrar’s caveat lies only with the 1st Respondent”. The Second Defendant then went on to argue that “as such, there is no possibility for the Plaintiff to have sustained damages due to any purported act of the 2nd Defendant”. Reference was made to the case of Sambaga Valli a/p KR Ponnusamy v Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Ors [2018] 4 AMR 745; [2017] CLJU 500; [2018] 1 MLJ 784; [2018] 3 MLRA 488.

With reference to the prayer (c) in the Originating Summons, it was submitted by the Second Defendant that this prayer is merely a regurgitation of the Shah Alam High Court judgment in Suit 576.

The present application brings into focus a number of the provisions of the National Land Code and decided cases.

The said decided cases have been alluded to by the parties in their respective contentions.

The relevant provisions of the National Land Code that warrant scrutiny are sections 319, 320, 321(3), 417 and 418. REGISTRAR’S CAVEATS Nature and effect of Registrar’s caveats

(1) A caveat under this section shall be known as a “Registrar’s caveat”, and —

may be entered by the Registrar on the register document of title to any land in any of the circumstances specified in section 320;

subject to subsection (3), shall, so long as it continues in force, have the effect of prohibiting the registration, endorsement or entry on that document of —

any instrument of dealing;

(ii) any claim to the benefit of a tenancy exempt from registration; and

(iii) any lienholder’s caveat.

The prohibition imposed by a Registrar’s caveat shall apply to any such instrument notwithstanding that it was presented for registration before the caveat was entered, and to any such claim or lienholder’s caveat notwithstanding that the application for its endorsement or entry was received before that time.

The Registrar may waive the said prohibition in any case where he is satisfied that to do so would not be inconsistent with the purpose for which the caveat was entered, but, in any other case, shall reject the instrument or, as the case may be, the application for endorsement or entry.

On rejecting any instrument or application for endorsement pursuant to this section, the Registrar shall take the like steps as if he had rejected it pursuant to section 298 or 317. Circumstances in which Registrar’s caveats may be entered

(1) Subject to subsection (2), a Registrar’s caveat may be entered in respect of any land wherever such appears to the Registrar to be necessary or desirable —

for the prevention of fraud or improper dealing; or

for protecting the interests of —

the Federation or the State Authority, or

(ii) any person who is in his opinion under the disability of minority, mental disorder or unsoundness of mind, or is shown to his satisfaction to be absent from the Federation; or (ba) for securing that the land will be available to satisfy the whole or part of any debt due to the Federation or the State Authority, whether such debt is secured or unsecured and whether or not judgment thereon has been obtained; or

by reason of some error appearing to him to have been made in the register or issue document of title to the land or any other instrument relating thereto.

Knowledge by the Registrar of the fact that any land or interest therein has been acquired, or is to be held, by any person or body in a fiduciary capacity shall not of itself constitute a ground for entering a Registrar’s caveat in respect of that land. Procedure with respect to Registrar’s caveats and duration thereof 312 (1) … …

A Registrar’s caveat shall continue in force until it is cancelled by the Registrar –

of his own motion; or

on an application in that behalf by the proprietor of the land affected; or

(c)

(1) The Court or a Judge may by order direct the Registrar or any Land Administrator to do all such things as may be necessary to give effect to any judgment or order given or made in any proceedings relating to land, and it shall be the duty of the Registrar or Land Administrator to comply with the order forthwith.

Where, pursuant to any order made by virtue of this section, the Registrar or any Land Administrator –

cancels any instrument relating to land, or any memorial or other entry on any such instrument, or

makes any other amendment of, or addition to, any such instrument, he shall note thereon the reason for the cancellation, amendment or addition, and the date thereof, and shall authenticate the same by his signature and seal.

Where the Registrar or Land Administrator takes action under this section in respect of any land or any share or interest therein, he shall cause notice of his action to be served upon any person or body having a claim protected by caveat affecting the land, share or interest. Appeals to the Court

(1) Any person or body aggrieved by any decision under this Act of the State Director, the Registrar or any Land Administrator may, at any time within the period of three months beginning with the date on which it was communicated to him appeal therefrom to the Court.

Any such appeal shall be made in accordance with any written law for the time being in force relating to civil procedure; and the Court shall make such order thereon as it considers just.

In this section, "decision" includes any act, omission, refusal, direction or order." The Decision on this Court

In arriving at its decision on this Originating Summons, this Court has carefully considered the competing core contentions of the parties.

The Plaintiff’s case rests on two primary grounds: first, that the Registrar’s Caveat was lodged based on a false police report; and second, that the doctrine of res judicata applies to the present proceedings. In addition, the Plaintiff relies on a tertiary ground, namely, that the Second Defendant’s “source of complaint” pertained to shares in Visiber57 Corp., a matter entirely unrelated to the Kayu Ara Land.

In response, the First Defendant advanced four key arguments:

that it had valid grounds for lodging the Registrar’s Caveat;

(ii) that the caveat was entered in accordance with the statutory powers conferred upon it; (iii) that the Plaintiff had improperly invoked section 417 of the National Land Code; and (iv) that it was not bound by the principle of res judicata.

The Second Defendant, for his part, denied the Plaintiff’s allegations and aligned itself with the First Defendant’s submissions in opposing the Plaintiff’s Originating Summons.

This Court is unable to disagree with the contentions advanced by the First Defendant. There are sufficient merits in the arguments presented. The First Defendant has cogently demonstrated that the lodging of the Registrar’s Caveat was done pursuant to valid and lawful grounds. The justification provided, that the caveat was entered in accordance with the statutory powers conferred under the National Land Code, is both legally sound and factually supported.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s reliance on the principle of res judicata, as against the First Defendant, in this Court’s view, was misplaced. Additionally, the Plaintiff’s invocation of section 417 of the National Land Code was erroneous.

In light of the above, this Court accepts the First Defendant’s position as well-founded in both fact and law.

As against the Second Defendant, this Court is mindful of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd and Others [2019] UKSC 13, wherein it was emphatically stated that “fraud unravels all.” This maxim underscores the fundamental legal position that where fraud is established, it can vitiate even the most conclusive of transactions or judgments.

Further, this Court is bound by the authoritative decision of the Federal Court in Dr Vijaendreh a/l Subramaniam, which provides clear guidance on the limits of declaratory relief. In that case, the Federal Court unequivocally held that “a declaration cannot be granted, much less be entertained, if the effect of the declaration is such that it impedes upon a criminal proceeding or enforces a matter which is rightly within the jurisdiction of the criminal courts.” This principle is directly applicable to the present application and informs this Court’s determination.

Having considered the totality of the arguments, the factual matrix, and the applicable legal principles, this Court finds no merit in the Plaintiff’s case as presented in Enclosure 1.

Accordingly, Enclosure 1 is dismissed with costs.

The Plaintiff is ordered to pay costs of RM10,000.00 to each of the Defendants. Dated: 7 July, 2025 sgd (CHOONG YEOW CHOY) JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR Counsel: For the Plaintif : N Subramaniam Lily Ho Melissa Ong Wi Xin (Messrs. L. Ho & Associates) For the for 1stDefendant : Amira Haziqah binti Zulkifli (Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor) For the 2nd Defendant : C. Vignesh Kumar a/l Chellapah Yasinthra a/p Dorairaju (Vignesh Kumar & Associates)