SHAH ALAM, 12 Nov 2008: The High Court has cancelled the interim injunction obtained by MIC president Datuk Seri S Samy Vellu to stop the party’s former Youth chief M Vigneswaran and three others from continuing to publish an article allegedly defamatory of him.
Judge Rosnaini Saub said Samy Vellu had failed to satisfy the court on why he needed the order.
She said there was no evidence that showed the four defendants had intended or planned to reproduce the article, which was published on 7 July, when Samy Velly obtained the ex-parte interim injuction on 29 July.
“Therefore under this situation, I don’t see why the court needs to grant the injunction sought by the plaintiff here,” said the judge, reading her written judgement in chambers.
Samy Vellu filed the writ of summons on 24 July and named Vigneswaran, Malaysia Nanban editor M Maryanandy as well as the Tamil newspaper’s publisher Penerbitan Sahabat (M) Sdn Bhd and printer Aslita Sdn Bhd as defendants.
He sought RM10 million in damages for libel, damages for conspiracy, aggravated damages, costs and other reliefs deemed fit by the court.
The former works minister claimed that the article published on the front page of Malaysia Nanban and continued on page four contained elements defamatory of him, tarnished his credibility, reputation and image and changed public perception on his ability to safeguard the interests of the Indian community.
In a reply filed on 13 Aug, Vigneswaran said all the statements he made were true and they were to fulfil his obligation to Indian youths.
The court initially granted the ex-parte interim injunction on 29 July. After the inter-parte hearing, however, it today denied Samy Vellu’s application for the order with cost.
Rosnaini said the article was published in Tamil, and the translation into Bahasa Malaysia had been disputed because the plaintiff as well as the first, second and third defendants came up with their own translation.
She said the court found it difficult to determine whose translation was accurate and should be accepted.
“Whatever it is, I reckon it’s better for the issue to be decided in full trial,” she said.
No date has been fixed for the full hearing during which the court will also deal with the defences put forward by the defendants. — Bernama
