The chairman of Sri Maha Mariamman Temple Dhevastanam has filed an action to strike out a suit by a lawyer to remove him from office, saying that the management of the temple was not a matter for the court to decide.
In the application filed through his solicitors Shearn Delamore & Co in the High Court last Friday, Tan Sri R. Nadaraja, who has helmed the temple executive committee for 22 years, said lawyer M. Manoharan's originating summons was a non-justiciable issue.
In court documents cited by The Malaysian Insider, the chairman of the reputedly wealthiest Hindu organisation in the country with assets amounting to RM2 billion, said his lawyers would submit on the legal point during a hearing.
In court documents cited by The Malaysian Insider, the chairman of the reputedly wealthiest Hindu organisation in the country with assets amounting to RM2 billion, said his lawyers would submit on the legal point during a hearing.
Nadaraja and auditor D. Harikrishnan Dass have also submitted affidavits in support of the striking out application.
However, Manoharan said he was going for Nadaraja in his personal capacity and that he had legal capacity as a Hindu.
Nadaraja said that the suit revealed no cause of action, was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process.
Lawyer P. Uthayakumar, who is representing Manoharan, said he would respond to the striking out action.
Case management had been fixed for June 3 before High Court deputy registrar Arun Noval Dass.
Manoharan filed the suit on April 17, saying among other things, that he wanted Nadaraja removed for failing to administer the organisation as a charitable, cultural, religious and educational trust.
Manoharan filed the suit on April 17, saying among other things, that he wanted Nadaraja removed for failing to administer the organisation as a charitable, cultural, religious and educational trust.
Manoharan also wanted the court to set aside a 1930 Supreme Court order that the temple was a charitable trust for the benefit of a select group of people.
In his suit, Manoharan said Nadaraja had abused his power by remaining as temple chairman for a long time.
The Batu Caves temple which is the nation's main venue during the Thaipusam festival, is among 19 movable and immovable properties worth about RM2 billion owned by the Sri Maha Mariamman Temple Dhevastanam.
Manoharan said the tenure of all future temple chairmen should be limited to two terms, or four years.
"All Malaysian Hindus should have the right to elect the temple management committee which is not the case now," he added.
The former Internal Security Act detainee, who spent almost two years in Kamunting, added that Nadaraja and his immediate family members must declare their assets and all future statement of accounts be independently prepared by an accountant appointed by Manoharan.
He also wanted the temple management to stop a proposed development of the Sungai Tua land in Batu Caves for an RM250 million condominium project and to instead build a Tamil secondary school with hostel facilities.
- TMI
Earlier today (9.11.2016) in the High Court of Kuala Lumpur, Tan Sri Datuk Nadraja’s (“Tan Sri Nadraja”) application to strike out Manoharan Malayalam’s (“Manoharan”) Originating Summons dated 17.4.2015 (“Originating Summons”) against Tan Sri Nadraja came up for decision before Her Ladyship Dato’ Asmabi Binti Mohamad, Judge of the Court of Appeal.
ReplyDeleteYou will recall Manoharan had applied to the High Court for 39 reliefs against Tan Sri Nadraja.
Her Ladyship proceeded to allow Tan Sri Nadraja’s application to strike out Manoharan’s Originating Summons with costs. In support of her decision, Her Ladyship gave the following broad grounds;
(i) Firstly, Her Ladyship held that the Sri Maha Mariamman Dhevasthanam (“Dhevasthanam”) is a religious charitable entity. As such, the Dhevasthanam comes under the purview of the Attorney General under section 9 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956. In this case, Her Ladyship ruled that Manoharan had failed to comply with the statutory requirement of section 9(1) and 9(2) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 in that he had failed to obtain the prior consent of the Attorney General before commencing this action.
(ii) Her Ladyship ruled that the Court Order dated 28.11.1930 and the subsequent Orders thereafter were perfectly valid Orders. Her Ladyship found that there was no illegality or lack of jurisdiction and disagreed with Manoharan’s submission that the Orders is null and void.
(iii) The High Court will not entertain Manoharan’s application to compel the Attorney General to renew / refile the appeal against the acquittal and discharge of Tan Sri Nadraja by the High Court in criminal proceedings instituted against Tan Sri Nadraja on 27.2.1998. Her Ladyship ruled that the High Court cannot usurp the Attorney General’s prosecutorial discretion under Article 145 (3) of the Federal Constitution.
(iv) Her Ladyship ruled that Manoharan did not have the requisite locus standi / legal standing to bring this action. Her Ladyship rejected Manoharan’s submission that Manoharan as a Hindu, a devotee of the Temple, a donor of the temple, an ex-ISA detainee, Hindraf legal advisor, ex-state assemblyman and a senior lawyer who had allegedly received numerous complaints from the public has the requisite locus standi / legal standing to bring this action against Tan Sri Nadraja.
(v) Her Ladyship ruled that a majority of the reliefs sought by Manoharan in his Originating Summons were non-justiciable before the High Court. Her Ladyship further ruled that the reliefs prayed for by Manoharan were too vague and general and some of which involved the exercise of powers, functions and decision of various authorities such as the Selayang Municipal Council, the Government of Malaysia, the State Government and the Ministry of Education. Her Ladyship ruled that the High Court will not accede to Manoharan’s demands, and will not interfere with the exercise of the powers, functions and decision of the various authorities.
(vi) Her Ladyship ruled that Manoharan’s action on a whole was frivolous, scandalous and an abuse of the process of the court.
(vii) Her Ladyship further ruled that some of the reliefs sought by Manoharan were absurd and malicious.
For all of the above reasons, the High Court allowed Tan Sri Nadraja’s application to strike out Manoharan’s Originating Summons with legal costs amounting to RM20,000.00 to be paid by Manoharan to Tan Sri Nadraja.
In the above proceedings, Tan Sri Nadraja was represented by G. Rajasingam and R. Aswath from Messrs. Shearn Delamore & Co, Manoharan acted in person and Rosli Ahmad, Senior Federal Counsel appeared as Amicus Curiae (friend of the Court).