XXXX v 1. ) XXXX (WA-22NCVC-135-03/2017)

PARMANAND KANAYALAL (Republic of Singapore Passport No.: E3687385H)

RENGANATHAN RAVINDRANATH PONNIAH

SHARONJIT KAUR A/P SARAWAN SINGH (Beramal di Tetuan Iqbal, Hakim Sia & Voo) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction [1] Is this Court empowered to order assessment of damages after setting aside an interlocutory injunction if and only if there is an express finding by the trial judge that the injunction ought not to have been granted in the first place? That was the issue of law for determination when the 2nd Defendant’s application (Enclosure 413) for an inquiry and assessment of damages (caused by an interlocutory injunction) was heard by this Court. [2] Learned counsel for the Plaintiff cited a judgment of the Court of Appeal as authority to resist the 2nd Defendant’s application (Enclosure 413) for an inquiry and assessment of damages. I am mindful that the doctrine of stare decisis is unequivocal in requiring this Court to adhere to precedents set by the Court of Appeal and Federal Court. Since the said authority answered the above question of law in the affirmative, I was constrained to dismiss the 2nd Defendant’s application. The salient facts and authority cited by the Plaintiff set out below. Background Facts [3] In this case, the Plaintiff’s application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the Defendant from was dismissed. The prayers were to restrain the Defendants from carrying out any activities involving and/or using and/or in relation to a condominium known as B-33-03, Suasana Sentral Condo, Kuala Lumpur (“the said Property”) including but not limited to the transfer of the title of the said Property, and generally from taking any further action that may be prejudicial to the Plaintiff until this action is heard and/or disposed. [4] On appeal, the Court of Appeal decided in favour of the Plaintiff and issued the injunction sought by the Plaintiff (“the said injunction”) on 26th September 2018. [5] My predecessor Justice Rozana binti Ali Yusoff decided to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim against all three Defendants on 9th August 2023 – which was after a full trial of this action. There was another civil suit in this Court No.WA-22NCvC-158-03/2017(“Suit No.158”) which had been ordered to be tried together with this civil suit. In Suit No.158, the plaintiff is the 2nd Defendant herein (Renganathan Ravindranath Ponniah) while the first defendant there is the Plaintiff herein (Anil Kumar Chigurupati). In Suit No.158, Justice Rozana decided to allow the claim of the plaintiff there (the 2nd Defendant herein) against the first defendant (the Plaintiff here). Her Ladyship also ordered damages to be assessed for loss of use of the said Property and the entry of a caveat, to be paid by the first defendant (the Plaintiff here) to the plaintiff there (the 2nd Defendant herein). In other words, there is already an order in Suit No.158 for the Plaintiff in this action (as the first defendant there) to pay damages. [6] On the day of judgment, which was on 9th August 2023, no order was made by Justice Rozana regarding the said injunction; probably because neither the delighted Defendants’ counsel nor the Plaintiff’s disappointed counsel thought of it then. [7] A screenshot of the sealed Judgment dated 9th August 2023 in this civil suit is shown below: [8] It is relevant to mention that in Suit No.158 the 2nd Defendant (as the victorious plaintiff there) had commenced proceedings for assessment of damages and it is part-heard after witnesses were called. [9] The 2nd Defendant’s aforesaid application (Enclosure 413), which is the subject matter herein, was filed specifically for an inquiry and assessment of damages caused by the said injunction for the period between 26th September 2018 and 9th August 2023. The main prayer in Enclosure 413 is as follows: The Authority cited by the Plaintiff [10] Soo Boon Siong @ Saw Boon Siong v Saw Fatt Seong [2008] 1 MLJ 27 is the authority mentioned in para [2] hereinabove. It is a judgment of the Court of Appeal. Prior to seeing this authority, I was thinking of allowing the 2nd Defendant’s application (Enclosure 413) subject to adjustments to be made for the duplicity in the damages claimed by the 2nd Defendant. In view there would be duplicity because the said injunction had caused the 2nd Defendant herein to suffer, inter alia, “loss of use” of the said Property but the quantum must be assessed. [11] The pertinent passages in Soo Boon Siong (supra) are as follows: “[111] The issues raised by the appellant over the affairs and finances of the partnership and the companies are serious enough to warrant a trial of the matter. The severity of the letter dated 3 July 1995 from the second respondent to the appellant informing that payments of salary and all other expenses shall cease with effect from 1 July 1995 and citing no reason whatsoever clearly favours the case for an injunction pending trial. [110] The learned judge had, in dismissing the appellant’s claims, dissolved the order of injunction dated 21 December 1995 and ordered damages to be assessed. … With respect, the fact that the learned judge had dismissed the appellant’s claims altogether does not necessarily mean that the said order of injunction ought not to have been granted in the first place. The need to establish, after trial, whether the injunction ought or ought not to have been granted is rather important, since the appellant would no doubt have satisfied the trial judge at the inter-parte hearing on the criteria for an injunction pending trial following the principles of American Cyanamid. Unless there had been an express finding on the part of the trial judge that the said order of injunction had not been rightly granted, which I am unable to find in his grounds of judgment, I do not think that the trial judge should have ordered damages to be assessed.” [114] In the circumstances, and in the absence of any express finding that the said order of injunction ought not to have been granted in the first place, the trial judge is therefore not justified to order any damages as Counsel for the Plaintiff: Hadi Mukhlis (Gurjaevan Singh with him) SOLICITORS FOR THE PLAINTIFF: MESSRS STEVEN THIRU Advocates & Solicitors A1-12-01, Arcoris Mont Kiara, Jalan Kiara, Mont Kiara, 50480 KUALA LUMPUR. Counsel for the 2nd Defendant: Justin Tong Wei Hang (Ong Tze Xian and Dakshyani Durrgha with him) SOLICITORS FOR THE 2nd DEFENDANT: MESSRS SHEARN DELAMORE & CO. Advocates & Solicitors 7th Floor, Wisma Hamzah-Kwong Hing, No. 1, Leboh Ampang, 50100 KUALA LUMPUR.

Soo Boon Siong @ Saw Boon Siong v Saw Fatt Seong [2008] 1 MLJ

27.