Young Bees Sdn Bhd v Kongsimakan Berhad (WA-22NCvC-640-11/2017 (Lamp. 1))

KONGSIMAKAN BERHAD

2.

NIK AHMAD AZLAN BIN NIK MUD

MOHD NAZRI BIN ABD HAMID

MOHD FAUZI BIN MANSOR (NRIC NO.: 680813-02-5961) …RESPONDENTS 2 [IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORIES, MALAYSIA CIVIL DIVISION SUIT NO: WA-22NCVC-640-11/2017] BETWEEN YOUNG BEES SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 864987-W) …PLAINTIFF

KONGSIMAKAN BERHAD

2.

NIK AHMAD AZLAN BIN NIK MUD

MOHD NAZRI BIN ABD HAMID

MOHD FAUZI BIN MANSOR (NRIC NO.: 680813-02-5961) …DEFENDANTS 3 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT BACKGROUND FACTS The Plaintiff’s claim [3] The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants as follows: - “a) Bahawa Defendan-Defendan sama ada secara bersama dan/atau berasingan hendaklah menjelaskan wang sebanyak RM800,000.00 yang merupakan bayaran tertunggak untuk produk-produk yang dipasarkan ke pusat-pusat jualan atas permintaan dan/atau pesanan belian oleh Defendan-Defendan kepada Plaintif; dan/atau b) Bahawa Defendan-defendan sama ada secara bersama dan/atau secara berasingan hendaklah memulangkan wang keahlian sebanyak RM30,000.00 yang telah dikutip oleh Defendan-Defendan daripada Plaintif dengan membuat representasi-representasi tipuan dan/atau palsu; dan c) Satu perintah membenarkan Plaintif membuat “Akaun dan Inkuiri” mengenai akaun-akaun Defendan Pertama, Kedua, Ketiga, Keempat dan Kelima untuk mengenal pasti bayaran-bayaran Defendan Pertama yang dialihkan secara salah ke 4 akaun syarikat yang lain dan/atau ke akaun peribadi pengarah-pengarah dan/atau pemegang saham; dan/atau d) Bahawa Defendan-defendan hendaklah membayar gantirugi am dan/atau teladan kepada Plaintif atas tindakan dan/atau perbuatan membuat penipuan dalam membuat representasi-representasi tipuan dan/atau palsuan dalam mendorong dan/atau mempengaruhi Plaintif membuat pelaburan dalam skim tersebut di mana sebarang gantirugi tersebut ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini; dan/atau e) Kos tindakan ini; f) Lain-lain relif atau perintah selanjutnya yang difikirkan adil, suai manfaat dan patut diberikan oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini.” Brief Facts [4] The Plaintiff and the First Defendant is a Private Limited Company whereas the Second Defendant, the alter ego of the First Defendant, the Third and Fifth Defendant is one of the Directors and Shareholder of the First Defendant and the Fourth Defendant is one of the shareholders of the First Defendant. 5 [5] The Plaintiff signed an agreement with the First Defendant known as the Service Legal Agreement dated 22.3.2016 (“the Agreement”) and pursuant to “LAMPIRAN A” of the said Agreement, the Plaintiff paid membership fee of RM30,000.00 to the First Defendant. [6] After the signing of the Agreement, the Plaintiff alleged that the First Defendant issued Purchase Orders to the Plaintiff and give instruction to supply and deliver its products to several Sales Centres identified by the First Defendant, to which the Plaintiff did. [7] It is the Plaintiff’s averment, that the First Defendant has settled all the invoices for the products supplied and delivered by the plaintiff based on the Purchase Orders issued by the First Defendant, but the First Defendant only make prompt payment for all the invoices for first three months of the said Agreement. The First Defendant, according to the Plaintiff failed and/or neglected to make payments for the Purchase Orders issued for June, July and August 2016. Hence, the Plaintiff filed this Suit against all the Defendants before the Court. DECISION OF THE COURT [8] The Third Defendant has filed an application for stay of proceedings pending reference to the Arbitration pursuant to Order 69 Rule 10(3) 6 of the Rules of Court 2012 and Section 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 and the Third Defendant’s application was allowed by the Court on 26.4.2018. A case management was then fixed to allow the parties to refer the dispute to the Arbitration pursuant to Clause 12 of the Agreement which reads: “12. TIMBANGTARA a. Semua pertikaian haruslah dirujuk Semua pertikaian atau perselisihan yang timbul antara pihak-pihak di dalam perjanjian ini sama ada ketika perjanjian masih berkuatkuasa atau selepas tempoh perjanjian yang berkaitan dengan Perjanjian ini atau pembinaan atau kesannya atau tentang hak, kewajipan dan liabiliti pihak-pihak kepada perjanjian ini atau sebaliknya atau tentang apa-apa perkara lain dalam apa-apa cara yang berkaitan dengan atau yang timbul daripada atau berhubung dengan hal perkara dalam Perjanjian ini, hendaklah akhirnya diselesaikan melalui timbang tara. 7 b. Lokasi untuk timbang tara Lokasi untuk timbang tara akan berlangsung di Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia di mana akan dikendalikan mengikut Peraturan untuk timbang tara di Pusat Timbang Tara Serantau Kuala Lumpur.” [10] The Court has given parties time to refer the matter to KLRCA as agreed under the Agreement and case management was fixed on 1.6.2018 for the parties to report back to the Court on the status of the matter. During the case management fixed on 1.6.2018 the Court was informed that the parties still failed to refer the matter to the Arbitration. The Plaintiff’s Solicitors then requested for a short date to get instruction from the client and the Court again fixed another case management on 8.6.2018 but the parties still did not refer the dispute to KLRCA. [11] It is a known fact now that the progress of cases in Malaysia courts is no longer left in the hands of the litigants where in the case of Hong Leong Finance Bhd v Low Thiam Hoe and another appeal [2016] 1 MLJ 301 Zulkelfi Ahmad Makinuddin CJ Malaya (as he then was) clearly explained: - 8 “[18]… Nowadays the court recognizes especially under the new case management regime that a different approach needs to be taken to prevent delay in the progress of a case to trial and for its completion. The progress of the case is no longer left in the hands of the litigants but with the court in the driver’s seat (see the case of Syed Omar bin Syed Mohamed v Perbadanan Nasional Bhd [2013] 1 MLJ 461; [2012] 9 CLJ 557).” [12] Therefore, since the parties have not taken any step to comply with the Court Order to refer the matter to the Arbitration pursuant to the Arbitration Clause as agreed by the parties under the Agreement, the Court finds it necessary to strike out this matter with liberty to file afresh with no other as to costs until the parties comply with the Arbitration Clause as provided under the Agreement. [13] The striking out order by the Court is not a final order as the Plaintiff will be allowed to file its claim in future. Section 10(2) of the Arbitration Act 2005 allows the Court to impose ‘any conditions as it deems fit’ when granting a stay of proceedings pursuant to subsection (1) where the Court has put a condition to the parties to refer the matter to KLRCA by the next case management which was 9 fixed on 1.6.2018 and subsequently on 6.6.2018 but the parties still failed to do so. Dated 8th June 2018. ……………………………………. (ROHANI BINTI ISMAIL) JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER CIVIL HIGH COURT (NCVC 8) KUALA LUMPUR. Mr. Ganesh Magenthiran (Counsel for the Plaintiff / Appellant) Messrs. Hakem Arabi & Associates Mr. Andrew Lourdes & Ms Pusppa Muraiya (Counsels for the Third Defendant / Respondent)