Tan Sri Datuk Nadraja A/l Ratnam V Murali A/l Subramani

NAD RAJA A/L RATNAM v MURALI A/L SUBRAMANIAM
CaseAnalysis
| [2017] MLJU 2307
Tan Sri Datuk Nadraja a/l Ratnam v Murali a/l Subramaniam (Dato
Sivakumar a/l Nadraja, intervener)
[2017] MLJU 2307
Malayan Law Journal Unreported
HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)

NANTHA BALAN J
SUIT NO 23NCVC-56-07 OF 2015
10 November 2017
G Rajasingam (R Aswath with him) (Shearn Delamore & Co) for the applicant.
K Saraswathy (S Kandasami & Co) for the respondent.
Dhanaraj Vasudevan (B Devandra with him) (K F Ee & Co) for the intervener.
Nantha Balan J:
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
(Enclosure 126)
[1]These are my grounds of judgment in respect of an application by the plaintiff for an order of committal against
the defendant (Enclosure 126). For purposes of the committal proceedings, I shall refer to the plaintiff and
defendant as “the applicant” and “the respondent”, respectively. The committal proceedings were initiated about
eight (8) months after the main suit (defamation) suit had been concluded. The decision of this Court in the main
suit (after full trial) was delivered on 29 July 2016 (“the Order”).
[2]The main suit was based on postings and comments on the respondent’s Facebook account which were held to
be defamatory of the applicant.
[3]The committal proceeding is predicated on the respondent’s post- judgment conduct. Briefly, the applicant’s
grounds for committal are:
a) that the respondent had disobeyed paragraph (1) of the Order by which the respondent was restrained
from writing and publishing or causing to be’ written and published defamatory words complained of in the
Facebook publications and/or such other similar or like defamatory words, of and concerning the plaintiff
and in the way of his offices; and
b) that he had misled the Court by way of his affidavit affirmed on 7 February 2017 (Enclosure 92), when he
moved this Court for a stay of execution of the monetary judgment under the Order (per paragraphs 4, 5
and 6 of the Order).
[4]In so far as disobedience of paragraph (1) of the Order is concerned, the applicant relied on seven (7) post-
judgment Facebook publications attributed to the respondent, by which it is alleged that the respondent had
defamed the plaintiff by publishing words which are similar to the words complained of in the defamatory
publications which were the subject matter of the main suit.
[5]As for misleading the Court via his affidavit, it is alleged that the Respondent had stated in his affidavit affirmed
Page 2 of 37
Tan Sri Datuk Nadraja a/l Ratnam v Murali a/l Subramaniam (Dato Sivakumar a/l Nadraja, intervener)
....
on 7 February 2017 that he would be ruined by the bankruptcy proceedings which were taken against him by the
applicant, whereas in opposing the applicant’s application in the Court of Appeal for security for costs, the
respondent is alleged to have taken a position which was contrary to his affidavit in support of his application for
stay of execution. As such, it is alleged that the respondent was not truthful to this Court when he sought a stay of
execution and that such conduct on the respondent’s part, is to be construed as conduct which undermines the
administration of justice.
Background
[6]In order to understand and appreciate the context and circumstances leading up to the committal proceedings, it
is necessary to examine the basis of the defamation suit and the events that took place thereafter.
[7]The background to the defamation suit is as follows.
[8]The applicant was at all material times or at least since 1992, the Chairman of the management committee of the
Sri Maha Mariamman Dhevasthanam Temple (“the Temple”) which is an iconic Hindu temple along Jalan Tun
H.S. Lee, in Kuala Lumpur. According to the pleaded case, the Temple and its property/assets are all part of a
religious charitable trust. The religious charitable trust also owns the Ganesha temple in Pudu and the Batu Caves
Temple complex as well.
[9]The applicant filed the main action for defamation against the respondent for various postings and comments in
the respondent’s Facebook accounts. After a full trial, judgment was given in favour of the applicant. The. Order
reads as follows:-
1) An injunction to restrain the defendant, whether by himself or through his agents, servants and/or employees from
writing and publishing and/or causing to be written and published, the defamatory words complained of in the
Facebook publications and/or such other similar or like defamatory words of and concerning the plaintiff and in the
way of his offices;
2) An order that the defendant do forthwith take down, remove and delete all the impugned publications namely
those identified in Appendix “A”, “B” and “C” of the amended statement of claim and those impugned publications
identified at pages 723 to 749 of Bundle B3 and pages 5 to 13 of Bundle B6 from his two Facebook accounts at
https://www.facebook.com/murali.subramaniam.18 and at https://www.facebook.com/puchong.murali and/or any
other Facebook Accounts of which he has opened and / or operated and / or maintained;
3)[3]The penal endorsement is to be included in the order in respect of prayers (a) and (b);
4)[4]General damages in the sum of RM200,000.00 (with interest at 5% per annum from the date of this judgment
until the date of full payment or realization);
5)[5]Aggravated and exemplary damages in the sum of RM50,000.00(with interest at 5% per annum from the
date of this judgment until the date of full payment or realization);
6)[6]Costs in the sum of RM97,247.47 (subject to 4% allocator (as per Order 59 Rule 7(4) Rules of Court 2012),
The award of costs shall carry interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of this judgment hereof until the
date of full payment or realisation. (Order 59 Rule 24 Rules of Court 2012).”
The appeal
[10]The respondent was dissatisfied with the Order. He appealed to the Court of Appeal by way of Court of Appeal
Malaysia Civil Appeal No. W-02(NCVC)(W)-1576-08/2016 (“the appeal”). The appeal was dismissed on 30 August
2017.
[11]The applicant alleges that whilst the appeal was pending, the respondent had disobeyed paragraph (1) of the
Order and published in the respondent’s Facebook account, further articles which are defamatory of the applicant
and in the way of his offices. On 23 March 2017, the Court was satisfied that the applicant had established a “prima
facie” case of contempt of Court and leave was accordingly granted under Order 52 Rule 3(1) Rules of Court
2012
(“ROC”) for committal proceedings to be commenced against the respondent.
Grounds for committal
[12]The applicant’s complaints against the respondent may be gathered from the following paragraphs of the
Statement filed pursuant to Order 52 Rule 3(2) ROC (“the Order 52 Statement”) (which are reproduced verbatim)
:-
“D. THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE COMMITTAL ORDERS ARE SOUGHT.
PART A-PUBLIC ATI ONS POST JUDGMENT IN BREACH OF PARAGRAPH 1 OF THEJUDGMENT
D1. First Publication Post Judgment.
5.1 I verily believe that on 19.2.2017, the Respondent wrote and published or caused to be written and published on
the Respondent’s Facebook Account a posting with the following words of myself and of me in the way of my
offices as Chairman and a member of the Board of Management and Executive Committee and in relation to my
conduct therein;
“Enam laporan Polis terhadap pengurusan kuil SRI Maha Mariamman Batu Caves telah dibuat kerana
menyalahguna dana kuil untuk kes saman peribadi Pengerusinya sebanyak RM202,247,47”
[English Translation - Six Police reports made against the management of the Sri Maha Mariamman
Batu Caves Temple for the abuse of temple funds for the Chairman’s personal libel suit amounting to
RM202,247.47]
5.2 I verily believe that the publication was posted along with a picture of the Respondent standing in front of the
Sentul Police Station with others holding what appears to be police reports and a second picture of the statute of
Lord Muruga in Batu Caves with the Batu Caves steps in the background. As at the date of this Affidavit, the
publication identified in paragraph 5.1 above was liked by 143 people and further shared by 12 people with others.
5.3 I verily believe that the Respondent further published and/or permitted to remain on the comment section of the
Respondent’s Facebook Account comments and postings of me and of myself in the way of my said offices as
Chairman and a member of the Board of Management and Executive Committee and in relation to my conduct
therein.
5.4 I verily believe that the comments and postings referred to in paragraph 5.3 above are as follows:-
(i) Vicky Kumar (19.2.2017, 8.31pm)
“Good job... .their too much”
(ii) Rai Kumar (19.2.2017, 8.30pm)
“Good job guys he must be sack”
(iii) Thana Eswari (19.2.2017, 8.35pm)
“Sohai n corrupted pupils n gangsters running temple...soon sohai son is being trained to take over sohai
jabba presidency seat in Batu Caves temple”
[English Translation - stupid n corrupted pupils n gangsters running temple...soon stupid son is being
trained to take over stupid jabba presidency seat in Batu Caves temple]
(iv) Mahesh Rahu (20.2.2017,12.59am)
“How does the election goes on to select leader...how come the same person being the president? Does
this is their family temple”
(v) Vanan Rai (20.2.2017,2.37pm)
“I think they all vote for each other”
(vi) Vanan Rai (20.2.2017, 2.38pm)
“Something like a cartel...this is a serious problem”
(vii) Mahesh Raju (20.2.2017,1.00am)
“At least this time some changes may happen quickly at batu caves management...why same person
rulling presidency for more than a decades?”
5.5 I assert that the comments and postings identified in paragraph 5.4 above, in their natural and ordinary meaning
meant or were understood to mean that:-
i. I run the Religious Charity Trust with the aid of corrupted individuals and gangsters.
ii. I have selfish intentions to occupy the office of the Chairman of the Board of Management and the Executive
Committee of the Religious Charity Trust for life.
iii. I have abused and / or misused the Bye Laws of the Sri Maha Mariamman Temple Dhevasthanam Kuala
Lumpur (“Religious Charity Trust”) by already having hand-picked my son, Dato’ N. Sivakumar, as my
successor and to replace me as the Chairman of Board of Management and of the Executive Committee of
the Religious Charity Trust.
iv. I, qua Chairman practices nepotism in favour of my son,, Dato’ N. Sivakumar.
v. In breach and in disregard of the Bye Laws of the Religious Charity Trust, I have installed my son as the ‘de
facto’ Chairman of the Board of Management and the Executive Committee of the Religious Charity Trust.
vi. I have no regard for the Bye-Laws of the Religious Charity Trust.
vii. I deserve to be sacked from my post and position in the Religious Charity Trust.
viii. I run the Religious Charity Trust as if it was a temple .owned by my family.
ix. I run the Religious Charity Trust as if it was my .cartel.
x. I have laid a personal claim to the monies that belong to the Religious Charity Trust.
xi. the Religious Charity Trust’s elections under the Bye-Laws are a sham and for show only.
xii. I have committed a breach of the trust reposed on me by the Religious Charity Trust.
xiii. that I am unfit to hold the position as the Chairman of Board of Management and the Executive Committee of
A true copy of the Facebook posting dated 19.2.2017 is now shown to me and marked as Exhibit “NR-6”.
D2. The Second Publication Post Judgment

6.1 I verily believe that on 20.2.2017, the Respondent wrote and published or caused to be written and published on
the Respondent’s Facebook Account a posting with the following words;
“Penang Thaipusam 2017 undiyals collection...When Can We See “Batu Caves undiyals
callections?????”
6.2 I verily believe that the publication was posted along with a 1 page document entitled “Penang Hindu
Endownments Board Thaipusam 2017 - Undiyale Collection” and a picture of the statue of Lord Murage with the
Batu Caves temple steps on the background and the word “collection?” drawn on the picture. As at the date of this
Affidavit, the publication identified in paragraph 6.1 above was liked by 61 people and shared by 20 people with
others.
Respondent’s Facebook Account comments and postings of me and of myself in the way of my said offices as
Chairman and a member of the Board of Management and Executive Committee and in relation to my conduct
therein.
(i) Rai Kumar (20.2.2017, 3.04pm)
“Cannot see bro al lord murugan take for his expence you know who I mean right”
(ii) Suran Rai (20.2.2017, 3.08pm)
“All masuk poket”
[English Translation - All goes into pocket]
(iii) Sivam Paramasivam (20.2.2017, 7.24pm)
“Batu Cave temple is SDN BHD”
6.5 I assert that the comments and postings identified in paragraphs 6.4 above, in their natural and ordinary meaning
meant or were understood to mean that:
i. I am a thieving Chairman.
ii. I have laid a personal claim to the monies that belong to the Religious Charity Trust.
iii. I have committed a breach of the trust reposed on me by the Religious Charity Trust.
iv. that I am unfit to hold the position as the Chairman of Board of Management and the Executive Committee of
v. I run the Religious Charity Trust as if it was a private family company.
D3. The Third Publication Post Judgment
7.1 I verily believe that on 21.2.2017, the Respondent wrote and published or caused to be written and published on the
Respondent’s Facebook Account a posting with the following words :-
“Ok ok tahun ini collections banyak boleh beli kereta Ferrari baru (kuil Batu Caves)”
[English Translation - Ok ok this year lots of collection can buy a brand new Ferrari motor vehicle (Batu Caves
temple)]
7.2 I verily believe that the publication was posted along with a picture of the myson, Dato’ N. Sivakumar with the
background of the interior of the Sri Maha Mariamman temple in JalanTun H.S. Lee, where Dato’ N. Sivakumar and other
officials of the Religious Charity Trust are seen counting Thaipusam donations. My son had further been circled out. At the
date of this Affidavit, the publication identified in paragraph 7.1 above was liked by 73 people and shared by 27 people with
others.
Respondent’s Facebook Account comments and postings of me and of myself in the way of my said offices as Chairman
and a member of the Board of Management and Executive Committee and in relation to my conduct therein.
7.4 I verily believe that the comments and .postings referred to in paragraph 7.3 above are as follows:-
(i)Rajesi Kanna Kuppusamy (21.2.2017, 5.49 pm)
“Lamborghini mah”
(ii)Raj Kumar (21.2.2017, 5.50pm)
“Hope this money goes to where it belongs if its going own pocket this time sure will get from lord muruga”
(iii)Kamalanathan Nathan Roy 121.2.2017, 8.12pm)
“Only showing some off that money is already Missing so much.. .Pusai all sapuman is there”
(iv)Tinagaran Arumugan (21.2.2017, 8.18am)
“Semua tunjuk satu ringgit sahaja...mana note besar...? Arogara”
[English Translation - All showing one ringgit notes only.. .where are the big notes? Arogara]
(v) Puchong Murali (21.2.2017, 8.19pm)
“Note besar sdh hantar pintu belakang”
[English Translation - The big notes already sent through the back door]
(vi) Tinagaran Arumugan (21.2.2017, 8.37pm)
“Duit archanai, sewa tapak, parking semua pergi mana”
[English Translation - Money for archanai, lot rentals, parking where has it all gone]
(vii) Puchong Murali (21.2.2017, 8.37 pm)
“Orang yang saya pangkah itu ada kondominium di Australia hmmm dahsyatnya”
[English Translation - The person I have marked out has a condominium in Australia hmmm fantastic?]
(viii) Raja Ramaya (22.2.2017, 7.18am) “Original text in Tamil”
[Translation - Jutaan ringgit diberikan kepada kuil atas nama ibadah. Ini adalah kesalahan kita. Kita yang
menyebabkan perompak wujud. Pada tahun 2008 Thaipusam dipulaukan. Ke manakah perginya keberanian
tersebut. India mudah lupa]
[English Translation - Millions of ringgit given to the temple in the name religious worship. This is our fault.
We are the ones who allow robbers to exist. In 2008, the Thaipusam celebrations were boycotted. Where did
that bravery go. Indians forget easily.]
7.5 I assert that the comments and postings identified in paragraph 7.4 above, in their natural and ordinary meaning meant
or were understood to mean that:-
i. 1 am a dishonest person and a thieving Chairman.
ii. I have misappropriated monies belonging to the Religious Charity Trust.
iii. I have laid a personal claim to the monies that belong to the Religious Charity Trust.
iv. I have committed a breach of the trust reposed on me by the Religious Charity Trust.
v. That I am unfit to hold the position as the Chairman of Board of Management and the Executive Committee of the
Religious Charity Trust.
vi. My son and I, as a father - son team, have misappropriated the funds of the Religious Charity Trust to
enrich ourselves by purchasing a luxury motor vehicle and a condominium in Australia.”
A true copy of the Facebook posting dated 21.2.2017 and its translation into Bahasa Malaysia by this Honourable Court’s
interpreter, Ms. Malathi Munisamy are now shown to me and marked as Exhibit “NR-8”.
D4. The Fourth Publication Post Judgment
8.1 I verily believe that on 23.2.2017, the Respondent wrote and published or caused to be written and published on the
Respondent’s Facebook Account a posting with the following words of me and of myself in the way of my said offices as
Chairman and a member of the Board of Management and Executive Committee and in relation to my conduct therein :-
“Laporan Polis terhadap pengurusan kuil Batu caves malam tadi di IPD Petaling Jaya”
[English Translation - Police report made last night at IPD Petaling Jaya against the management of the Batu
Caves temple]
8.2 I verily believe that the publication was posted along with a picture of unknown individuals in front of IPD Petaling Jaya
holding what appears to be police reports. At the date of this Affidavit, the publication identified in paragraph 8.1 above was
liked by 41 people and shared by 1 person with others.
Respondent’s Facebook Account comments and postingsof me and of myself in the way of my said offices as Chairman
(i)Kamalanathan Nathan Roy (23.2.2017,12.43pm)
“Brother Road Show all over Malaysian must make this idiots out from the temple... Real, corrupt idiots for
more than 60 years Still showing the same account’s...Loss lossloss”
(ii)Mathavan Suppiah (23.2.2017, 5.43pm)
“Rogues n cheats are running. What do expect”
8.5 I assert that the comments and postings identified in paragraph.8.4 above, in their natural and ordinary meaning meant
i. I am a rogue, a cheat, a dishonest person and a thieving Chairman.
ii. I am part of the rogues and cheats running the Religious Charity Trust.
iii. I am a corrupt person.
iv. I have misappropriated monies belonging to the Religious Charity Trust.
v. I have laid a personal claim to the monies that belong to the Religious Charity Trust.
vi. I have committed a breach of the trust reposed on me by the Religious Charity Trust.
vii. That I am unfit to hold the position as the Chairman of Board of Management and the Executive Committee ofthe
.Religious Charity Trust.
viii. I have deliberately shown a continuous loss in the Religious Charity Trust’s accounts to conceal the my thieving
and corrupt practices.
D5. The Fifth Publication Post Judgment
‘9.1 I verily believe that on 1.3.2017, the Respondent wrote and published or caused to be written and published on the
Respondent’s Facebook Account a posting with the following words :-
“Original Text in Tamil”
[Translation - Kutipan Kuil Batu Caves bermillion-million patut digunakan sebagai dana pendidikan untuk pelajar
miskin seperti mereka. Adakah pihak pengurusan akan berbuat demikian???”]
[English Translation - The millions collected by Batu Caves temple ought to be used to fund the education of poor
students like them. Will the management do so?]
9.2 I verily believe that the publication was posted along with a picture of a newspaper clipping and a picture of the statue of
Lord Muruga with the Baru Caves temple steps in the background. At the date of this Affidavit, the publication identified in
paragraph 9.1 above was liked by 57 people and shared by 12 people with others.
9.4 I verily believe that the comments, and postings referred to in paragraph 9.3 above are as
follows:- (i) Vicky Kumar (1.3.2017,11.19pm)
“KandippAGE KEDDAL SALvargal yendre nambikai. undu”

[Translation - Saya mempunyai kepercayaan mereka pasti mempunyai niat jahat]
[English Translation - I believe that they surely have ill intentions]
(ii) Hanbalagan Balakan (2.3.2017,11.02pm) “Original text in Tamil”
[Translation - Mereka perlu berbuat demikian. Ini adalah kehendak zaman semasa]
[English Translation - They have to do so. These are the requirements of the current age]
(iii) Musha Musha (2.3.2017, 4.33pm) “Avanunga pocket inumniraiyale”
[Translation - Kocek mereka belum penuh lagi]
[English Translation - Their pockets are not full yet]
9.5 I assert that the comments and postings identified in paragraph 9.4 above, in their natural and ordinary meaning meant
i. I am a dishonest person and a thief.
ii. I have abused my positions as the Chairman of the Board of Management and the Executive Committee of the
Religious Charity Trust to use the Religious Charity Trust’s funds.for my personal gain.
iii. I have committed a breach of the trust reposed on me by the Religious Charity Trust.
iv. That I am unfit to hold the position as the Chairman of Board of Management and the Executive Committee ofthe
v. I have ill will and ill intent for the funds of the Religious Charity Trust.
vi. I am greedy and unsatiable. I desire to steal, more.
A true copy of the Facebook posting dated 1.3:2017 and its translation into Bahasa Malaysia by this Honourable Court’s
D6. The Sixth Publication Post Judgment
10.1 I verily believe that on 2.3.2017, the Respondent published or caused, to be published on the Respondent’s Facebook
Account a picture of a newspaper article and a picture of the Lord Muruga statue with the Batu Caves temple in the
background.
10.2 I verily believe that at the date of this Affidavit, the publication identified in paragraph 10.1 above was liked by 51
people and shared by 1 person with others.
10.4 I verily believe that the comments and postings referred to in paragraph 10.3 above are as
follows:- (i) Bala Apoi (2.3.2017,12.53 pm)

“Katda kuudathutan aanal ivanunga katduvanunga.. .Poi kotdunanungala avanungalai oru naal vitchu kadaiyanum.. .Stupid
[Translation - Tidak boleh bayar tetapi mereka akan bayar. Jika mereka bayar satu hari nanti kita kena hentam
mereka. Stupid]
[English Translation - Shouldn’t pay but they will pay. If they pay, one day we will have to smash them. Stupid]
(ii) Bala Apoi (3.3.2017,1.06am)
“Evan avan kaiya lanallathu seirano avanuke nimmathi illa ithula kadavul per soli kotduranungala..Ivanungalam kandipa
paduparive sontha putthi illathavanatan irupannga”
[Translation - Sesiapa yang berbuat baik dia pasti tidak mempunyai ketenangan. Mereka menggunakan nama
tuhan...(tidak jelas) Mereka pasti tidak berpendidikan dan tidak pandai menggunakan akal sendiri]
[English Translation - Those who do good will surely nohave peace. They use the name of God...(unclear) Surely
they are uneducated and are unable to use their own intellect]
10.5 I assert that the comments and postings identified in paragraph 10.4 above, in their natural and ordinary meaning
meant or were understood to mean that:-
i. I have abused my positions as the Chairman of the Board of Management and the Executive Committee of the
Religious Charity Trust to use the Religious Charity Trust’s funds for my personal gain.
ii. I have committed a breach of the trust reposed on me by the Religious Charity Trust.
iii. that I am unfit to hold the position as the.Chairman of Board of Management and the Executive Committee of the
iv. I misuse the name of God to misappropriate funds of. the Religious Charity Trust.
v. I am uneducated and wont use my intellect to distinguish right from wrong.
A true copy of the Facebook posting dated 2.3.2017 and its translation into Bahasa Malaysia by this Honourable Court’s
D7. The Seventh Publication Post Judgment
11.1. I verily believe that on 3.3.2017, the Respondent wrote and published or caused to be written and published on the
Respondent’s Facebook Account a posting with the following words;
“Sivakumar a/l Tan Sri Nadarajah memilik sebuah kondominium di Australia. Hebatnya 24 jam duduk kuil batu
Caves boleh beli kondominium di luar negara. Hebat memang hebat (Pis share)”
[English Translation - Sivakumar s/o Tan Sri Nadarajah owns a condominium in Australia. Impressive, 24 hours
sitting at Batu Caves temple can purchase a condominium overseas. Impressive really impressive (Please share)]
11.2 I verily believe that the publication was posted along with a picture of my son, Dato’ N. Sivakumar with the background
of the interior of the Sri Maha Mariamman temple in Jalan Tun H.S. Lee where Dato’ N. Sivakumar and other officials of the
Religious Charity Trust are seen counting the Thaipusam donations. My son had further been circled out. At the date of this
Affidavit, the publication identified in paragraph 11.1 above was liked by 106 people and shared by 330 people with others.
(i) Pratap Raman (3.3.2017, 5.20pm)
“One year collection is enough for the family wish them happy, undial life”
(ii) Melvin Sanjith (3.3.2017, 5.53 pm)
“Family temple Opps...business”
(iii) Rai Kumar (3.3.2017, 8.05pm).
“Sure half of the money will go into own pockets lord muruga will punish punish them specially the thiruden
president”
[English Translation - Sure half of the money will go into own pockets lord muruga will punish punish
them specially the thieving president]
(iv) Param Param (4.3.2017, 7.21am)
“Paralsy life n mati sesak...pls God give punishment”.
[English Translation - Paralysis in life or suffocating death...Please God give punishment]
11.5 I assert that the comments and postings identified in paragraphs 11.1 and 11.4 above, in their natural and ordinary
meaning meant or were understood to mean that:-
i. I am a thieving Chairman.
ii. I deserve to be punished by God.
iii. God will punish me with paralysis or suffocating death.
iv. I have abused and / or misused the Bye Laws of the Religious Charity Trust by already having hand-picked my
son, Dato’ N. Sivakumar, as my successor and to replace me as the Chairman of Board of Management, and of
the Executive Committee of the Religious Charity Trust
v. I, qua Chairman practices nepotism in favour of my son, Dato’ N. Sivakumar.
vi. In breach and in disregard of the Bye Laws of the Religious Charity Trust, I have installed my son as the ‘de facto’
Chairman of the Board of Management and the Executive Committee of the Religious Charity Trust.
vii. I have abused and/or misused the Bye Laws of the Religious Charity Trust by allowing my son to misappropriate
monies of the Religious Charity Trust to purchase a luxury condominium in Australia.
viii. My son and I, as a father - son team, have misappropriated the funds of the Religious Charity Trust to enrich
ourselves and our families.
ix. I have laid a personal claim to the monies that belong to the Religious Charity Trust.
x. My family and I live off or feed off the Religious Charity Trust’s funds.
xi. In abuse of my position as the Chairman of Board of Management and the Executive Committee of the Religious
Charity Trust, I have filled the management of the Religious Charity Trust with my family members, relatives and
friends.
xii. I have committed a breach of the trust reposed on me by the Religious Charity Trust.
xiii. That I am unfit to hold the position as the Chairman of Board of Management and the Executive Committee of the
xiv. I run the Religious Charity Trust as if it was my family business.
12.1 I aver that the acts of the Respondent in writing and publishing and/or causing to be written and published and/or
permitting to remain in the comments section the said comments and postings of me and of myself in the way of my said
offices as Chairman and a member of the Board of Management and Executive Committee and in relation to my conduct
therein on 19.2.2017, 20.2.2017, 21.2.2017, 23.2.2017, 1.3.2017, 2.3.2017 and 3.3.2017 in the Respondent’s Facebook
Account are in breach of paragraph 1 of the Judgment.
12.2 I further aver that the acts of the Respondent in writing and publishing and/or causing to be written and published
and/or permitting to remain in the comments section the said comments and postings of me and of myself in the way of my
said offices as Chairman and a member of the Board of Management and Executive Committee and in relation to my
conduct therein on 19.2.2017, 20.2.2017, 21.2.2017, 23.2.2017, 1.3.2017, 2.3.2017 and 3.3.2017 in the Respondent’s
Facebook Account are in breach of paragraph 1 of the Judgment in the following manner;
12.2.1 The Respondent had written and published and/or caused to be written and published and/or permitted to remain in
the comments section of his Facebook Account comments and postings concerning me in the way of my offices as the
Chairman and a member of the Board of Management and Executive Committee of the Religious Charity Trust and in
relation to my conduct therein which meant or were understood to mean or were intended to be understood to have those
meanings that have been described in paragraphs 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, 8.5, 9.5, 10.5 and 11.5 above and/or such other like or
similar meanings, allegations and accusation concerning me and of myself in the way of my said offices as Chairman and a
member of the Board of Management .and Executive Committee and in relation to my conduct therein;
12.2.2 Those offending meanings, allegations and accusations in paragraphs 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, 8.5, 9.5, 10.5 and 11.5
abovehad been expressly pleaded as the offending meanings, allegations and accusations by me in my Amended
Statement of Claim dated 9.12.2015. I refer to the following paragraphs to the Amended Statement of Claim;
i. 9(d), (e), (f), (g), (s), (t) and (v);
ii. 15(d) and (g).
iii. 21 (b), (c) and (f).
12.2.3 Despite the Judgment being in force and despite the Respondent having full notice of the Judgment, the Respondent
proceeded to ‘ write and publish and/or caused to be written and published and/or permitted to remain in the comments
section, the aforementioned comments and postings concerning me in the way of my offices as Chairman and a member of
the Board of Management and Executive Committee and of me in the way of my said offices and in relation to my conduct
therein on the Respondent’s Facebook Account.
12.3 I verily believe that the Respondent’s refusal to comply with paragraph 1 of the Judgment despite having clear notice
of the same, is a refusal to obey the Judgment and that the Respondent is thus in contempt of this Honourable Court.
12.4 I verily believe that the Respondent’s refusal to comply with paragraph 1 of the Judgment, despite having clear notice
of the judgment, is intended or calculated to impede, obstruct or prejudice the administration of justice.
12.5 I am advised by my solicitors and I verily believe said .advice to be true that the acts set out in paragraphs 5.1 to
11.5.above and committed by the Respondent seek to undermine the integrity and the administration of justice by this
Honourable Court.”
Respondent’s rebuttal
[13]In response to the committal application (Enclosure 126), the respondent filed an affidavit affirmed on 17 April
2017 (Enclosure 148) and it reads (‘verbatim) as follows
“Penerbitan Pertama
8. Melainkan perenggan 5.2, saya sesungguhnya menafikan keseluruhan isi kandungan 5.1 hingga 5.4 dalam Afidavit.
Menentusahkan Pernyataan dan Pemohon diletak di bawah beban yang kukuh untuk membuktikannya khususnya bahawa
apa-apa yang dinyatakan dan komen berikutnya adalah mengenai atau tentang Pemohon dan dari segi jawatannya.
9. Saya juga menafikan bahawa posting saya membawa dan komen berikutnya atau bekelayakan untuk membawa
maksud-maksud ‘ sepertimana yang diadukan oleh Pemohon di perenggan 5.5. dalam Afidavit Menentusahkan Pernyataan
dan Pemohon diletak di bawah bebab yang kukuh untuk membuktikannya.
10. Sehubungan dengan perenggan 8 dan 9 saya di atas, saya menyatakan bahawa posting yang saya buat pada
19.2.2017 adalah berkenaan dengan isu di mana Pengurusan Kuil Maha Mariamman Devasthanam (“Pengurusan Kuil”)
telah ‘ menggunakan dana wang khairat untuk membayar kos guaman Tetuan Shearn Delamore & Co dalam kes terhadap
saya ini. Aduan saya adalah jelas terhadap Pengurusan Kuil dan aduan terhadap Pengurusan Kuil tidak boleh
disamakan dengan aduan terhadap Pemohon. Saya pohon kebenaran untuk merujuk kepada Perintah Mahkamah 1930
berkenaan khairat Kuil Sri Maha Mariamman Devasthanam yang mana adalah dilampirkan di sini dan ditanda sebagai
eksibit “MS-1”.
11. Maka saya menyatakan bahawa, Badan Pengurusan Kuil yang harus mengambil tanggungjawab dan memberi
penjelasan untuk isu yang dibangkitkan oleh saya dan bukannya terpulang kepada Pemohon untuk menyalahgunakan
Penghakiman tersebut dan proses Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini untuk memohon untuk mengkomitkan saya kononnya atas
alasan bahawa saya telah menghina Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini, yang mana saya menafikan dengan sekeras-kerasnya.
....
Penerbitan Ke-2
....
....
.....16. saya menyatakan bahawa posting yang saya buat pada 20.2.2017 adalah jelas, nyata dan terang berkenaan kutipan
Thaipusam di Kuil di Pulau Pinang dibandingkan dengan Kuil di Batu Caves (“Kuil Batu Caves”). Isu kutipan Thaipusam di
Pulau Pinang dan Batu Caves tidak boleh disamakan dengan Pemohon atau membuat tafsiran bahawa ia adalah
kenyataan-. kenyataan memfitnah terhadap Pemohon dan saya menyatakan bahawa ini adalah suatu perbuatan
menyalahguna Penghakiman tersebut.
17. Sehubungan dengan itu saya menyatakan bahawa, Thaipusam di Pulau Pinang yang turut berlangsung untuk 125
tahun atau lebih, ini adalah julung kali kutipan Thaipusam diumumkan kepada orang ramai setelah banyak isu-isu,
pertuduhan, pertikaian yang berlangsung untuk beberapa bulan di antara pengurusan 2 buah Kuil di Pulau Pinang iaitu
‘Penang Endowment Board’ dan ‘Nagarathar Temple Trust’. Maka persoalannya ‘spontaneous’ adalah bagaimanakah
dengan kutipan Batu Caves yang mana tidak diumumkan untuk beberapa tahun. Maka Badan Pengurusan Kuil yang harus
mengambil tanggungjawab dan memberi penjelasan untuk isu yang dibangkitkan oleh saya dan bukannya terbuka kepada
Pemohon untuk menyalahgunakan Penghakiman tersebut dan proses Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini untuk memohon untuk
mengkomitkan saya kononnya atas alasan bahawa saya telah menghina Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini, yang mana saya
menafikan dengan sekeras-kerasnya.
....
....
20. Sehubungan dengan perenggan 18 dan 19 saya di atas, saya menyatakan bahawa posting yang saya buat pada
21.2.2017 adalah dikenalpasti sebagai merujuk kepada Dato’ N. Sivakumar yang mana diakui adalah anak Pemohon.
Sekiranya kenyataan- kenyataan saya adalah memfitnahkan Dato’ N. Sivakumar, yang mana saya manfikan, saya
dinasihati oleh peguamcara saya yang mana saya percaya adalah benar bahawa Dato’ N. Sivakumar tersebut harus
membawa suatu tindakan peribadi yang mana saya akan membela diri dengan sepenuhnya. Dato’ N. Sivakumar tersebut
tidak boleh terselindung di belakang Penghakiman tersebut walaupun ia diperolehi oleh bapanya.
21. Sehubungan dengan perenggan 20 dan 21 di atas saya menyatakan bahawa saya mempunyai bukti yang kukuh untuk
membuktikan bahawa Dato’ N. Sivakumar tersebut telah menyalahgunakan dana kuil untuk menaikkan taraf hidup beliau
dengan membeli kereta mewah dan sebagainya. Saya bersedia untuk mendedahkan kepada Mahkamah kesemua
keterangan sekiranya Dato’ N. Sivakumar tersebut membawa tindakan guaman terhadap saya. Setakat ini saya telah
mengambil langkah-langkah untuk melaporkan kepada pihak-pihak yang berkenaan atas perkara ini dan beberapa perkara
lain yang mana saya rasa tidak wajar untuk mendedahkan di sisi.
22. Oleh yang demikian saya menyatakan bahawa kenyataan saya terhadap Dato’ N. Sivakumar tersebut adalah berlainan
pihak dan ia tidak boleh disamakan atau dikaitkan sebagai kenyataan Pemohon walaupun Dato’ N. Sivakumar adalah anak
Pemohon.
....
Penerbitan Ke-4
....
....
26. saya menyatakan bahawa posting yang saya buat pada 19.2.2017 adalah berkenaan dengan isu di mana Pengurusan
Kuil Maha Mariamman Devasthanam (“Pengurusan Kuil”) dan saya mengulangi perenggan 10 hingga 13 di atas bagi
menjawab perenggan 8.1 hingga 8.5 dalam Afidavit Menentusahkan ‘ Pernyataan dan Pemohon.
Penerbitan Ke-5
....
....
29. saya menyatakan bahawa posting yang saya buat pada 01.3.2017 adalah berkenaan pendekatan Penguruan Kuil
mengenai sumbangan kepada pendidikan pelajar miskin.
penjelasan untuk isu yang dibangkitkan oleh saya dan bukannya terbuka kepada Pemohon untuk menyalahgunakan
Penghakiman tersebut dan proses Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini untuk memohon untuk mengkomitkan saya kononnya atas
alasan bahawa saya telah menghina Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini, yang mana saya menafikan dengan sekeras-kerasnya.
Penerbitan Ke-6
....
....
33. saya menyatakan bahawa posting yang saya buat pada 2.3.2017 adalah berkenaan dengan Pengurusan Kuil yang
telah menggunakan dana wang khairat untuk membayar kos guaman Tetuan Shearn Delamore & Co dalam kes terhadap
saya ini. Aduan saya adalah jelas terhadap Pengurusan Kuil dan aduan terhadap Pengurusan Kuil tidak boleh
disamakan dengan aduan terhadap. Pemohon.
penjelasan untuk isu yang dibangkitkan oleh saya, yang mana pihak Pengurusan kuil gagal untuk memberi penjelasan.
35. Pada hakikatnya, seorang awam yang telah pergi ke kuil Batu Caves untuk membuat pertanyaan atau isu ini telah
dihentam pukul oleh orang suruhan Pemohon atau kuncu-kuncunya dalam kehadiran Pemohon dan anaknya Dato’ N.
Sivakumar. Suatu laporan polis telah dibuat terhadap kedua-dua mereka dan perkara ini telah menjadi viral dalam
whatsapp dan facebook. Namun, saya tetap tidak melibatkan Pemohon dalam isu ini.
Persoalan saya masih tetap terhadap Pengurusan Kuil dan bukannya Pemohon. Maka terpulang kepada pemohon untuk
menyalahgunakan Penghakiman tersebut dan proses Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini untuk memohon untuk mengkomitkan
saya kononnya atas alasan bahawa saya telah menghiria Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini, yang mana saya menafikan dengan
sekeras- kerasnya.
....
Penerbitan Ke-7
....
39. saya menyatakan bahawa posting yang saya buat pada 3.3.2017 adalah dikenalpasti sebagai merujuk kepada Dato’ N.
Sivakumar yang mana diakui adalah anak Pemohon. Sekiranya kenyataan- kenyataan saya adalah memfitnahkan Dato’ N.
Sivakumar, yang mana saya menafikan, saya dinasihati oleh peguamcara saya yang mana saya percaya adalah benar
bahawa Dato’ N. Sivakumar tersebut harus membawa suatu tindakan peribadi yang mana saya akan membela diri dengan
sepenuhnya. Dato’ N. Sivakumar tersebut tidak boleh terselindung di belakang Penghakiman tersebut walaupun ia
diperolehi oleh bapanya.
40. Sehubungan dengan perenggan 38 dan 39 di atas saya menyatakan bahawa saya mempunyai bukti yang kukuh untuk
membuktikan bahawa Dato’ N. Sivakumar tersebut telah menyalahgunakan dana kuil untuk menaikkan taraf hidup beliau
dengan membeli kereta mewah dan kediaman apartment di Melbourne, Australia yang beralamat Unit No. 2110, Level 21,
500 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000 dan mempunyai wang simpanan di ANZ Bank di Australia dengan
Nombor Akaun: 013-040 219461186 dan saya bersedia untuk mendedahkan kepada Mahkamah kesemua keterangan
sekiranya Dato’ N. Sivakumar tersebut membawa tindakan terhadap saya. Setakat ini saya telah mengambil langkah-
langkah untuk melaporkan kepada pihak- pihalc yang berkenaan atas perkara ini dan beberapa perkara lain yang mana
saya rasa tidak wajar untuk mendedahkan di sisi.
41.. Oleh yang demikian saya menyatakan bahawa kenyataan saya terhadap Dato’ N. Sivakumar tersebut adalah berlainan
pihak dan ia tidak boleh disamakan atau dikaitkan sebagai kenyataan terhadap Pemohon walaupun Dato’ N. Sivakumar
adakah anak Pemohon “
The arguments
[14]Counsel for the applicant said that the first question that arises is whether the respondent was responsible for
the seven (7) post- judgment publications in the Facebook account as described in the Order 52 Statement. In this
regard, counsel for the applicant said that it is clear from the respondent’s affidavit in reply (Enclosure 148) that he
does not dispute ownership of the Facebook account.
[15]Further, it was submitted that the respondent has not sought to debunk the contents of the seven (7) post-
judgment publications in his Facebook account and has not repudiated the accuracy of the translations. Hence,
counsel said that the imperative question for purposes of the committal proceeding is whether the respondent had
published or caused to be published writings of and concerning the applicant and in the way of his offices and/or
permitted comments to be posted of and concerning the applicant and in the way of his offices, which are
defamatory of the applicant
[16]In this regard, counsel said that in determining whether the respondent has breached paragraph (1) of the
Order, it is necessary to ask whether the seven post-judgment publications are defamatory of the plaintiff and in the
way of his offices and whether the defamatory words are similar to the words contained in the impugned
publications in the main suit.
[17]In response, the respondent maintains that the words contained in the seven (7) post-judgment publications
whether by way of his original postings or the comments by viewers, do not refer to the applicant and are not
defamatory of the applicant and in the way of his offices. The respondent said that he was merely questioning the
management of the Temple and that paragraph (1) of the Order does not restrict or restrain him from raising issues
pertaining to the management of the Temple.
[18]It was contended for the respondent that the publications via the seven (7) post-judgment Facebook posting are
not defamatory of the plaintiff and that the meanings ascribed by the applicant to the offending postings and
comments are not admitted to and that the postings and comments do not refer to the applicant and of him in the
way of his offices.
[19]‘ However, it was contended for the applicant that in the Amended Statement of Claim (“ASOC”), the applicant
had particularised the defamatory words (per paragraphs 5-21 ASOC) and in the grounds of judgment, this Court
had in paragraph [8] to [19] therein, identified the offending words and held that the offending words are
explicitiy/inherently defamatory of the applicant.
[20]Thus, it was contended for the applicant that on 19 February 2017 (Exhibit NR-6), 20 February 2017 (Exhibit
NR-7), 21 February 2017 (Exhibit NR-8), 23 February 2017 (Exhibit NR-9), 1 March 2017 (Exhibit NR-10), 2 March
2017 (Exhibit NR-11) and 3 March 2017 (Exhibit NR-12) proceeded to publish postings and comments containing
similar or like defamatory words, concerning the applicant and of him in the way of his said offices.
[21]Counsel for the applicant said that a clear example of the most serious and blatantly offending words in the
seven (7) post-judgment Facebook publications which are in violation of the injunction per paragraph (1) of the
Order are as follows:-
i. “stupid n corrupted pupils n gangsters running temple...soon stupid son is being trained to take over stupid
jabba presidency seat in Batu Caves temple”(Exhibit NR-6)
ii. “How does the election goes on to select leader...how come the same person being the president? Does
this is thier family temple” (Exhibit NR-6)
iii. “Something like a cartel... this is a serious problem”(Exhibit NR-6)
iv. “At least this time some changes may happen quickly at batu caves management.. .why same person
railing presidency for more than a decades” (Exhibit NR-6)
v. “Batu Cave temple is SDN BHD” (Exhibit NR-7)
vi. “Hope this money goes to where it belongs if its going own pocket this time sure will get from lord
muruga”(Exhibit NR-8).
vii. “Rogues n cheats are running. What to expect?” (Exhibit NR-9)
viii. “One year collection is enough for the family wish them happy undial life” (Exhibit NR-12)
ix. “Family temple Opps...business” (Exhibit NR-12)
x. “Sure half of the money will go into own pockets lord muruga will punish them specially the thieving
president” (Exhibit NR-12)
[emphasis added]
[22]It was therefore argued for the applicant that by publishing these words,, the respondent had breached
paragraph (1) of the Order. The applicant made it clear that his complaint in these committal proceedings is not that
the main postings in the seven (7) Facebook publications offend paragraph (1) of the Order but rather the specific
comments made by the viewers appearing thereunder do.
[23]In so far identification and reference to the applicant is concerned, it was submitted for the applicant that the
comments have been made in relation to or in response to the main postings which identifies the applicant and/or
makes reference to the management of the Temple which is headed by the applicant as the Chairman of which
there can be no doubt Counsel for the applicant said that any suggestions to the contrary is contrived and
dishonest.
[24]It was pointed out that in some of the post-judgment Facebook publications, the respondent had “participated”
in the comments and “egged on” the viewers.
[25]Counsel also pointed out that in response to one viewer’s comments, the respondent also stated under the
comment section that he had “proof’ of wrongdoings.
[26]Counsel for the applicant highlighted that in none of the seven (7) post-judgment publications did the
respondent make any attempt to repudiate the vile, vicious and vituperative comments that were made by the
viewers.
[27]It was argued rather trenchantly that the respondent did not or chose not to take any steps to remove the
offending comments and/or did not rebuke or caution the viewers for making comments which are defamatory of the
applicant, when he had the capability and opportunity to do so. According to counsel for the applicant, this goes to
show the respondent’s malicious state of mind.
[28]As for the respondent’s contemptious act of misleading the Court, counsel for the applicant said that in the
respondent’s affidavit in support affirmed by the respondent on 7 February 2017, filed in support of the respondent’s
application to stay execution of the monetary part of the Order, the respondent had affirmed that he did not have a
fixed income and that he did not possess enough funds if the execution was not stayed (paragraph 27.2.2 of Exhibit
NR-13 and paragraph 27.5 of Exhibit NR-13).
[29]Counsel pointed to the fact that this Court had proceeded to find that the respondent had admitted to being
impecunious [Page 4 of the Notes of Proceedings dated 15 February 2017 (Exhibit NR-14)].
[30]The respondent’s averments in his said affidavit touching on his financial predicament read as follows:-
“27. Secara tambahan kepada di atas, saya seterusnya dinasihati oleh peguamcara saya, sesungguhnya percaya dan
menyatakan bahawa “keadaan-keadaan khas” di dalam kes di sini menunjukkan bahawa penggantungan diperlukan iaitu
adalah seperti berikut:-
27.1 Plaintif telah memulakan prosiding bankrapsi melalui tindakan Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam dalam perkara
Kebankrapan No. BA-29NCC-8655-09/2016 terhadap saya dan pendengaran Petisyen Pemiutang telah ditetapkan pada
16-2-2017 (prosiding bankrapsi tersebut).
27.2 Sekiranya prosiding bankrapsi tersebut berterusan dan saya diisytiharkan sebagai seorang bankrap, maka saya tidak
dapat berterusan dengan Rayuan saya di dalam Mahkamah Rayuan.
27.2.1 Saya adalah seorang ahli perniagaan dan bergiat secara aktif di dalam politik. Saya sebagai seorang ahli
perniagaan tidak akan dapat meneruskan atau terlibat secara langsung di dalam apa-apa juga perniagaan. Malahan
saya tidak berpeluang mendapat pencalonan untuk memegang sebarang jawatan di dalam politik yang mungkin akan
menggelapkan masa depan kerjaya politik saya.
27.2.2 Sekiranya prosiding bankrapsi tersebut .berterusan, kehidupan seharian keluarga saya turut terjejas kerana
saya tidak mempunyai pendapatan tetap bagi meneruskan kehidupan dan menyara keluarga terutama anak-anak
yang pada masa kini kebajikan dan pendidikan perlu diutamakan.
27.2.3 Ketidakpercayaan dan keraguan terhadap saya akan berterusan sekiranya prosiding bankrapsi tersebut
dilaksanakan kerana saya juga terlibat di dalam Pertubuhan Bukan Kerajaan (NGO).
27.3 Oleh itu, jika satu penggantungan pelaksanaan tidak dibenarkan di kes di sini Rayuan kepada Mahkamah Rayuan,
jika berjaya, akan “rendered nugatory”.
27.4 Saya akan mengalami kerosakan yang tidak boleh dibaiki oleh kerana presiding bankrapsi Plaintif terhadap saya.
Sekiranya prosiding bankrapsi tersebut berterusan dan saya diisytiharkan sebagai seorang bankrap, sebelum pelupusan
Rayuan tersebut dan sekiranya Rayuan tersebut menyebelahi saya, saya tidak akan mengembalikan nama dan reputasi
bersih saya kerana saya pernah dijadikan sebagai seorang yang bankrap yang mana merupakan satu kerosakan yang
tidak dapat dipulihkan.
27.5 Saya di sini pada masa kini tidak mempunyai harta yang mencukupi dan sekiranya penggantungan tidak dibenarkan,
akan dirampas (“dispossessed”).
27.6 penggantungan Penghakiman tersebut adalah perlu untuk mengekalkan status quo Rayuan tersebut.”
[31]The applicant also referred to the respondent’s affidavit in reply of 7 February 2017 which was affirmed and
filed in the Court of Appeal in opposition to the applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 16 November 2016 for security for
costs.
[32]Counsel said that the respondent’s affidavit in the Court of Appeal contained contrary averments wherein he
had stated that he held full time employment as a manager in a security firm (paragraph 16 of Exhibit NR-15) and
denied having ever said in his affidavit that he was unable to pay costs, thereby suggesting that he was in a position
to pay costs (paragraph 7.2 of Exhibit NR-16).
[33]The contradictory averments by the respondent in his affidavit filed in the Court of Appeal, read as:-
“3. Saya pohon kebenaran Mahkamah Yan Mulia ini untuk merujuk ‘ kepada:-
3.1 Notis Usul Responden bertarikh 16.11.2016 kononnya di’ bawah Seksyen 44 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964
dan/atau Kaedah 27 dan 28 Kaedah Mahkamah Rayuan memohon untuk Jaminan Untuk Kos sebanyak RM50,000.00
(Selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Permohonan tersebut”) dan
.......
.......
11. Seterusnya, saya merujuk kepada Permohonan Responden untuk Jaminan Kos untuk RM50,000.00 dibayar dalam
masa tujuh (7) yang mana menyatakan bahawa adalah suatu jumlah yang terlampau dan menindas dan bertujuan untuk
menafikan hak keadilan saya melalui Rayuan ini.
12. Saya dinasihati oleh peguamcara saya yang mana saya percaya adalah benar bahawa alasan yang disandarkan oleh
Responden iaitu bahawa kedudukan kewangan saya tidak diketahui dan saya enggan untuk membayar gantirugi dan kos
yang diawardkan terhadap saya berjumlah RM347,247.47 adalah alasan yang remeh dan menyusahkan.
13. Sehungunan (sic) itu saya menyatakan bahawa sebelum Permohonan tersebut difailkan saya telahpun memfailkan
Re.kod Rayuan bersama Memorandum Rayuan dan bersedia untuk pendengaran Rayuan. Ini menunjukkan bahawa
kesengguhnya(Sic) saya membantah penghakiman dan award gantirugi dan kos yang dikenakan terhadap saya oleh
Mahkamah Tinggi. Dalam keadaan ini Responden tidak harus menggunakan kenggan(Sic) saya unutk(Sic) membayar
gantirugi dan. kos, sekiranya benar bagi memohon untuk Jaminan Kos selanjut di Mahkamah ini.
14. Oleh yang demikian saya menyatakan bahawa Responden tidak mengutarakan sebarang alasan yang munasabah di
sisi undang- undang bagi menyokong Permohonan tersebut.
15. Secara tambahan saya menyatakan bahawa walaupun Notis Rayuan telah difailkan pada 19.8.2016 dan saya telah
mengambil segala tindakan untuk melansungkan Rayuan ini, Responden hanya memfailkan Permohonan tersebut pada
16.11.2016, iaitu 3 bula(sic) lewat dan tiada alasan yang diutarakan dalam Permohonan tersebut ataupun Afidavit
Sokongan tersebut bagi menjelaskan kelewatan ini.
16. Saya menyatakan bahawa saya mempunyai kediaman dan alamat tetap dalam Malaysia. Saya mempunyai keluarga
yang turut tetap ‘ di Malaysia. Saya juga adalah seorang yang aktif dalam politik dan mempunyai masa depan yang cerah
dalam arena politik. Saya mempunyai pekerjaan penuh masa sebagai Pengurus sebuah syarikat sekuriti. Saya tidak akan
mengabaikan tanggungjawab saya untuk menunaikan segala tanggungan kos yang mungkin akan dikenakan oleh
Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini sekiranya Rayuan saya ini tidak dibenarkan pada keseluruhan ataupun sebahagian.
17. Saya adalah seorang yang aktif dalam politik dan saya tidak akan mengabaikan tanggungjawab saya untuk membayar
kos guaman implikasi yang mana adalah tinggi dalam kehidupan politik saya.
18. Saya juga dinasihati oleh peguamcara yang mana saya percaya adalah benar bahawa saya mempunyai suatu Rayuan
yang bermerit dan kukuh. Saya harus diberi peluang untuk membela Rayuan saya atas kepentingan keadilan. Sesalinan
Memorandum Rayuan yang difailkan di sini adalah dilampirkan di sini dan ditanda sebagai ekshibit “MS-4’V
(p.313,315,316)
[34]In the affidavit that was filed in the Court of Appeal, the respondent has also mentioned that the fact that he had
taken his family for a holiday to India and had toured Spain. According to the applicant, this showed that he had the
financial means to justify a refusal of the motion for security for costs (paragraph 8 of Exhibit NR-16),.
[35]The respondent further averred in the said affidavit that the real reason for not paying the damages and costs
awarded was because he was appealing against the judgment dated 29 July 2016 and was waiting for the outcome
of the appeal (paragraph 11 (iii) of Exhibit NR-16). According to counsel for the applicant, the contrary averments
were reiterated in the respondent’s written submission dated 3 March 2017 filed in the Court of Appeal (paragraphs
3.1(2)(i), (iii) and (v) of Exhibit NR-17).
[36]Thus, counsel for the applicant contended that the respondent had painted a totally different picture before the
Court of Appeal and that these acts and omissions were designed to mislead this Court with the intent of
persuading this Court to grant a stay of execution of the Order. Thus, on that premise, it was contended that the
respondent has obstructed, impeded, undermined and interfered with the integrity and the administration of justice.
Further, the respondent has abused the legal process of this Court and committed contempt of this Court.
[37]In response, the respondent denied that he had made any averments that had misled the Court and contended
that the applicant has taken the averments made in his affidavit out of context.
[38]However, according to the applicant, the respondent had merely advanced bare denials to oppose the
applicant’s contention and that the respondent’s affidavit is silent on the alleged context and is devoid of any
explanation as to how the applicant had allegedly taken the respondent’s averments out of context. Counsel for the
applicant submitted that there has been a willful and calculated effort on the part of the respondent to breach,
defeat and undermine the Order and to mislead this Court.
[39]Based on the aforesaid, the applicant submitted that the applicant has shown beyond reasonable doubt, that
the respondent is in contempt of this Court and therefore the applicant urged that the respondent be committed for
contempt.
[40]On the other hand, counsel for the respondent said that paragraph (1) of the Order is uncertain, indefinite and
clearly ambiguous. She referred to the case of Dato’ Seri S Samy Vellu v. Penerbitan Sahabat (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors
(No 1) [2005] 3 AMR 393;; [2005] 5 MLJ 489 (“Samy Vellu’s case”) where the court held if the court is to punish
any one for not carrying out its order the order must in unambiguous terms direct what is to be done.
[41]In the present case, it was argued that the applicant had failed to set out precisely what are the defamatory
words contained in the said seven (7) post-judgment publications, which are purportedly similar to the restrained
words in order to offend paragraph (1) of the Order. According to counsel for the respondent, it is not the
defamatory meanings that are restrained in paragraph (1) of the Order but rather, the restraint is on defamatory
words that are same or similar to the defamatory words appearing in the impugned Facebook publications in the
main suit. Counsel said that the applicant has failed to show how the respondent has violated the express terms of
paragraph (1) of the Order. Therefore on that premise, counsel contended that this application for committal is
flawed, defective and cannot be maintained in law and fact and ought to be dismissed in limine.
[42]Counsel for the respondent also relied on the New Zealand Court of Appeal case of Christopher Robert Murray
v Ian Wishart [2014] NZCA 461 at paragraph [144] and submitted that the applicant had’ failed to prove that the
respondent had “actual knowledge” of any defamatory comments made by viewers who had access to the
Facebook account. In response, counsel for the applicant said that lack of knowledge was not raised or alluded to in
the respondent’s affidavit. Hence, the point that was taken should be disregarded. In any event, it was contended
for the applicant that the factual situation before the Court clearly shows the respondent’s active participation in the
publications.
[43]In particular, his conduct in asking his viewers to “pls share”, shows his active participation in the comments.
Thus, the respondent had invited comments and cannot now be heard to say he had no knowledge. The
respondent had also responded to some of the viewer’s comments and even “egged” them on.
[44]In so far as the allegation of misleading the Court is concerned, it was submitted for the respondent that
paragraphs 27.2.2 and 27.5 in the respondent’s affidavit have been taken completely out of its context and without
reference to other paragraphs in the said affidavit, particularly paragraph 27.2.1 and that by doing so, it is the
applicant who is misleading this Court.
[45]In amplification, counsel said that the respondent’s affidavit in this Court was affirmed in the context of a stay of
execution of a monetary claim for RM25 0,000.00 for both general and exemplary damages and RM97,247,47.00
for costs whereas the affidavit affirmed, in opposition to the application for security for costs in the sum of
RM50,000.00 was only in respect of cost of the appeal. Therefore the two averments are on different matters and
for amounts which are vastly different
Analysis and conclusions
[46]In my view, the starting point is ownership of the Facebook account. Clearly, in his affidavit, the respondent has
not disavowed ownership and/or responsibility for the postings and/or comments in the seven. (7) post-judgment
Facebook publications. However, during submissions, the respondent took a different strategy and somewhat
distanced himself from any defamatory comments by viewers. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the
respondent unequivocally invited or solicited maximum exposure and circulation of his postings. He asked his
viewers to “pls share” his postings. And based on the experience at the trial, the respondent cannot feign ignorance
that his posting on any matter(s) relating to the applicant or the Temple or the Batu Caves Temple will inevitably
invite a deluge of caustic and defamatory comments of the applicant by viewers who had unhindered access to his
Facebook account. In this regard, in his affidavit, the respondent did not claim that he was unaware of the
comments that were made by the viewers. Indeed, it is too late for the respondent to suggest during the submission
stage that the applicant had to prove that he (respondent) had actual knowledge. The issue of the respondent’s lack
of actual knowledge is, in the present circumstance, plainly a non-starter.
[47]The next issue is the respondent’s complaint that the applicant had failed to specifically identify the offending
words in the seven (7) post-judgment Facebook publications.
[48]In this regard, I have read the Order 52 Statement and find that it clearly and unmistakably indentifies the
impugned words which are said to be defamatory of the plaintiff In this regard, in terms of the identification of the
specific defamatory words as per the seven (7) post-judgment Facebook publications, it is necessary to refer to the
Table that was prepared by counsel for the applicant which is reproduced herein:-
Publication Paragraphs in the Affidavit Verifying

Offending Words
Statement
1st Publication (Exhibit NR-6) 5.4 (i) Vicky Kumar (19.2.2017. 8.31pm)
“Goodjob their too much”
(ii) Raj Kumar (l9.2.2017. 8.30pm

“Good job guys he must be sack”
(iii) Thana Eswari (19.2.2017. 8.35pm)

“Sohai n corrupted pupils n gangsters
running temple...soon sohai son is being
trained to take over sohai iabba
presidency seat in Batu Caves temple”
[English Translation - stupid n corrupted
pupils n gangsters running temple...soon
stupid son is being trained to take over
stupid iabba presidencv seat in Batu
Offending Words
Statement
Caves temple]
(iv) Mahesh Rahu (20.2.2017. 12.59am)

“How does the election goes on to select
leader...how come the same person
being the president? Does this is thier
family temple”
(v) Vanan Raj (20.2.2017,2.37pm) “I think

they all vote for each other”
(vi) Vanan Raj (20.2.2017. 2.38pm)

“Something like a cartel...this is a serious
problem”
(vii) Mahesh Raju (20.2.2017. 1.00am)

“At least this time some changes may
happen quickly at batu caves
management ...why same person rulling
presidency for more than a decades?”
2nd Publication (Exhibit NR-7) 6.4 (i) Raj Kumar (20.2.2017, 3.04pm)
“Cannot see bro al lord murugan take
for his expence vou know who I mean
right”
(ii) Suran Rai (20.2.2017. 3.08pm)

“All masukpoket” [English Translation
- All
goes into pocket]
(iii) Sivam Paramasivam (20.2.2017.

7.24pm) “Batu Cave temnle is SDN
BHD”
3rd Publication (Exhibit NR-8) 7.4 (i) Rajesi Kanna Kuppusamy

(21.2.2017:5.49pm’) “Lamborghini
mah”
(ii) Raj Kumar (21.2.2017, 5.50pm)

“Hope this money goes to where it
belongs if its going own pocket this time
sure will get from lord muruga”
(iii) Kamalanathan Nathan Roy

(21.2.2017. 8.12pm) “Only showing
some off that money is already Missing
so much...Pusai all sapuman is there”
(iv) Tinaearan Arumugan (21.2.2017,

8.18am) “Semua tunjuk satu ringgit
sahaja...mana note besar... ?
Arogara” [English Translation- All
showing one ringgit notes only...where
are the big.notes? Arogara]
(v) Puchone Murali (21.2.2017. 8.19pm)

“Note besar sdh hantar pintu belakang”
[English Translation The big notes
already sent through the back door]
(vi) Tinaearan Arumuean (21.2.2017.

8.37pm) “Duit archanai, sewa tapak,
parking semua pergi mana” [English
Offending Words
Statement
Translation- Money for archanai, lot

rentals, parking where has it all gone]
(vii) Puchone Murali (21.2.2017, 8.37pm)

“Orang yang saya pangkah itu ada
kondominium di Australia hmmm
dahsyatnya?” [English Translation- The
person I have marked out has a
condominium in Australia hmmm
fantastic?]
(viii) Raja Ramaya (22.2.2017,7.1 Sam)

“Original text in Tamil” [Translation -
Jutaan ringgit diberikan kepada kuil atas
nama ibadah. Ini adalah kesalahan kita.
Kita vang menvebabkan perompak
wuiud. Pada tahun 2008 Thaipusam
dipulakan. Ke manakah perginya
keberanian tersebut. India mudah lupa]
[English Translation - Millions of ringgit
given to the temple in the name religious
worship. This is our fault. We are the
ones who allow robber to exist. In 2008,
the Thaipusam celebrations were
boycotted. Where did that bravery go.
Indians forget easily.]
4 th Publication (Exhibit NR-9) 8.4 (i) Kamalanathan Nathan Roy (23.2.2017.

12.43pm) “Brother Road Show all over
Malaysian must make this idiot out from
the temple ...Real corrupt idiots for more
than 60 years Still showing the same
account’s ...Loss loss loss”
(ii) Mathavan Suppiah (23.2.2017.

5.43pm) “Rogues n cheats are running.
What to expect”
5th Publication(Exhibit NR-10) 9.4 (i) Vicky Kumar (1.3.2017, 11.19pm)

“KandippAGE KEDDAL SALvargalyendre
nambikai undu” [Translation - Saya
mempunyai kepercayaan mereka pasti
mempunyai niat iahat] [English
Translation -I believe that they surely
have ill intentions]
(ii) Hanbalaean Balakan (2.3.2017.

11.02pm) “Original text in Tamil”
[Translation - Mereka perlu berbuat
demikian. Ini adalah kehendak zaman
semasa] [English Translation - They have
to do so. These are the requirements of
the current age]
(iii) Musha Musha (2.3.2017. 4.33pm)

“Avanunga pocket inum niraiyale”
[Translation - Kocek mereka belum
penuh lagi] [English Translation - Their
pockets are not full yet]
Offending Words
Statement
6th Publication (Exhibit NR- 11) 10.4 (i) Bala Apoi (2.3.2017, 12.53pm) “Katda
kuudathutan aanal ivanunga
katduvanunga...Poi kotdunanungala
avanunga I ai oru naal vitchu
kadaiyanum...Stupid” [Translation - Tidak
boleh bayar tetapi mereka akan bavar.
Jika mereka bayar satu hari nanti kita
kena hentam mereka. Stupid] [English
Translation - Shouldn’t pay but they will
pav. If they pay, one day we will have to
smash them. Stupid]
(ii) Bala Apoi (3.3.2017. 1.06pm) “Evan

avan kaiyala nallathu seirano avanuke
nimmathi ilia ithula kadavul per soli
kotduranungala. .Ivanungalam kandipa
paduparive sontha putthi illathavanatan
irupannga” [Translation - Sesiapa yang
berbuat baik dia pasti tidak mempunyai
ketenangan. Mereka menggunakan nama
tuhan...(tidak jelas) Mereka pasti tidak
berpendidikan dan tidak pandai
menggunakan akal sendiri] [English
Translation - Those who do good will
surely no have peace. They use the
name of God...(‘unclear’) Surely they are
uneducated and are unable to use their
own intellect]
7 th Publication (Exhibit NR- 12) 11.4 (i) Pratari Raman (3.3.2017. 5.20pm)
“One year collection is enough for
the familywish them happy undial life”
(ii) Melvin Sanjith (3.3.2017. .5.53pm)

“Family temple Opps... business”
(ii) Raj Kumar (3.3.2017. 8.05pm) “Sure

half of the money will go into own
pocketslord muruga will punish punish
them specially the thiruden president”
[English Translation- Sure half of the
money will go into own pockets lord
muruga will punish punish them specially
the thieving president]
(iv) Param Param (4.3.2017.7.21am)

“Paralsy life n mati sesak...pls God give
punishment” [English Translation -
Paralysis in life or suffocating
death...Please God give punishment]
[49]Having identified the offending words in the Facebook publication, the next question is whether the comments
in seven (7) post- judgment Facebook publications are defamatory of the plaintiff and in the way of his offices.
[50]In this regard, in ascertaining whether the comments by viewers as identified in the Order 52 Statement are
defamatory of the plaintiff, I was guided by the principles as enunciated by the Court of Appeal in Chok Foo Choo v.
The China Press Bhd [1999] 1 CLJ 461 CA (at p. 466- 467) where Gopal Sri Ram, JCA said:-
“I cannot, I think, be doubted that the first task of a court, in an action for defamation, is to determine whether the words
complained of are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning. And it is beyond argument that this is in ‘ essence a question
of law that turns upon the construction of the words published. As Lord Morris put it in Jones v. Skelton [1963] 3 All ER 952
at p. 958:
The ordinary and natural meaning of words may be either the literal meaning or it may be an implied or inferred or an
indirect meaning: any meaning that does not require the support of extrinsic facts passing beyond general knowledge but is
a meaning which is capable of being detected in the language used can be a part of the ordinary and natural meaning of
words (see Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd [1963] 2 All ER 151). .The ordinary and natural meaning may therefore include
any implication or inference which a reasonable reader, guided not by any special but only by ‘ general knowledge and not
fettered by any strict legal rules of construction, would draw from the words. The test of reasonableness guides and directs
the court in its function of deciding whether it is open to a jury in any particular case to hold that reasonable persons would
understand the words complained of in a defamatory sense.
In my judgment, the test which is to be applied lies in the question: do the words published in their natural and ordinary
meaning impute to the plaintiff any dishonourable or discreditable conduct or motives or a lack of integrity on his part? If the
question invites an affirmative response, then the words complained of are defamatory. (See JB Jeyaratnam v. Goh Chok
Tong [1989] 1 LNS 34; [1985] 3 MLJ 334.) Richard Malanjum J, in an admirable judgment in Tun Datuk Patinggi Hj Abdul-
Rahman Ya’kub v. Bre Sdn Bhd & Ors [1995] 1 LNS 304;; [1996] 1 MLJ 393 collected and. reviewed the relevant
authorities upon this branch of the subject and I would, with respect, expressly approve the approach adopted by him.”
[51]In my view, the words that were used by the viewers are indeed capable of bearing a defamatory meaning. The
meaning of the offending words are quite capable of being detected in the language that was used. And so for
instance, the comment by the viewer Mahesh Raju posted his comment on 20 February 2017, “At least this time
some changes may happen quickly at batu caves management... why same person rulling presidency for more than
a decades?” conveys the meaning that the applicant has wrongfully entrenched himself as president of the Temple
for decades. Next, Suran Raj posted on 20 February 2017 that “all masuk pokef” which clearly means that the
applicant has pocketed the monies belonging to the Temple. Next, Mathavan Suppiah posted on 23 February 2017
that “rogues n cheats are running. What to expect” and this clearly condems the applicant as a rogue and a cheat.
The last example is the posting by Raj Kumar on 3 March 2017 who commented, “sure half of the money will go
into own pockets lord muruga will punish them especially the thieving president.” Hence, based on the literal
meaning or an implied or inferred or indirect meaning the. applicant has been condemned as a thief, rogue, despot
and a cheat. If the above examples are not defamatory words of and concerning the applicant and in the way of his
offices, then I don’t know what is.
[52]The next issue is whether the meaning of the offending defamatory words in the impugned post-judgment
Facebook publications carry similar or like defamatory meanings to the defamatory words which the respondent had
been restrained from publishing.
[53]In this regard, it is again relevant and necessary to refer to the comperative table which was prepared by
counsel for the applicant, which gives a clear depiction of the similarity. The table is reproduced as follows:-
Impugned Publication Defamatory Words in the

Paragraph in ASOC Defamatory Words
Impugned Publications
pleaded in the ASOC
1st Publication Exhibit NR-6
[English Translation - 5 Respondent’s main posting
stupid n corrupted pupils n
gangsters running
temple...soon stupid son is
being trained to take over
stupid jabba presidency
seat in Batu Caves temple]
“How does the election

20(ii) This another power crazy
goes on to select
idiot - Make sure he go
leader...how come the
behind bars
same person being the
pleaded in the ASOC
president? Does this is their
family temple “
“Something like a
5 Respondent’s main posting
cartel...this is a serious
problem “
“At least this time some

20(ii) This another power crazy
changes may happen
idiot - Make sure he go
quickly at batu caves
behind bars
management...why same
person rulling presidency
for more than a decades? “
2nd Publication Exhibit NR-

“At least this time some 20(ii) T
7
changes may happen h
quickly at batu caves i
management...why same s
person rulling presidency a
for more than a decades? “ n
o
t
h
e
r
p
o
w
e
r
c
r
a
z
y
i
d
i
o
t
-
,
M
a
k
e
s
u
r
e
h
e
g
o
b
e
h
i
n
d
pleaded in the ASOC
b
r
s
3rd PublicationExhibit NR-8 Hope this money goes to

9(iv) Swindled our hard earned
where it belongs if its going
money...a bloody samy
own pocket this time sure
vellu sycophant
will get from lord muruga
‘4th Publication Exhibit NR-

Brother Road Show all over 9(iv) Swindled our hard earned
9
Malaysian must make this money...a bloody samy
idiot out from the temple... vellu sycophant
Real corrupt idiots for more
than 60 years Still showing 20(iii) This Nadraja is a real time
the same account’s...Loss fraud
loss loss
Rogues n cheats are 8(i) B
running. What to l
expect o
o
d
y
I
n
d
i
a
n
R
o
9(iv) Swindled our hard earned

money...a bloody samy
vellu sycophant
20(iii) This Nadraja is a real time

fraud
2 D
0 e
(i s
v tr
) o
y
v
e
r
y
li
k
pleaded in the ASOC
e
t
h
is
r
o
b
b
e
r.
E
vi
l
m
u
s
t
n
e
v
e
r
r
e
i
g
n
o
v
e
r
g
o
o
d
6tn Publication Exhibit NR-ll English Translation - Their

8(i) Bloody Indian Robber
pockets are not full yet
9(iv)’ Swindled our hard earned
money, a bloody samy
vellu sycophant
7th Publication Exhibit NR-

“One year collection is 5 R
12
enough for the family wish e
them happy undial life” s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t’
s
m
a
i
n
p
o
pleaded in the ASOC
s
ti
n
g
.
“Family temple Opps...

5 Respondent’s main posting
business”
Sure half of the money will

20 (i) Salutation to Lord Muruga
go into own pockets lord
for the theif of Batu
muruga will punish them
Caves. In this country,
specially the thieving
only a thief will get so
president
much support
20 (v) Whoever replaces

Nadraja’s position, is going
to swindle money too.
Wonder why bother to file a
case and fight over it
[54]Before I move on to consider the law of contempt, I will state that the offending words in the seven (7) post-
judgment Facebook publications (comments by viewers) clearly, obviously and unmistakably refer to the applicant
and are defamatory of the applicant. I have already referred to some of the offending words and their meanings. A
glaring example of the defamatory publication is the use of the words “thieving president” (3 March 2017), which is
undoubtedly a reference to the applicant as a thief.
[55]Next, I find that these offending words in the seven (7) post- judgment publications, are similar or substantially
similar and bear the same meaning as the defamatory words in the Facebook publications in the main suit. The
similarity is shown in the comparative table referred to above.
[56]Thus, I have no doubts in my mind that the seven (7) post-judgment publications in the respondent’s Facebook
account were meant as a second tranche of a vitriolic attack on the applicant’s reputation as an individual and as
President of the Temple, albeit through viewers’ comments. I should add that the respondent did not disavow these
comments and did nothing to stop these comments from being posted in his Facebook account. Quite the contrary,
the respondent not just invited comments, rather he encouraged the viewers to share and comment.
The law
[57]I turn now to the law of contempt of Court. It is trite that an act of disobedience of an injunction is a contempt of
Court as it is conduct which is intended or calculated .to impede, obstruct or prejudice the administration of justice.
Also, it would be an act of contempt if a deponent of an affidavit misleads the Court or is untruthful to the Court. The
following cases on the law of contempt were referred to during submissions and they are now reproduced below: -
a)Knight and Another v Clifton and Others [1971] 2 All ER 378 (p.341):-
“Contempt of court, even of the type that consists in breach of an injunction or undertaking, is
something that may carry penal consequences, even loss of liberty, and the evidence required to
establish it must be appropriately cogent.”
b) Wee Choo Keong v MBf Holdings Bhd & Anor [1993] 2 MLJ 217 (Supreme Court) (per Abdul Hamid Omar
LP)[at pg. 220 to 221]:-
“It is established law that a person against whom an order for court has been issued is duty bound to
obey that order until it is set aside. It is not open for him to decide for himself whether the order was
wrongly issued and therefore does not require obedience. His duty is one of obedience until such
time as the order may be set aside and varied. Any person who fails to obey an order of court
runs the risk of being held in contempt with all its attendant consequences”.
c) S Ashok Kandiah & Anor v. Dato’ Yalumallai @ Ramalingam s/ o Muthusamy & Anor [2011] 1 CLJ 460
(Court of Appeal) [at para 13]:-
“According to Vernon v. Bosley (No. 2) [1999] QB 18, CA, all litigants, whether represented or not,
owe an obligation not to mislead the court. And a breach of this onerous obligation could be dealt with
by imposing any of the procedural sanctions available to the court, including the setting aside of a
judgment so obtained. The other sanction would be that of contempt or if the falsehood is so grave
and it is contained in the evidence, then perjury would be the ultimate sanction.”
[Emphasis Added]
d) Cheah Cheng Hoc v Public Prosecutor [1986] 1 MLJ 299 (Supreme Court) (a lawyer was sentenced to
three days imprisonment for contempt of court for concealing a document appealed his case)(per Lee Hun
Hoe CJ, (at p.301):-
“The court has the power to punish as contempt any misuse of the court’s process, e.g., forging or
altering of court documents or other deceits of the kind or deceiving the court by deliberately
suppressing a fact or giving false facts. Whether the court should deal with the contempt summarily
would depend upon the situation in each particular case .....
In the present case it is clear that the learned Judge was misled on an important matter, that is, the
concealment of a document C.P.5 as to affect the credibility of a witness even though it did not directly
relate to the issue in the action. The appellant believed that the course he took was proper in all the
circumstances. He apologized if he was wrong. The learned Judge thought he was wrong. So do
we.....
We feel that we must leave the exercise of this awesome power to the good sense of our Judges. We
will interfere when this power is misused.
[Emphasis Added]
e)Sharma ‘Kumari a/p Oam Parkash v Public Prosecutor [2000] 6 MLJ 790 (with respect to the importance
of affidavit evidence) (p.822):-
“Any modern system of justice relies upon the evidence placed before it to make its findings of fact. It cannot
be denied that a fair and just decision involves the application of law to the facts found to be proven to the
requisite standard of proof. Now, the accepted way of proof is by way of placing the evidence before the
court by way of oral testimony or, in civil cases, also by affidavits. Oral testimony or affidavits are
taken on the basis of an oath or affirmation that the maker will tell the truth and nothing but the truth
as to the facts that the maker perceived by any of his five senses. Their opinions, except the opinions of
acknowledged experts, are irrelevant. Torture and interrogation cannot ensure the maker tells the truth.
Indeed no reliance can be placed upon any testimony obtained by such abhorrent means. Neither can
extraction and examination of the heart or brain verify if he is telling the truth. This only serves to emphasize
that courts rely upon witnesses and deponents to tell the truth. The system of justice will collapse if
witnesses and deponents feel free to give false evidence or testimony (see Bhandulananda Jayatilake v
PP [1982] 1 MLJ 83 (FQ). Such acts are nothing but a contempt of our peers and of the administration
of justice and is wholly contrary to the public interest.
The making or giving of false evidence, if proven, must therefore be dealt with, with the clear
objective of deterrence, not only of that individual from repetition, but also to deter others. To wait
until such offences are rampant like drugs and traffic cases before taking strict action will put the
administration of justice in jeopardy.
Any risk of the court acting upon false evidence is unacceptable since it results in injustice. Any
system of administration of justice that tolerates false statements in affidavits risks ridicule.”
[Emphasis Ours]
f) PB Securities Sdn Bhd v. Abdul Rashid b Mohamed [1994] 3 MLJ 168 (the Court recognized that the
making of false statements in affidavits as being punishable as contempt of court) (p.173)’:-
“Bearing in mind that Order 14 is limited to cases to which the plaintiff verily believes there isnodefence and
has or has caused to be deposed in the affidavit in support to that effect and .the defendant knows perfectly
well the plaintiffs claimhas to be met, the defendant is best advised not to oppose the summons and submit
to judgment bearing in mind the consequences of making a false affidavit and the laws of contempt of court in
making a false statement of fact to the Judge upon which the defendant intends the Judge to rely in making a
decision.”
[Emphasis Added].
g) Jothi Impex Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yashree Store Sdn

Bhd [2009] MLJU 742 (High Court) (paragraph 747):-
“With due respect, the blatant lies perpetrated by the Plaintiffs in . their affidavits in encl. 4 and encl. 6 are in
serious contempt and they come to this court with unclean hand.”
[Emphasis Added]
h) Ajffin Bank Berhad v. Tan Sri Kishu Tirathrai (No. 2) [2004] 6 AMR 407 (High Court)(p.421):-
“An abuse of process of the court can never be tolerated. The courts have held in the past that the following
acts of abuse of process have been held to be punishable as contempts:
(1) where the creditor files a double process for the same debt (Higgens v. Sommerland [1614] 2 Bulst 68);
(2) where the plaintiff serves an imitation writ to. frighten the defendant (Re Banks [1845] 4 LTOS 375);
(3) where there is a fraudulent collusion between the plaintiff and the defendant in order to defend the rights of a
third party (M’Gregor v. Barrett [1848] 6 CB 262);
(4) where the plaintiff issues execution and seizes the defendant’s goods on the same day as the defendant
obtains a decree nisi to deprive the plaintiff of his costs (Pitcher v. Nokes [1848] 12 JPJo 473);
(5) where money is paid by way of a consideration for the withdrawal of a motion to commit for contempt (R v.
Newton [1903] 67 JP 453);
(6) where the party falsely pleads infancy in order to delay the trial (Lord v. Thornton (1614) 2 Bulst 67);
(7)where the party makes a false oath in order to obtain bail (Royson’s case (1628) Cro Car 146); and
(8)where the party who seeks the court’s exercise of discretion in a divorce proceeding makes a false statement
(Apted v. Apted and Bliss [1930] P 246).
(9)This list can never be exhaustive. And when there is an abuse of the process of the court, the court has the
inherent power to act accordingly.”
[Emphasis Added]
i) Eric Lau Man Hing v Eramara Jaya Sdn. Bhd. & Ors [2007] 2 MLJ 578 (High Court) (per T.
Selventhiranathan J) (paragraph 41):-
“[41] The gravity of the offence of the respondents was in failing to see that the order of the court was
obeyed. There are people who flout orders of the courts as if the orders are of no consequence. The
respondents, to my mind, are within such category of people. It cannot be gainsaid that the orders of
the courts should be obeyed or else there will be a breakdown in the due administration of justice
and there will be no respect for the law. [Emphasis added]
j) William Jacks & Co. (M) Sdn. Bhd. v Chemquip (M) Sdn. Bhd. & Anor [1994] 3 MLJ 40 (High Court) (at
p.49):-
“Since the defendants had the benefit of counsel after the injunction was served, the injunction was still
breached and because of the clear terms of the injunction, counsel for the. plaintiff moved that a custodial
sentence be meted out. I upheld that submission.
There are just too many people who flout the orders of the High Court as if they are orders of no
consequence. I am making a stand that orders of the High Court should be obeyed or else there will be a
breakdown in the due administration of justice. In this case, the defendants have not only disobeyed but.
attempted to manipulate and circumvent the court’s order. I therefore sentence (1), (2) and (3) above to
imprisonment till they purge their contempt”
[Emphasis added]
k) Ooi Meng Sua v Aetna Universal Insurance Sdn. Bhd. [1995] 1 AMR 467 (High Court) (at p. 472):-
“...if orders of the court are not obeyed, as such conduct tends to bring the authority and administration of law
into disrespect or disregard and impede the course of justice. Thus, for reasons of public policy, orders of the
court must be treated with respect and require faithful obedience.”
[Emphasis added]
l) In MBF Holdings Bhd & Anor v Houng Hai Kong & Ors [1995] 1 MLJ 135 (High Court)(at p. 144):-
“Contempt of court is a serious offence and the court must deal with the contemnor with equal seriousness.
When someone openly disobeys the court order, he commits a breach. His conduct is calculated to obstruct
or had an intrinsic tendency to interfere with the course of justice and the due administration of law. An
injunction is a most solemn and authoritative form of order made by the court expressly enjoining a party
either to do a particular act or refrain from doing a particular act. It is the duty of those so enjoined strictly to
observe the terms of the injunction. The simple and only view is that an order must be obeyed, that those
who wish to get rid of that order must do so by the proper course. So long as it exists, the order must be
obeyed, and obeyed to the letter. The proposition is well established that even where the order of the court
required interpretation or there was any doubt as regards its scope, it was the duty of the party enjoined to
get the interim injunction discharged or varied instead of committing the act proposed.
A contempt of court is basically an offence against the court and not against the judge personally and it is
punishable because of the necessity of maintaining the dignity of the court.
[Emphasis Added]
m) Arab-Malaysian Prima Realty Sdn. Bhd. v Sri Kelangkota- Rakan ‘Engineering JV Sdn. Bhd. & Ors.
[2000] 2 GLJ 632, Low Hop Bing J (as he then was) held [at 635]:-
“It is evident to me that her conduct throughout the whole of the committal proceedings reflected a conduct
constituting unmitigated repentance and was indeed an affront to the authority of the court.
Further, in my view, an apology to be effective must be given immediately in the 3rd defendant’s affidavits
filed for the hearing of the substantive notice of motion in order to show - her remorse or repentance at the
earliest opportunity, and not as an afterthought, subsequent to a finding of guilt and conviction against her.
The apology must be made in the form of a clear, unambiguous and unqualified statement.
Support for my proposition in this connection is to be found in the judgment of Dua, CJ in Brig. E.T. Sen
(Retd) v. E. Narayanan & Others (Air) [1969] Delhi 201, where the learned Chief Justice said:
Apology has to be offered clearly at the earliest opportunity indicative of remorse and contrition which is the
essence of the purging of a contempt and it should not be offered in the hope and with the object of avoiding
punishment. Apology and justification ill go together.
It is therefore wrong on the part of a lawyer to contend that if the Court finds his client’s conduct as amounting
to contempt of Court, then he is willing to tender an unconditional apology.
The position would have been different if the 3rd defendant had tendered her clear, unambiguous and
unqualified apology at the earliest opportunity when he affirmed her affidavits in reply to the plaintiffs
affidavits filed in support of the substantive notice of motion or in any event before the hearing of the
application ie, the substantive notice of motion, in order to enable the court to consider the apology as an
additional mitigating factor.”
[emphasis added]
[58]Counsel for the respondent argued strenously that paragraph (1) of the Order was vague and ambiguous. She
said that the restraint was on “defamatory words” and not on “defamatory meanings”. I am unable to accept this
submission as injunctive orders of restraint cannot be read in a narrow or pedantic way as is being suggested by
the respondent. Given the fact that in the main suit the respondent had been found liable for defaming the applicant
by the publication of a plethora of defamatory words (either by his own postings or through comments by viewers),
the restraint per paragraph (1) of the Order must be read as encompassing all those defamatory words of a similar
or substantially nature and having the same or like meanings as well.
[59]Of course paragraph (1) of the Order does not mention “defamatory meanings” but I just do not see how that
matters. When there is a restraint on publication of defamatory words, it follows logically that the plain and ordinary
meaning or innuendo or oblique meaning that flows from the offending words, is covered by the restraint as well.
[60]I accept the position of law that where committal proceedings are based on vague or ambiguous orders then
the Court will give the benefit of doubt to the contemnor.
[61]In Bee Ah Nya v Ooi Ah Yan [2014] 1 AMR 574;; [2014] 8 MLJ 601;; [2014] 6 CLJ 991, I had referred to Samy
Vellu’s case and held that where the order suffers from any lack of clarity or is ambiguous, then the benefit of doubt
has to be given to the alleged contemnor:-.
“[35] Hence, where the order (regardless of whether it is a consent order or a coercive order made by the court) suffers
from any lack of clarity or is ambiguous, then the benefit of doubt has to be given to the alleged contemnor. In this regard it
would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Dato Seri Yusof b Dato Biji Sura Mohamad v BTM
Timber Industries Sdn Bhd & Ors [2010] 1 MLJ 644, CA where the court upheld the decision of the High Court which had
dismissed a committal application holding that if the order itself is ambiguous then it is not capable of being enforced by
committal. This is how the Court of Appeal put it at p 655 of the judgment; The learned judge was clearly right in stating that
an order will not be enforced by committal if its terms are vague or ambiguous, the rule being analogous to that which
governs the interpretation of penal statutes. It is to the terms of the order itself that one must look in order to define the
obligations imposed. See Arlige, Eady & Smith on Contempt (2nd edn) ‘ paragraph 12-43 at p 746.”
[62]However, in the present case, I am not convinced that paragraph (1) of the Order is vague or ambiguous. In this
regard, it is significant to note that in responding to Enclosure 126, by way of his affidavit affirmed on 17 April 2017
(Enclosure 148), the respondent has not even stated that paragraph (1) of the Order is vague and/or ambiguous.
[63]As mentioned earlier, if an order is vague and ambiguous, then such vagueness and ambiguity will (or may) be
construed against the party seeking to rely on the order which is the springboard for committal. But that is not the
situation here. I find nothing vague or ambiguous about paragraph (1) of the Order. Counsel for the applicant relied
on Samy Vellu’s case to bolster her argument on the futility of predicating a committal proceeding on an order which
is vague or ambiguous.
[64]In this regard, I am satisfied that the situation in Samy Vellu’s case is totally .different from the present situation.
In Samy Vellu’s case, there were differences between the Bahasa Malaysia and English version of the order and
the Motion for committal as well. In that case, committal was rightly dismissed as the motion for committal referred
to articles between November 2003 and 30 November 2003 (see: paragraph (4) of the judgment) whereas the
Bahasa Malaysia Order referred to articles dated 11 November 2003 and 18 November 2003 and the English
referred to articles between 11 November 2003 and 18 November 2003 (see: paragraphs 9, 11 and 12 of the
judgment). There is clearly a sea of difference between the present case and the situation that prevailed in Samy
Vellu’s case.
[65]In the present case, at the risk of repetition, I find that there is no ambiguity or vagueness in paragraph (1) of
the Order and the respondent was clearly restrained from writing and publishing or causing to be written and
published defamatory words complained of in the Facebook publications and /or such other or similar or like
defamatory words, of and concerning the plaintiff and in the way of his offices. The respondent is the author of all
the postings in the seven (7) post-judgment articles. In law, he is responsible for the comments by third party
viewers as well. Indeed, in the main suit, I had held the respondent liable for defaming the applicant by virtue of his
own postings as well as for the comments that were posted by viewers. And since the Court of Appeal has
dismissed the respondent’s appeal on 30 August 2017, it must mean that this Court’s ruling on the respondent’s
liability for comments made by viewers has been upheld by the Court of Appeal.
[66]During submissions it was suggested that the applicant’ has not shown that the respondent had actual
knowledge of the comments. I find this to be disingenuous and untenable. First, lack of knowledge was not raised in
the respondent’s affidavit in reply (Enclosure 148) and secondly, taking the most egregious publication, namely the
7th post-judgment publication as an example, it can be seen the respondent “participated’ in that publication- in that
he responded to the comments and said that he can “show proof”.
[67]The comment in the 7th post judgment publication refers to the applicant as “thiruden president” which means
“thieving president”. It is plainly and inherently defamatory of the applicant. Indeed, in the main suit, the applicant
had predicated his defamation suit on the basis of publications which contained impugned words which either
referred to him as a thief or suggesting that he had stolen or siphoned off assets of the Temple. The post-judgment
publications are quite clearly a repeat of what had taken place in the main defamation suit.
[68]The respondent was quite aware that even if he posted benign or neutral comments about the applicant or the
management of the Temple or Batu Caves Temple, there will be a deluge of vituperative, vile and vicious comments
which are defamatory of the applicant. That is exactly what happened on each of the seven (7) occasions.
[69]Next, in so far the respondent’s affidavit affirmed on 7 February 2017 is concerned, I am also satisfied that the
respondent had misled the Court in terms of what he had stated about his means and ability to pay the judgment
sum and costs when moving this Court for a stay of execution as compared to what he had stated in his affidavit in
the Court of Appeal in opposing an application for security for costs. Before this Court he painted a picture of
impecuniosity whereas before Court of Appeal he painted a different picture. Which version is the truth is not
important.
[70]Rather, what matters in the present context is that the respondent had affirmed affidavits before two different
courts and which contained material which were contradictory to each other in material respects. That alone would
suffice to amount to misleading the Court. Accordingly, it is my view that the respondent’s untruthful affidavit
undermines the integrity of the judicial process and undermines the due administration of justice.
[71]In the result, having considered all the facts and circumstances and the averments in the affidavits and
submissions, I am satisfied that the applicant has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the impugned post-
judgment publications are not casual, accidental or unintentional and that the respondent had wilfully and
deliberately disobeyed paragraph (1) of the Order and had further misled the Court when he filed his affidavit
affirmed on 7 February 2017 (Enclosure 92) in seeking a stay of execution.
[72]Based on the evidence that was presented, and having duly considered submissions of counsel (both written
and oral), I am satisfied that the applicant has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent had breached
paragraph (1) of the Order, not just, once but on seven (7) separate occasions. As such, it is my finding that the
respondent is guilty of contempt of this Court. I then invited counsel to submit on mitigation and the appropriate
punishment for contempt.
Sentencing - factors to be considered
[73]In mitigation, counsel for the respondent submitted that he did not make any defamatory posting with regards to
the applicant. Counsel said that it is only the comments which the Court has found to be defamatory of and
concerning the applicant and that his actions are not deliberate and willful as far as third party comments are
concerned.
[74]Counsel for the respondent asked this Court to take into account the fact that:-
a) the respondent is 49 years old;
b) he is the only wage earner;
c) he has been adjudicated a bankrupt;
d) he recently sent his daughter overseas for studies;.
e) any custodial sentence will jeopardize his employment;
f) he is currently employed;
g) his wife is a housewife;
h) he is the sole breadwinner for the family;
i) in the past when he gave an undertaking — he fulfilled the undertaking;
j) he is a politician;
k) his leave application is pending in the Federal Court.
[75]Counsel therefore asked that there be no custodial sentence.
[76]On the other hand, counsel for the applicant said that a custodial sentence is warranted. He said that contempt
of Court is a serious matter and that the rationale for the power to punish for contempt is to maintain the dignity of
the Court.
[77]Counsel emphasized that this was not an interlocutory injunction — it was a permanent injunction after trial. He
reminded that previously there was also an interlocutory injunction as there were further publications whilst the suit
was going on. As such, he said that a custodial sentence is warranted. Counsel submitted that this is a plain case of
libel. He said the respondent was legally represented at all times. The allegations against the applicant are serious.
[78]Counsel said that the applicant’s predicament was such that despite having a judgment in his favour, and
having an order restraining the respondent, the applicant is now before the Court to enforce the order via committal.
And the Court must mete out a “deterrent sentence”. Counsel, emphasized that this is not a “one off” publication as
there were seven (7) post-judgment publications. He said that after the conclusion of the trial and the issuance of
the Order, the respondent had been “warned” via a letter of demand (“LOD”) which was sent to the respondent’s
erstwhile solicitors. The LOD was issued to get the respondent to take down the impugned Facebook articles.
Counsel said that the respondent is acting with impunity. He pointed out that the respondent never contended that
the comments were accidental. On the contrary, these were positive acts by the respondent. The conduct of the
respondent is contumacious. Counsel highlighted that the seventh article was shared 330 times. Counsel said that
the explanation by respondent does not pass muster and the Order has to be obeyed.
[79]Counsel said that the respondent has not shown remorse. There was no apology that was tendered at the
earliest opportunity. The apology that is being tendered now is qualified. The sincerity of the apology (or the lack of
it) must be taken into account. Apart from disobeying a Court Order, the act of misleading the Court via his affidavit
is a heinous offence. He filed contradictory affidavits in two different courts and this type of conduct cannot be
punished with just a fine.
[80]The affidavit is a sworn statement before the Court. As for the respondent’s bankruptcy as part of the plea in
mitigation, counsel said that this is part of the due process of law. He said being a sole wage earner occurs in many
cases.
[81]Counsel pointed out that the postings in the respondent’s Facebook account are still there. In so far as
punishment is concerned, counsel for the applicant submitted that there should be a deterent sentence in the form
of a custodial sentence reflecting the gravity of the contemptuous acts, and invited the Court to take into
consideration the following factors:-
i. The terms of the Order are clear and the respondent was respresented by solicitors all along;
ii. The allegations and accusation against the applicant are serious in nature and are highly defamatory;
iii. The respondent’s impugned actions reinforces the Court’s finding of the respondent’s malice against the
applicant;
iv. The sheer number of breaches of the Order — seven (7) different times;
v. The respondent had already been warned by the applicant’s solicitors to strictly comply with terms of the
Order;
vi. The respondent’s conduct was contumacious or openly defiant of the Order;
vii. The respondent’s acts of contempt were not accidental or acts of omission. They are positive and
conscious acts of will carried out after deliberation. Particularly so as the respondent had once again
participated in, and egged on the comments;
viii. The respondent’s excuses for his breach and for his ‘ omission to make full and frank disclosure lacks any
credibility and suffers from lack of legitimacy;
ix. The respondent is clearly unremorseful for his contemptuous conduct; and
x. The respondent has not seen it fit to tender an apology to this Court at the earliest opportunity.
[82]With regard to the length of the sentence, counsel said that the .range qf sentences is between 14 days to 3
months. Counsel for the applicant gave the following examples of punishment for contempt of Court:-
No. Case Nature of Contempt Custodial Period

1. Arab-Malaysian Prima Realty
Sdn. Bhd. v Sri Kelangkota- Breach of an Injunction 3 months
Rakan Engineering JVSdn. Orderdirecting the
Bhd. &Ors. [2000] 2 CLJ 632 contemnorto allow access to
[Tab 8ABA] its lands.
2. Neo Khow So v Ang Chew

Breach of an Interim 3 months
Lee & Anor [1995] 1 LNS 140
Injunction directing
[Tab 11 ABA] contemnor not to interfere or
No. Case Nature of Contempt Custodial Period
access the plaintiffs lands.
3. Thiruch elvasegaram
Breach of an Injunction 3 months
Manickavasegar v Mahadevi
Order prohibiting the
Nadchatiram [2003] 2 CLJ
defendant from publishing
752 [Tab 12ABA] defamatory statements
4. Teo Cheng Hua v Ker Min

Tampering with documentary 50 days
Choo &Ors. [2015] 5 MLJ 365
evidence and making false
[Tab 13ABA]
statements under oath to
confuse the court and
interfere with the
administration ofjustice.
5. Lee Lint Huat v Yusof Khan

Breach of an injunction 1 month
Ghows Khan & Anor [1997] 2
restraining the defendant
MLJ 472 [Tab 9 ABA] from committing acts
prejudicial to the plaintiff.
6. IJM Corporation Bhd v Harta

Breach of an injunction 14 days imprison ment
Kumpulan Sdn. Bhd. (No. 2)
restraining the defendant
[2008] 8 CLJ 308 [Tab 10
from contacting the plaintiff or
ABA]
publishing documents
pertaining to a dispute.
[83]For my part, I find that the sting is not in the respondent’s post-judgment Facebook postings but rather it is to be
found in the vicious .and vituperative comments that were made by the viewers who had unhindered access to the
respondent’s Facebook account. The position in law is clear. The respondent as the Facebook account
owner/operator is responsible and liable in law for his own postings and for comments that are made by his
“viewers” or Facebook friends.
[84]In this case, there was no apology by the respondent at the earliest opportunity and even if there is one, I was
reminded by counsel for the applicant that an apology at the eleventh hour is worth nothing (see: Arab-Malaysian
Prima Realty Sdn. Bhd. v Sri Kelangkota-Rakan Engineering JV Sdn. Bhd. &Ors. [2000] 2 CLJ 632).
[85]Hence, a belated and half-hearted apology does not mitigate the serious misconduct by the respondent which
blatantly undermines the integrity of the Court and impedes and obstructs the due process administration of justice.
[86]It is clear and quite indisputable that the respondent would have known all too well that all he had to do was to
make some remark about the applicant or his family vis-a-vis the Temple and this would generate a wave of vitriolic
and vicious comments by his Facebook viewers or friends etc. There is no doubt at all that the impugned comments
which are found in the seven (7) post-judgment publications are of the same or substantially the same genre as the
impugned defamatory publications in the main defamation suit. In this regard, counsel for the applicant has
prepared a comparative table to show the similarity between the publications in the main suit and the post-judgment
publications. The complaint by the respondent that the post-judgment publications do not refer to the applicant or
are not defamatory of the applicant are plainly untenable.
[87]The complaint by the respondent that the applicant has not identified with particularly the similarity between the
impugned post judgment publications and the defamatory publications in the main suit is equally without merit. Even
a cursory glance of the post judgment publications will reveal that there is a striking similarity. Hence, there is no
doubt at all that the postings by the respondent and the comments that these postings had attracted or invited, were
all targeted at the applicant.
[88]No doubt, the respondent attempted to exonerate himself by stating broadly that he was raising issues in regard
to the administration of the Temple, but there is no doubt that he clearly intended to publish the postings which
generated the defamatory comments against the applicant.
[89]In view of the respondent’s history with the applicant vis-a-vis the Facebook account episode which was the
subject of the. main defamation suit, it would be naive and disingenuous for the respondent to feign any ignorance
of the likelihood and certainty that his postings of and concerning the applicant will elicit or prompt or garner
comments which are defamatory of the applicant and in the way of his offices.
[90]Having due regard to all the circumstances, including the fact that the respondent was responsible for seven (7)
post-judgment publications, containing defamatory words in the form of comments by viewers, of and concerning
the plaintiff and in the way of his offices, I am impelled to the conclusion that the respondent’s conduct
demonstrates an egregious disregard for the sanctity of the Order of a Court of competent jurisdiction. It is conduct
which is unpardonable. Indeed, on the topic of pardon, it is clear that the respondent is unrepentant and
unapologetic. The so-called apology was mere “lip- service”. It was not a sincere apology. Anyway, it came way too
late in the day to amount to anything worth considering.
[91]Taking all of the relevant factors into consideration including the several matters adverted to above, I am
impelled to the view that it is necessary and imperative in this case to impose a custodial sentence. Of course, the
length of the sentence is a matter of discretion and the Court is always guided by the mitigating and aggravating
factors.
[92]In the ultimate analysis, I am of the view that the respondent should be sentenced to one (1) month
imprisonment for being in contempt of Court and the sentence will take effect immediately. The respondent will
serve his sentence at the Sungei Buloh prison. Pursuant to Order 52 rule 6 (2) (a), (b) and (c) Rules of Court 2012.I
hereby pronounce the following:-
(a) The name of the contemnor is:- Murali A/L Subramaniam (KP No. 680618-08-5715) residing at:- No 13,
Jalan Anggerik Doritis 31/156, Seksyen 32, Kota Kemuning, Shah Alam, Selangor.
(b) He is guilty of being in contempt of Court for disobeying paragraph (1) of the Order of this Court dated 29
July 2016 and in misleading the Court by way of his affidavit filed in support of his application for stay of
execution affirmed on 7 February 2017;
(c) The contemnor is hereby sentenced to be imprisoned for one (1) month and be held at the Sungai Buloh
prison.
[93]Counsel for the respondent said she had instructions to appeal to the Court of Appeal and asked that the
custodial sentence be stayed. I agreed. But since the respondent has been found guilty of contempt, I was of the
view that the stay pending appeal cannot be unconditional. After hearing the oral application for stay pending the
respondent’s appeal on my finding that he is in contempt of Court and the pronouncement of sentence, I ordered
the custodial sentence to be stayed (pending appeal) on the following terms:-
(i) the respondent is to lodge his valid international passport with the Deputy Registrar of the Court by 3.00
p.m today; and
(ii) Pay into court (either by himself or through any third party) a security bond of RM50,000.00 and which is to
be paid by 3.00 p.m. on 13 November 2017.
[94]I further ordered the respondent to pay costs of the committal proceedings in the sum of RM20,000.00 (subject
to 4% allocatur).
End of Document

Tan Sri Datuk Nadraja A/l Ratnam V Murali A/l Subramani

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Tan Sri Datuk Nadraja A/l Ratnam V Murali A/l Subramani

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tan Sri Datuk Nadraja A/l Ratnam V Murali A/l Subramani

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NAD RAJA A/L RATNAM v MURALI A/L SUBRAMANIAM

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)

[7]The background to the defamation suit is as follows.

Grounds for committal

“D. THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE COMMITTAL ORDERS ARE SOUGHT.

PART A-PUBLIC ATI ONS POST JUDGMENT IN BREACH OF PARAGRAPH 1 OF THEJUDGMENT

D1. First Publication Post Judgment.

“Good job... .their too much”

(ii) Rai Kumar (19.2.2017, 8.30pm)

“Good job guys he must be sack”

(iii) Thana Eswari (19.2.2017, 8.35pm)

(v) Vanan Rai (20.2.2017,2.37pm)

“I think they all vote for each other”

(vi) Vanan Rai (20.2.2017, 2.38pm)

“Something like a cartel...this is a serious problem”

(vii) Mahesh Raju (20.2.2017,1.00am)

ix. I run the Religious Charity Trust as if it was my .cartel.

D2. The Second Publication Post Judgment

(ii) Suran Rai (20.2.2017, 3.08pm)

“All masuk poket”

[English Translation - All goes into pocket]

(iii) Sivam Paramasivam (20.2.2017, 7.24pm)

“Batu Cave temple is SDN BHD”

D3. The Third Publication Post Judgment

(ii)Raj Kumar (21.2.2017, 5.50pm)

(iii)Kamalanathan Nathan Roy 121.2.2017, 8.12pm)

(iv)Tinagaran Arumugan (21.2.2017, 8.18am)

“Semua tunjuk satu ringgit sahaja...mana note besar...? Arogara”

(v) Puchong Murali (21.2.2017, 8.19pm)

“Note besar sdh hantar pintu belakang”

(vi) Tinagaran Arumugan (21.2.2017, 8.37pm)

“Duit archanai, sewa tapak, parking semua pergi mana”

(vii) Puchong Murali (21.2.2017, 8.37 pm)

(viii) Raja Ramaya (22.2.2017, 7.18am) “Original text in Tamil”

ii. I have misappropriated monies belonging to the Religious Charity Trust.

D4. The Fourth Publication Post Judgment

(ii)Mathavan Suppiah (23.2.2017, 5.43pm)

“Rogues n cheats are running. What do expect”

iii. I am a corrupt person.

iv. I have misappropriated monies belonging to the Religious Charity Trust.

D5. The Fifth Publication Post Judgment

“Original Text in Tamil”

“KandippAGE KEDDAL SALvargal yendre nambikai. undu”

[English Translation - I believe that they surely have ill intentions]

(ii) Hanbalagan Balakan (2.3.2017,11.02pm) “Original text in Tamil”

(iii) Musha Musha (2.3.2017, 4.33pm) “Avanunga pocket inumniraiyale”

[Translation - Kocek mereka belum penuh lagi]

[English Translation - Their pockets are not full yet]

vi. I am greedy and unsatiable. I desire to steal, more.

D6. The Sixth Publication Post Judgment

follows:- (i) Bala Apoi (2.3.2017,12.53 pm)

(ii) Bala Apoi (3.3.2017,1.06am)

v. I am uneducated and wont use my intellect to distinguish right from wrong.

D7. The Seventh Publication Post Judgment

(ii) Melvin Sanjith (3.3.2017, 5.53 pm)

“Family temple Opps...business”

(iii) Rai Kumar (3.3.2017, 8.05pm).