Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera (Judicial Commissioner) "gets slapped in the face" by PwC Malaysia: Here is the proof

 

The Honourable Tuan Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera has made two very unjust decisions with regards to the first discovery application and the leave application for contempt. It has been three months since his decision, and the Judicial Commissioner is yet to write the grounds of judgment as to why he denied leave. As such, the plaintiffs are unable to proceed with their appeal to the Court of Appeal with regards to the leave application. 

What an irony...according to our PwC Malaysia insider, on the 11th of August 2011 in open court, PwC Malaysia's counsel Rabindra Nathan, while engaged in a shouting match with the plaintiffs' counsel, accused the opposing counsel of "slapping him in the face". Four and a half months later, we have absolute and incontrovertible proof that it is actually PwC Malaysia and Johan Raslan who are "slapping" Judicial Commissioner Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera in the face, and here is the reason.

The trial started on the 8th of August 2011. And early on, PwC Malaysia's counsel Rabindra Nathan, did a song and dance in court about how based on PwC Malaysia's reputation and the fact that they are the auditors for super heavyweights like Khazanah Nasional and Sime Darby, as well as how "open and upfront" they are with the court, there will be no need to grant a discovery application for documents, as there is no way PwC Malaysia will even think about pulling a fast one in court. Judicial Commissioner Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera bought into the "story" and did not grant the discovery application. Thereafter, both parties exchanged bundles of documents for the trial.

There were certain documents requested by the plaintiffs which PwC Malaysia said was not in their possession.

Defendants counsel Rabindra Nathan, plans to submit no case to answer because he is desperate not to allow any PwC Malaysia witnesses on the stand...

On the 11th of August 2011, PwC Malaysia's counsel Rabindra Nathan pulls a shocker by claiming that some documents were only discovered the previous day, including one document (an email attachment) that was requested by the plaintiffs before the start of trial, which PwC Malaysia had said was not in their possession. The rest of the documents "found" in the purported safe, were fabricated, and as such they were unable to produce an affidavit as promised by Rabindra Nathan in his counsels' undertaking.

Lo and behold, in an affidavit dated 9th of December 2011, PwC Malaysia's Senior Partner Khoo Chuan Keat, in paragraph 9.1, refers to the email attachment, one of the documents requested by the plaintiffs which PwC Malaysia claimed was not in their possession, was actually located even before the trial. If only Judicial Commissioner Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera had granted the discovery application before the trial, instead of buying into the PwC "paragons of integrity" story, this fiasco would not have happened, there would have been no filing for contempt of court, and PwC Malaysia would not have been able to pull a fast one in court.

And the man to take blame for all this is none other than Judicial Commissioner Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera.

Chin Kwai Fatt and Johan Raslan are fighting tooth and nail not to allow expert witnesses from a rival accounting firm to testify for the plaintiffs.

Judicial Commissioner Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera, in EVERY DECISION YOU MAKE, YOU ARE ANSWERABLE TO THE MALAYSIAN RAKYAT.

Part 2 - Kuala Lumpur High Court is being scandalised: How PwC Malaysia is undermining the Malaysian judiciary

PwC Malaysia Senior Partner, Khoo Chuan Keat's affidavit shown below, is in response to the plaintiffs second attempt for discovery of documents and is little more than a lie to cover an earlier lie.

Which 'learned solicitor' in Zulrafique and Partners told Khoo Chuan Keat that the correction has been done?

From the affidavit:-

8. In respect of paragraph 9 of the Plaintiffs Supporting Affidavit, I am advised by the Defendants' solicitors and verily believe that what counsel said before the Honourable Court on 11.8.2011 was corrected and explained to this Honourable Court on 19.9.2011.

Chief Justice Tan Sri Ariffin Zakaria
Learned Chief Justice, please find the time to go through the video recordings and transcripts to see that the 'correction' was merely a statement that the counsel for the defendants has misconstrued his clients' instructions to the point where they cannot file an affidavit. Isn't this basically a false affidavit to cover for a previous lie?

The defendants' counsel on 11.8.2011, said that the documents were found in a safe.

On 19.9.2011 the counsel then said that he had misconstrued the clients' instructions to the point where they cannot file an affidavit, and they cannot answer when the documents were found, simply because the documents are a fabrication, and the counsel misconstruing the clients' instructions is a direct result of the fabrication.


The correction Khoo Chuan Keat refers to was actually a purported explanation to the fabrication.

Chin Kwai Fatt and Johan Raslan are fighting tooth and nail not to allow expert witnesses from a rival accounting firm to testify for the plaintiffs. 

Khoo Chuan Keat who signed the affidavit in reply was not even in court when the defendants counsel made the 'correction'. Why didn't Johan Raslan who was in the gallery, or Chin Kwai Fatt and VU Kumar who were there at the counsels' table, correct the counsel during the day counsel 'misconstrued' his clients instructions?

Counsel 'misconstrued' around 8.30 am, and these three Senior Partners had the morning tea break, lunch and the afternoon tea break to tell their counsel to stop 'misconstruing' their instructions, but yet they didn't....?

Defendants counsel Rabindra Nathan, plans to submit no case to answer because he is desperate not to allow any PwC Malaysia witnesses on the stand...

MORE TO COME............