Court says Seafield temple untouchable until January

The legal teams representing Seafield Hindu temple task force group and developer One City Development Sdn Bhd will go back to Shah Alam High Court tomorrow.

This came about after both sides had different interpretations of today's ruling by Judge Wong Kian Kheong which saw the Sri Maha Mariamman temple at USJ25 Subang Jaya being allowed to continue occupying its current location until January next year.

Earlier today, journalists covering the court case which was heard in Wong's chambers were given conflicting versions by both sides' legal teams.

Lawyer Vasanthi Arumugam who represented 50 plaintiffs from the temple committee's task force said Justice Wong had granted an ad interim injunction to restrain One City Development Bhd from taking any steps in regards to land possession.

She said the judge had granted the injunction to the main plaintiff M Ramachandran, who is the temple committee's task force chairperson, and 49 other plaintiffs.

"The Shah Alam High Court today has granted an ad interim injunction to restrain the developer from taking any steps as regards to the possession of the temple until the disposal of the application for an injunction on Jan 11.

"The developer has given an undertaking not to take any steps as regards to the temple until disposal of the application for injunction is fully ventilated," she said in a text message.

However, this was later disputed by one of the developer's lawyers, Brenda Chan Qing Wen, who contacted reporters saying that the court had only asked for her client to give an undertaking.

"The judge asked if our client was willing to give an undertaking. We obtained instructions from our client and in the interest of keeping the peace, our client gave an undertaking not to proceed with execution of possession of its land until the injunction application is heard on Jan 11, 2019.

"No ad interim injunction order was given by the court at any point," she said through WhatsApp.

'No injunction'

Following this, Malaysiakini contacted the temple committee task force's legal team after which lawyer Vasanthan Gopalan said they were going to seek clarification from the judge tomorrow.

"Collectively the team of lawyers represents the 50 plaintiffs [...] what we can say is that the judge has granted an ad interim injunction and the undertaking was part of the ad interim injunction.

"So the developer was asked to provide an undertaking pursuant to the ad interim injunction.

"I also received the information that lawyers representing the developer are having different opinions. What they are saying is there is no ad interim injunction and that there was only an undertaking from the developer.

"Since there are two different interpretations now on what happened in court, what we have decided is that we will seek clarification from the judge tomorrow," he said when contacted.

Malaysiakini has contacted Chan for her comments over the plan to seek clarification from the court tomorrow.

One City Development Bhd's legal team in an e-mail later confirmed that they had been informed by the plaintiffs' lawyers that they will seek an appointment with the court tomorrow.

"Based on our record, there is no ad interim injunction given by the court. The landowner, One City Development Sdn Bhd, gave an undertaking not to proceed with execution of the writ of possession pending the hearing on Jan 11.

"The plaintiff’s solicitors have contacted Skrine and informed us that they will seek an appointment with the court tomorrow to clarify if an ad interim injunction was given," said the e-mail from Claudia Cheah who is a partner at the Skrine & Co legal firm which represents the developer.

It also said that today's hearing was fixed for the plaintiffs' interim injunction application and was adjourned to Jan 11 pending the filing of further affidavits and submissions by parties. 

Stay of execution

Earlier today, another High Court judge Gunalan Muniandy had recused himself from the injunction hearing after having dismissed a stay application filed by another group of the temple devotees.

Ramachandran and 40 others, they were seeking for an injunction to prevent the developer or its agents from approaching the temple to demolish it or for any other purposes until all court actions pertaining to the matter are concluded.

The plaintiffs were also seeking to get a stay of execution against a writ of possession, and other relief deemed fit by the court, including costs.

Besides One City Development Sdn Bhd, the plaintiffs also named five others as defendants in the application: one K Chellappa, Sime UEP Properties Bhd, Selangor Town and Country Development Planning Department director, the Selangor state government, and one M Nagaraju.

Related:

S'gor guarantees no temple demolition until solution reached

AG offers to mediate in consent order regarding Seafield temple

Riots and our racial bias

Riots: Philippines' Ayala Corp to extend full co-operation, says lawyer

Legal eagle who allegedly hired thugs was a company adviser, says IGP