KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court today gave former MIC president and MIED chairman S Samy Vellu and seven trustees 30 days to disclose documents related to the party’s education arm since 1990.
Commercial Court judge Abdul Aziz Rahim, who made the decision in his chambers, ordered them to provide the documents including those relating to the construction of the Asian Institute of Medicine Science and Technology (AIMST), which allegedly caused huge losses.
Abdul Aziz also allowed former MIC Youth chief A Vigneswaran’s application for the defendants to disclose copies of the letter of appointment of its former CEO P Chitirakala and her scope of work.
MIED had sought a total of 12 documents after High Court Judicial Commissioner Mah Weng Kwai on June 14, allowed an application to name MIED as the plaintiff in its proposed suit against the trustees of MIED.
Other than Samy Vellu, the other defendants are his successor G Palanivel, M Mahalingam, Dr T Marimuthu, Dr SK Ampikaipakam, Dr Karnail Singh Nijhar, K Kumaran and G Vadiveloo.
Abdul Aziz set tomorrow for case management to fix trial dates for the main suit.
Other documents sought under the custody, possession and control of defendants were documents showing monies received and paid out by MIED from 1990 up to the date Vigneswaran filed a RM100 million suit against Samy and the trustees of MIED on July 5, 2010.
The documents are:
In the suit, MIED (Vigneswaran) claimed that all the defendants had breached their fiduciary and statutory duties, and failed to discharge responsibilities as trustees and auditors.
MIED is also seeking an injunction to restrain Samy Vellu from continuing to helm the institute, stripped of his membership in MIED and for him to return all monies or profits made from MIED either by himself or through family members and close friends.
MIED is also seeking a court order to make Samy Vellu compensate for all the financial losses incurred by the institute in the time he had administered MIED as its chairman.
Vigneswaran, who is also a member of MIED, has sought the court’s permisssion to initiate the suit under Section 181A of the Companies Act 1965. This section of the Act requires a company seeking to be a plaintiff in a suit to first get the court’s permission to do so.
-Bernama
Commercial Court judge Abdul Aziz Rahim, who made the decision in his chambers, ordered them to provide the documents including those relating to the construction of the Asian Institute of Medicine Science and Technology (AIMST), which allegedly caused huge losses.
Abdul Aziz also allowed former MIC Youth chief A Vigneswaran’s application for the defendants to disclose copies of the letter of appointment of its former CEO P Chitirakala and her scope of work.
MIED had sought a total of 12 documents after High Court Judicial Commissioner Mah Weng Kwai on June 14, allowed an application to name MIED as the plaintiff in its proposed suit against the trustees of MIED.
Other than Samy Vellu, the other defendants are his successor G Palanivel, M Mahalingam, Dr T Marimuthu, Dr SK Ampikaipakam, Dr Karnail Singh Nijhar, K Kumaran and G Vadiveloo.
Abdul Aziz set tomorrow for case management to fix trial dates for the main suit.
Other documents sought under the custody, possession and control of defendants were documents showing monies received and paid out by MIED from 1990 up to the date Vigneswaran filed a RM100 million suit against Samy and the trustees of MIED on July 5, 2010.
The documents are:
- copies of all documents including invoices in respect of legal fees paid to solicitors;
- copies of all documents showing payments to third parties in respect of the book on Samy “Samy Vellu: As We Know Him”;
- forensic audit reports for the year 2005-2008;
- copies of all documents evidencing the payment by Abdul Rashid Abdul Manaf to MIED and vice versa;
- interest-free loan to Hari Narayanan and Mumtaz Begum with repayment of said loans;
- copies of documents evidencing purchase of all gifts from MIED from 1990;
- Semeling land – payment of premium to the Kedah state government; and
- copies of company’s resolution passed since 1990.
In the suit, MIED (Vigneswaran) claimed that all the defendants had breached their fiduciary and statutory duties, and failed to discharge responsibilities as trustees and auditors.
MIED is also seeking an injunction to restrain Samy Vellu from continuing to helm the institute, stripped of his membership in MIED and for him to return all monies or profits made from MIED either by himself or through family members and close friends.
MIED is also seeking a court order to make Samy Vellu compensate for all the financial losses incurred by the institute in the time he had administered MIED as its chairman.
Vigneswaran, who is also a member of MIED, has sought the court’s permisssion to initiate the suit under Section 181A of the Companies Act 1965. This section of the Act requires a company seeking to be a plaintiff in a suit to first get the court’s permission to do so.
-Bernama
No comments:
Post a Comment