Puncak Gali’s injunction against Emrail over rail project dismissed

 Judicial commissioner Asmah Musa rules that damages will be an adequate remedy if the main suit is decided in Puncak Gali's favour.

The Shah Alam High Court’s decision to dismiss the injunction paves the way for the RM185.7 million government railway rehabilitation project in Kelantan to continue.

SHAH ALAM:

 The High Court here dismissed an injunction sought by a company against rail contractor Emrail Sdn Bhd in an ongoing dispute over a subcontract linked to a RM185.7 million government railway rehabilitation project in Kelantan.

Judicial commissioner Asmah Musa ruled that damages would be an adequate remedy if Puncak Gali Harmoni Sdn Bhd’s main suit was decided in its favour.

She said the balance of convenience, public interest, and changed circumstances weighed against granting the injunction to Puncak Gali, a company that specialises in railway track works.

Puncak Gali had sought an injunction to stop work on the rail until their dispute was resolved.

On April 10, the Court of Appeal imposed an interim protective injunction, holding that the earlier dismissal of the injunction involved procedural irregularities.

A three-member bench chaired by Justice Zaini Mazlan remitted the matter to the High Court before a different judge for an expedited inter partes hearing within two weeks.

Asmah subsequently heard and decided on the injunction.

The lifting of the injunction today paves the way for the rail project to continue.

Following the dismissal, Puncak Gali’s originating summons will proceed to hearing. Case management has been fixed for April 24.

Counsel Ooi Suan Kim and Boo Honn Chin represented Emrail, while lawyers Alvin Oh, Chong Jen Hui, Priscilla Faith, and Sew Chang Peng appeared for Puncak Gali.

The dispute centres on restoration and slope stabilisation works between the Gua Musang and Tumpat railway stations, awarded by the transport ministry to Emrail.

Puncak Gali claims rights as the sole subcontractor based on a conditional letter of award dated May 29, 2025, and a conditional letter of undertaking dated Aug 29, 2025.

Emrail, however, contends that both letters were merely conditional arrangements that never crystallised into enforceable contracts, as key conditions precedent were not fulfilled, including Puncak Gali’s failure to provide RM10 million for preliminary works.

Puncak Gali also sought to restrain Emrail from terminating those arrangements or appointing other subcontractors pending arbitration.

The matter first came before the High Court in September last year, when Puncak Gali obtained an ex parte interim injunction. However, the injunction was later set aside, and the originating summons dismissed. - FMT