DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO : S ANTARA

Transcription

1 1 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO : S--- ANTARA LOGICAL OPERATIONS CONSORTIUM SDN BHD (No Syarikat : -X) PLAINTIF DAN 1. ABDUL RAHIM BIN ABDUL RAZAK (No K/P : 00-0-). SILVERLAKE SYSTEM SDN BHD (No Syarikat : -W) DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN TARIKH :..1 MASA :.AM NOTA KETERANGAN Koram Hakim Yang Arif Siti Khadijah Bt S. Hassan Badjenid Peguam Plaintif S S Tieh SST Peguam Defendan Pertama Abdul Rashid Shahfrin SHF Peguam Defendan H L Choon HLC Ke- Elaine Siaw ELS 1

2 Saksi Saksi SP-1 Singanallur Venkataraman Narayanan Jurubahasa - JRB Penterjemah - PTJ

3 MULA JRB Dengan izin Yang Arif, kes bicara penuh S---, Logical Operations Consortium Sdn. Bhd. lawan Abdul Rahim Bin Abdul Razak dan satu lagi. SST Dengan izin Yang Arif. S.S. Tieh for the Plaintiff. My learned friends Encik Abdul Rashid Ismail and Encik Shahfrin for the 1 st Defendant and my learned friends Mr HL Choon together with Miss Elaine Siaw for the nd Defendant. Yang Arif, today is fixed for continued trial. The Plaintiff s first witness is still under cross-examination. May I call upon the witness, Dr Narayanan? HLC Dengan izin, Yang Arif. Can I seek for permission for the pupil in chambers to sit in open court to take notes of the proceedings? Much obliged. SP1 Nama : Singanallur Venkataraman Narayanan Umur : Alamat: Pekerjaan: Bersumpah dan memberi keterangan dalam Bahasa Inggeris Masa :.AM Pemeriksaan Balas (Cross-Examination) Masa:.AM Dengan izin, Yang Arif. Dr. Narayanan, you agree that when I ask you the question when I said do you agree, please answer yes as you agree or you disagree. Could you repeat that question? If I, whenever I ask a questions, when I ask a question beginning with do you agree, I d appreciate it if you answer you either agree or disagree.

4 Yes, I understand. Ok. Do you agree that the Plaintiff was not forced by the 1 st Defendant to pursue the Bank Rakyat outsourcing project? Yes, I agree. You agree that yesterday under cross-examination you said the Plaintiff would not be forced to do anything that it doesn t want to. I agree. Do you agree that the Plaintiff did not directly bid or submit a proposal for the Bank Rakyat outsourcing project on its own. I agree. I m sorry. Could you repeat that question because I m not sure. Do you agree that the Plaintiff did not either directly bid or submit its own proposal directly to Bank Rakyat on its own? I agree. In fact, it was the Plaintiff s own decision to participate in the Bank Rakyat outsourcing project by seeking to collaborate with the nd Defendant? I totally disagree. Do you agree that when the Plaintiff pursued the Bank Rakyat outsourcing project like any other business venture, there s always risk involved? Could you repeat the various parts of the sentence again please?

5 Do you agree that the Plaintiff in pursuing the Bank Rakyat outsourcing project, like any business ventures, involve risk? There s risk involved with it. I agree Do you agree that the Plaintiff through IICSO in seeking to collaborate with the nd Defendant, ok, sorry, sorry. Ok, do you agree that one of the risks that the Plaintiff might not be able to, one of the risks is that the Plaintiff might not be able to participate in the Bank Rakyat outsourcing project with the nd Defendant? That s one of the risks that the Plaintiff might not be able to participate. I agree. Do you agree it was the nd Defendant that decided not to collaborate with IICSO in the Bank Rakyat outsourcing project? I agree. Do you agree that the nd Defendant would have the final say whether IICSO can participate in the Bank Rakyat outsourcing project? I totally disagree. Can you please repeat question? Do you agree that the nd Defendant would have the final say in deciding whether IICSO can participate in the Bank Rakyat outsourcing project? I disagree. Do you agree that IICSO was paid by the nd Defendant the sum of RM0,000? Yes, I agree.

6 Do you agree that the payment of the sum of RM0,000 by the nd Defendant to IICSO, sorry. Ok, do you agree that the payment made by the nd Defendant to IICSO in the sum of RM0,000 includes what your claim for business procurement services? I totally disagree. I put it to you that the Plaintiff has no claim against the 1 st Defendant for the so-called business procurement services. Would you repeat that question please? I put it to you that the Plaintiff has no claim against the 1 st Defendant for the so-called claim of business procurement services. I totally disagree. Can I refer you to your witness statement, Dr Narayanan? Your Q&A.1. Yes. You mentioned in Q&A.1 that there are two parts to your answer, yes? There are two parts to your answer. First document list or activities. The second part is a two-day project kick-off meeting at Genting Awana on th November? You noticed that?

7 Ok, I m more interested in the second part of your answer. Do you agree that at Rahim did not attend the said two-day project kick-off meeting? I agree. Dr. Narayanan, can I ask you to look at Bundle B? Is that B, B as in boy? Yes. Can I refer you to page 0? This is your letter of demand. To the 1 st Defendant. Issued, you re aware of this letter? Yes, I am. And in this letter, if you look at page 0 you also attached an annexure, correct? Yes, I did. And it is called Annexure A. Yes, yes. And this Annexure A can be seen at page 0 to, correct?

8 Correct. And in this Annexure A you have also made reference to it in your Q&A, I think. Sorry. You also made reference to it in Q&A.1. Correct? [00::00] Yes, I did. And you say in your Statement of Claim, in your witness statement that you prepared these statements yourself together with Uday? Yes, but could you just hold on because.1 refers to to. I just want to make sure. Is it identical? At and? Identical. In this, for ease of reference, I will just refer to Annexure A, since it s identical. Could you? You know item.1 refers to to. So you want me to refer to that because it s almost identical? I don t know Yes, ok I ll refer to A. I have to check each item. I ll refer to A. HLC Dr Narayanan, can you speak louder?

9 Sorry,, louder. I ll try. Yes, speak a bit louder. Ok. These documents contain your statements concerning the particulars of business procurement consulting services that you say you have provided. Do you agree that this Annexure A was prepared by you and Uday in anticipation of your claim against the 1 st Defendant, right? Because it was sent together with your statement, your letter of demand; it was obviously prepared in anticipation of claiming against them for what you call your business procurement services? I disagree because of semantics. You disagree because of semantics, ok. Do you agree that this Annexure A was prepared by the Plaintiff for the purpose of this legal action? Yes, I agree. Do you agree that you are using your statements in Annexure A in order to establish your claim against the 1 st Defendant for what you call business consulting procurement services that you rendered? Could you repeat that question because there are several parts? Do you agree that you are using the statements in Annexure A in order to establish your claim against the 1 st Defendant for what you claim business procurement consulting services?

10 Since the claim is against both 1 st Defendant and nd Defendant, I do disagree. You, sorry? I disagree because it s not just the 1 st Defendant. Alright, if, ok, if it s for both Defendants, do you agree with the statement? Yes, I do. And now I refer you to your witness statement to Q&A.1. In Q&A.1 you have claimed for what you call loss of profit, yes? And you have relied on a document at page in support of your claim for loss of profit;. Yes, Dr, this is what you say here? Yes, and it s only one page, correct? Correct. Do you agree that the statements at page is for your, was prepared by you and Uday for the purpose of this legal action? Do you agree that you are using the statements at page in order to establish your claim for loss of profits?

11 Do you agree that both the Defendants are disputing your claim for business procurement services as well as for loss of profits? Do you agree that both you and Uday have interest in the outcome of your claim here, in this case? You have interest. You cannot say you are independent because you have interest. Because you say you are the principal of. The Plaintiff is Logical Operations Consortium. Yes, but you have interest by virtue that you are a shareholder. Yes, I do but Uday doesn t. Uday doesn t. But you agree that Uday is also has as, what you call it, principal of LOC? At this time, I disagree because he s not. He s not? Yesterday you said he was a principal. He was at the material time. I said at this time he s not. At that time? At the material times. When is the material time? Concerning the lawsuit. Now? Can you be more specific? He was a principal of the Plaintiff during the time that it s addressed in this lawsuit.

12 He is a principal? He was a principal. He was a principal but at some point he was, he is, he was interested in this case. Yes, at that time he was. So he has interest. I would say he had interest. He had but you re playing semantics now? No, I m playing with grammar I think. My Lady, at this juncture, I would like to make an application to this court to exclude the, these two documents at page 0 and by virtue of Article A () that portion, My Lady, I do apologise for the poor photocopying; it is basically, it s third paragraph from below. It starts with the word nothing. Nothing in this section shall render admissible as evidence any statement made by person interested at the time when proceedings were pending or as stated involving a dispute as to any fact which the statement might tend to establish. Basically, My Lady, this witness has said that yes this evidence, statement was prepared for the purpose of this case, or anticipated for this case, the dispute of fact which is clearly disputed in order to establish their case. It s very clear based on the evidence given by the witness, My Lady. SST Yang Arif, this point is taking me by surprise. May I have some time to address this point? I think these two documents are extremely crucial. In the first place it is page. 1

13 Yes, there are two documents, My Lady. If I may refer My Lady to, first, the first one can be found at page 0 to, that s the first. Hold on, -? 0- to. Yes, and the second one? Yes, and the other one,. [00:0:00] Yes? My Lady, I take this, I could not have raised it until I asked that question before the witness. So because until I cross-examined the witness, I wouldn t know, so I can t give notice to my learned friend. So this is the first opportunity for me once the witness has established the evidence that I require to raise this objection, My Lady. So on that basis, My lady, because it has a bearing as to whether what question do I ask next. SST Yang Arif. Are you clear about the objections? SST Minta maaf, Yang Arif? Are you clear about the objections? SST I m clear about the objections but may I have some time to research this point, Yang Arif, because this involves two crucial documents which relate to Plaintiff s claim. If I may have some time to do some research on this point. But it s going to hinder the progress of this trial. 1

14 SST Then perhaps if I may suggest, if I may suggest, perhaps we can continue with the trial, let parties submit to Yang Arif on this point on another day. You re doing this in your submission, that s what you saying? Do you have any objections, yes? My Lady, I do have objection, My Lady, because I have to ask the question. If My Lady does not make a ruling today, then I have to ask the questions which. Yes, before I make a ruling I have to give a right to the other party to. True I have no objection if My Lady wants to give time. I m just trying to find a way how to overcome this problem. I do not want this, our progress to be hindered. Sure. SST Yang Arif, but Yang Arif. Perhaps, My Lady, I just want to, it s early in the day, can we come in the afternoon and I will submit on this point? Maybe we can proceed. I think on other points, you leave this for a while and we can come back to that afterward, is that possible? Sure. It s possible, My Lady. Actually there s nothing much to it. SST Yang Arif, if I may have some time to research this point because this is actually really taken me by surprise. I have no objection if you need time.

15 SST I think to be fair to. It is quite natural for objections to raise during trial. SST Yes, of course, Yang Arif, but of this kind of objection, I seriously need to do some research. Ok, can you proceed with on other points? I will proceed with other questions first, Yang Arif. Right, I think proceed with other questions and we can come back to this later. SST On another day? No, not another day. We can deal with it after lunch, My lady. Yes. SST If I may have some. Do you have somebody with you? Your assistant or somebody who can? SST I don t, I don t have. No, I cannot postpone just for this. SST I m not asking for a postponement, Yang Arif. What I m saying is that, Yang Arif, this point we can deal with it another day, maybe what we can do is we continue with whatever we can today, I can put in my submissions maybe by Monday, ok Yang Arif?

16 Yang Arif, this is a simple point. I don t think we need to submit in a written submission. SST No, I don t think so. Just a suggestion, Yang Arif, so as not to impede the trial. Maybe you can proceed on other questions first. I will. I ll proceed with other questions first, My Lady. You put on hold these objections first. SST I m obliged here but I m really not able to deal with, to answer the question today, Yang Arif, if I don t have time to go back to the office and do some research, Yang Arif. Ok, you can proceed with other questions first. Yes. At the rate we re going, I see that you have time to prepare. I mean there are so many other questions coming apart from this. Yes, yes, My Lady. SST Yes, but what I m trying to inform to this court is that I do need some time to research this point. Yes, ok, we ll come back to that afterward. Are you asking for adjournment now? SST No, I m not asking for adjournment actually. That s what I m saying; we can proceed with other questions first. SST Right. I m obliged, Yang Arif.

17 Actually this is not clear. Yes, we ll get a better copy for Yang Arif. Maybe what I can do. Yes, My Lady. To save time, since there is objections to these documents, I can have these marked as ID first. Yes, that would be most suitable. So that we can proceed further. SST I see. Then. I mark these as ID first so that we can proceed and it won t hinder the trial and we can come back to that later for this to be marked as exhibit proper. SST I see. I think I ll do that. Yes. I think that will be the most appropriate. So I mark as ID for the moment. Yes, much obliged. So I take it this is P right? P becomes ID. And 0 one it has not been marked. HLC Because it has been marked as, it s the same document. At page it s actually the same document.

18 There are two identical documents, My lady, which has been confirmed by the witness. P becomes ID and I thought you mentioned another page just now also? 0. It s, My Lady. Yes, part of it, it s together with the letter of demand. Ok, so it becomes ID.. The first one is, the first one.. The first one, My Lady, the forecast at page. That is P. Is P now ID. Yes. And as regards to. Yes, P becomes ID. That s right. But My Lady there are two documents, My Lady, because if you look at page up to these are identical documents so perhaps, so we take it together so it applies to both. Yes. So it becomes ID. Yes. Yes, counsel? Mr Tieh, is that right?

19 SST So it will be until, ID. So you can proceed with your questions. Yes, yes, My Lady, I appreciate that. Thank you very much. So specifically is it? Yes, section. I will get a better copy for My Lady. A.? A. And to save time maybe we can include that in your submission later on? You can submit later on. But My Lady. So the court will decide whether it should be P or ID. My problem is this: if it is decided now then I would be able to know whether I want to ask further question on it. If not, if it s excluded than I will not waste the court s time and ask the question. Alright, we can come back to that later. Sure, My lady, I appreciate it. So in that regard, I do have, I reserve my right to cross-examine on that. Yes, so you will time in the mean time. SST I ll definitely have to go back to my office to do some research. Yes, alright, ok.

20 Dr. Narayanan, may I refer you to page of Bundle B? Yes, in your witness statement you have made some references to what you call entry, your diary entry. And in, from my own testimony at Q&A 1.1 of your witness statement you said that these documents at page up to are some of your diary entries? Did you say 1.1? 1.1, yes, says to. At page it s also part of a diary? I think it s a photocopy of our first page. A photocopy of the first page. So at page up to these are your diary entries, right? Yes, for 0 and 0. 0 and 0. And you have picked and chose what you want, correct? I disagree. Can you confirm whether the entire diary for 0 and 0 are in any of the bundles before this honourable court?

21 I confirm that only the select pages relevant to this court case are there. Which you choose? I had to pick them, yes, choose. You chose it. But you used the word pick and choose that has a different connotation. That s all. But you chose it, you picked yourself? Yes, I did. Pick and choose. And if we look at page, for example, there were entries which have been deleted or blanked out, correct? [00::00] Correct. And at page, if you look at those entries which have not been blanked out or cancelled out have been re-written? They are over-written, yes. Over-written, yes, thank you. And by your own admission there are entries which have been amended. As part of the diary keeping procedures, yes. Yes, you said amended, right? And if we continue to look at 0, at 1,,,, until up to, these entries have either been blanked out, cancelled out, amended or over-written?

22 Yes, I have a bad habit. And you did all this on your own, right? Yes, because they are my personal diaries. And nobody can authenticate what you say that you have amended, re-written or over-written or cancelled. I disagree, anytime you. No, when you did it, no one oversee it, so only you can confirm. Yes, personal diaries are always personal. So in other words, there is no independent verification of the entry. That s correct. And in fact you have never shown these entries to anyone other than your legal counsel and perhaps Uday who has interest in this case. Uday has probably not seen it. Sorry? Uday probably hasn t seen. Uday hasn t. So probably it s your legal counsel. And you also would not have given it to any of the Defendants and Encik Rahim or the Defendant s representatives. Correct, I never shared them with anybody else.

23 Thank you. Do you agree that prior to the preparation of this witness statement you have never offered any of the Defendants to have a look at your diary? I agree. In your witness statements, you have cited entry in a diary whereby you said there was meeting with whom? Yes. Do you agree that in these entries you do not indicate the hours that you have spent with any particular person? That s correct. Do you agree that you do not always mention the names, all the names of the people that you meet? A particular person sometimes not but if it s not applicable. HLC If it s not what, sorry? Can you speak louder? It s not applicable because if I m told that there s a meeting wit Silverlake I will just put it that way. Do both you and Uday do not keep any time sheet as regards to the work that you do? That s correct, because in our profession we do not. That you do not keep any timesheet. We do not. Yes. Any indication of how much time you spend on a particular task or meeting is generally based on estimates?

24 Based on estimates of start and finish. Based on estimates. Can you also confirm that Uday doesn t keep a diary or are you aware in this bundle, whether Uday has exhibited his diary? I m not aware at all. I never asked him. Can I refer you to Q&A 1? Yes? You will recall that yesterday I asked you about your friendship, your so-called friendship with Encik Rahim. Can you recall that? In this you said that you have a business relationship, a professional relationship. In this witness statement, you said in the third paragraph, you say this, Hence as Managing Director of Plaintiff and also as the lead consultant for the Plaintiff, I knew the 1 st Defendant very well. If you only know him, your relationship is just call it professional then when you said I know the 1 st Defendant very well it s quite inaccurate. I disagree. Dr. Narayanan, may I now refer you to Q&A.?

25 In your answer., in. you say that Rahim was given a soft, or hard copy, in person. And I also want to refer you to Q&A 0., right? You also say again this particular document was given to Rahim and a soft or a hard copy in person. And if you look at answer 1. you also say that Rahim was given soft or hard copy in person? My question to you, Dr Narayanan, for each of the circumstances that you have mentioned in Q&A., 0. as well 1., do you have any evidence other than what you say that Rahim had received these documents. No, I do not because we were told not to send by . You were told. I put it to you that it s not true. You can agree or disagree. I disagree. My instructions are, Dr Narayanan, that Rahim never received the documents that you referred to in., 0. and 1.. You can agree or disagree.

26 I totally disagree. Can I refer you to your Q&A? Can I ask, you said in your statement in Q&A that between..0 and.1.0, Razak and Rahim requested the Plaintiff to prepare a high level financial framework for Bank Rakyat and the evolution of Bank Rakyat s internal financials for own against ISP scenario. [01:00:00] If you look at, ok, basically the time range that you put in your Q&A, your answer is from..0 to.1.0, yes? My first question is, do you know exactly when it was so-called asked? Could you repeat that question again, last part, so-called what? You have stated in your Q&A that between..0 and.1.0 a time frame whereby you claimed that Razak and Rahim had asked for the high level financial documents as per your witness statement. My question is, can you be more specific? Specific in what respect, time or? When was, yes, date when?

27 The first, I refer to pages to of CBD-1, there s an dated.1.0 from Uday to Razak. CBD1? It s in the last part of the same paragraph. Page to, ok. This is, that is.1.0. Is that the first communication that you had? And you said here it s from..0 to.1.0. That cannot be correct? In fact the doesn t say high level financial framework for Bank Rakyat. Yes, you re right. Are you trying to mislead the court here? You re right. By making references to documents which are not accurate? That is, that s basically an oversight I think. Oversight, that s what you say again. Too many oversights, isn t it?. I have to look at pages, I m sorry,,. The last part of that paragraph mentions some pages on B. So before that you agree that this document is not relevant to what you claim to, high level financial framework? No, that s not what I agreed to. The question is, do you agree that this document at page to is not in respect of what you call high level financial framework? For Bank Rakyat, is that what you mean? Because a high level.

28 Your answer at, please do not be evasive. No. I m asking you a very simple question. Please give me a direct answer. Do you agree or do you disagree? I disagree if there was no Bank Rakyat attached to that because there are financials done for Bank Rakyat and for IICC. My question is very simple, Dr. You say in your Q&A that there was a request from Razak and Rahim to develop high level financial framework for Bank Rakyat. And you said yes there were and the communication was on.1.0. And you referred this honourable court and you also made a sworn testimony that this is the high level financial framework for Bank Rakyat. Yes, I did but I m also saying it is a mistake. And then you say it was an oversight. Yes, that s what it is. That s, do you agree this is not the high level financial framework for Bank Rakyat? What I agree to is this is not the document that I. Please answer the question; why are you being evasive? Counsel please. Yes, Yang Arif. Let the witness finish his answer.

29 Sorry, Yang Arif. Yes? When you referred to certain documents based on what you ve written, you look at it and then you note down the wrong pages. You will recall I said to you do you want to amend any of your witness statements, you said no. Everything is correct and perfect. Everything is correct as was my first reading but obviously I ve made a mistake to refer to a wrong document. So the question that I have asked, quite simply, is this. Do you agree that at page it is not the high level financial framework for Bank Rakyat that you say Rahim and Razak requested. I agree to that, yes, because it s a mistake. It refers to a wrong document. You should ve just answered, that would be easier. You have, ok. Let me ask you this question again. When was the so-called request by Razak and Rahim made? You said between..0 to.1.0. I really have to address something that I just said earlier. I made a mistake even now looking at the wrong page, My Lady. About to. My Lady, he can get his lawyer to re-examine it. Yes, you ll have a chance to do that later. Ok. You ll have a chance. So, I asked you specifically just now, now my question is you said from..0 to.1.0 Rahim and Razak asked the Plaintiff to prepare. When specifically that Rahim and Razak made this request?

30 Several times when Bank Islam, because we were spending a lot of time in both Bank Islam and Bank Rakyat. When exactly, please do not give me a general. Ok, do you have a specific date? No. No, you do not have a specific date. Because I do not have anything recorded. You have nothing recorded. You have any for this? Any what? addressed to Rahim. Regarding ISP? No, I do not. Did you make Razak and Rahim both, did that, did Razak and Rahim make this request jointly or individually? I would ask Uday on that because he knows all the details. You don t, so quite frankly you don t know. Well, when I might not give you the right. If you have to ask someone else means you don t know, correct? That s correct. Because you do not have personal knowledge. It s based on what Uday told me and Uday had the interactions. 0

31 You re passing off your evidence as someone else s evidence as your evidence now? How convenient? Can I confirm now basically that what you say as request, paragraph, you don t actually know. I know that the request was made whether to me or to Uday, I m not sure. So you re not sure, you don t know. It s very simple you know. If you re not sure, means you don t know. Because it says based on request from Razak and Rahim the Plaintiff developed. So when you say the Plaintiff also developed means it wasn t, it was not asked to you? To what? To you personally. That s correct that. That s correct. Do you agree that the s that you referred to at page to can we look at that? Yes. to was sent to Razak but no copy was sent to Rahim. That s correct. Then can we look at P, and and there s no evidence of who it was sent to, correct? It is attachment on its own. Yes, these are internal documents. 1

32 These is internal documents, in other words, it was not given to any of the Defendants. I m going to respond to that. I ask you to answer that. Right now if you let me. Ok, never mind. Right because that was sent in and. This is attachment in and? Yes, that s the one I made a mistake. I said it was sent to bank; it was sent to those, it was sent to Razak but it addresses Bank Rakyat Financials. Not the nd Defendants nor the Plaintiffs. Right. The result of all the work in the internal documents,, through of P. Dr, there s no question being asked at the moment, Dr. You can rest. Ok, you also in your witness statement referred to documents, if you look at page Q&A. In the second paragraph from below, the last paragraph in fact. The last paragraph. [01::00]

33 Yes. You made some references to documents there, right? Correct. And also just above that paragraph, you also made some documents. Do you have any evidence to show that these documents were received by Rahim? They were not sent to anybody. They were internal documents, work in progress. Ok. Dr, if we turn over to page of your witness statement, still on Q&A, right? You said, I refer to page, you said there was a meeting with Rahim and Razak, right? Correct. At Sogo on.1.0, right? Correct. And you said Rahim and Razak attended the review in Sogo, correct? That s what it says, yes. That s what it says. That s your evidence, right? Correct. You re referring to which question?

34 Question, My Lady. If you look at page, the next page there, it spills over to the next page My Lady. Yes, My Lady. My Lady with me? Yes. And you said there was a review in Sogo with Rahim and Razak, right? Yes, correct. When I asked you earlier, the review necessarily means the documents that you have prepared, right? That you have referred to in? Alright, and I recall earlier that you said these documents were never given to anyone. They were not given. They were not given so in other words they were shown; is that what you re saying? The purpose is to have them look at it because it is part of a joint venture now. The purpose was for joint venture. And the question is, were they shown these documents? Were Rahim and Razak shown these documents? Both of them went through this with us. Both of them went through this.

35 We had to walk them through it. And you said they went through it on.1.0, correct? Correct. Absolutely sure? Because you have a diary entry. That s why you re so certain? Can I now refer you to page of your Bundle? Is this the diary entry that you are referring to? My Lady, are you with me My Lady? Page? Yes, Bundle, My Lady. Page, My Lady. Is this, this is the one you referred isn t it? And may I now refer you to page and can you see that there s a rd December here, yes? And this rd December is.1.0, isn t it? And the meeting, the purported meeting that you said took place was 0, yes? Why are you smirking, Mr Narayanan? It s the same typo error as what you have made yesterday. Same typo. When I asked you, you said absolutely sure and now you represent to this court that it s a typo error. 0 was obvious mistake because nothing happened after August or July of 0 when the Plaintiff was.

36 Too many mistakes, Dr, too many mistakes. So there was no meeting on.1.0? 0, no. There was no such meeting. In fact, Dr. the reality is this, Rahim never asked you to do these documents. It is your own baseless accusation to say that he did and in fact there was no such review, correct? Yes? I totally disagree. After making so many mistakes, obviously you will disagree. In fact if you look at your so-called diary entry, you only mentioned Rahim, you never even mentioned Razak. It s such an important document that the nd Defendant asked for it and yet you don t even mention that he was present or he asked for a meeting. He was, only Rahim said he was going to be there. He brought Razak along. Only Rahim said he was going to be there. If you recall the diary entry pursuant to this, what we are told. It s so convenient, isn t it? Very convenient. I put it to you in fact if you look at this at page the entry was over-written, correct? No, in this particular case it seems to be very clear.

37 It looks over-written to me, you can agree or disagree. It s obvious you know that the judge can see herself. You can make your own, you can answer whatever you want, Dr Narayanan. This particular writing does not look over-written to me because I make a lot more over-writings in my other entries. And in fact there is no mention of subject matter of the meeting isn t it? That s correct. Yes. What was told is what is put in there. And this so-called high level presentation, if your evidence is to be believed, was made to the, can you mention about the nd Defendant? Which paragraph are you looking at now? This is a question. I m not referring to any paragraph. Was there any presentation made for this? To the senior management of? Of nd Defendant? Do you agree that Rahim was not present at the presentation? Totally disagree. Totally disagree. Do you have evidence to show that Rahim was present at the presentation?

38 We don t keep minutes maybe some. Do you have evidence to show Rahim was present at the presentation? I don t because I don t keep minutes. Do you? You don t. That s the answer that we are looking for, thank you. I put it to you Dr Narayanan that Plaintiff, that Rahim never asked for this so-called high level financial framework for Bank Rakyat in their relation of Bank Rakyat s financial own or against ISP scenario. I totally disagree. Yang Arif, can I just take about a few minutes break, I ve been. JRB Court bangun. AKHIR MASA :.AM

39 TARIKH :..1 MASA : :0AM MULA Pemeriksaan Balas (Cross-Examination) Masa: :0AM Dengan izin, Yang Arif. Parties as before. Dr Narayanan, can I refer you to your witness statement? Q&A.1. In Q&A.1, you said, Razak and Rahim made a request to evaluate MBF against nd Defendant s proposal to Bank Rakyat, right? What you essentially is saying is that they wanted, there is a, a comparison is supposed to be done, why MBF or why nd Defendant? Correct? Which, to show the comparison, correct? Is it? Correct. The reason was that at that point in time as you had said in your evidence MBF was the preferred choice, at that point, at the time before nd Defendant comes in? I wouldn t know whether I will use the word preferred choice. What, how would you describe it?

40 Based on what we were told, Bank Rakyat was very close to choosing MBF as the partner. Very close to choosing, ok. I note from your Q&A, you do not mention when this request was made. That s correct. In a lot of places I do not because it happens ad hoc. Did Uday tell you about this request? Probably, because most of the requests were made to Uday because they were speaking in Malay. So, you don t basically know who actually asked this? You personally, you don t have. I personally do not, no. You understand the concept of personal knowledge? Yes, I personally do not. You personally do not have. Because I wasn t asked. So, the first paragraph, the first sentence, upon a request from Razak and Rahim, the Plaintiff did a detailed comparison. My question is, you agree with me that you do not have personal knowledge of who had requested for this? Because you don t have personal knowledge? It s based exactly on what my other principal told me, Uday. Yes. Basically you do not have personal knowledge? I wasn t asked, yes, correct. 0

41 Yes, you weren t asked, thank you. Do you agree that this, if it s true what you say there was this proposal, it would only benefit, it would benefit the nd Defendant? It would help the nd Defendant to position the joint proposal to Bank Rakyat such a way that they have a better chance of getting the project. Ok, thank you. And it was in the Plaintiff s best interest to prepare, if any, the evaluation, right? You were pursuing. I disagree because it s not totally right. So, it s not in your best interest? He did, I said it s not totally correct. That means there are other parts to it. But you agree it would be advantageous to the Plaintiff? Yes, because it would be advantageous to the nd Defendant. Because we were under a scenario where we were the sub-con, we would be the subcontractor to the nd Defendant. And if the nd Defendant didn t get the project, we don t have anything either. HLC Can you speak louder? Yes, can you speak louder? I was about to say the same thing. Would you like for me to repeat that? HLC No. That s fine but just for future reference. Thank you, I ll try. 1

42 You agree that ultimately, the decision whether to award the Bank Rakyat either to MBF or to the nd Defendant will be made by Bank Rakyat? The ultimate decision will be made by Bank Rakyat, yes. And now, may I refer you to Q&A.? In., you said that the analysis were used by Razak and / or Rahim. The question was Razak and / or Rahim. And then, you said in your answer, analysis were used either by Razak or Rahim? Correct. Do you agree that you don t know whether Bank Rakyat saw this analysis? Anything to do with Bank Rakyat, I didn t know from first hand. The question s quite simple, Dr. I don t because it s what we were told. The question s quite simple. I ask you earlier. Could you repeat the? At the proceeding. Could you repeat the question? You agree or you disagree with me? Could you repeat the question?

43 Yes. You said here that the analysis were used either by Razak or by Rahim. My question to you was and is, do you agree you don t know whether either Razak or Rahim had used this analysis to convince Bank Rakyat? You were not there when they deliberated on this issue? Yes, I was. If somebody says we ll use it in the meeting with them, I don t know whether they showed it or not. Yes, exactly. So, I don t know. You don t. So, when you say it was used by Razak or Rahim, you were assuming? You assumed? No, according to those. You assumed? According to them, yes. Yes, you assumed. And the question is, the second question is, is it Razak or Rahim, which one? You don t actually know either one, isn t it? With respect to Bank Rakyat interaction? Yes. I have no idea. Can I now refer you to Q&A?

44 ?. Q&A. In Q&A, you said there was this issue of 0:0 split of revenue? Right? Between you and nd Defendant? Correct. Correct? And in your, in Q&A.1, at page, it starts from page, My Lady. It continued until. You said there was a meeting. In this, your witness statement, you did not mention the date of the meeting, yes? You mean in my diary or in? In the witness statement. It is mentioned there. Sorry. Yes, but you did not mention the date in your witness statement, the last paragraph. Can I read that paragraph?

45 Yes. I mean, it s obvious from that paragraph, there s no mention of the date. You agree with me? No, I do not. Yes? I do not. I m looking at page. Correct. Yes? The paragraph below, Question.. Is that this paragraph that you?.? Yes. Above.. I thought you were at.1. Above. Yes, correct. I m referring to the paragraph. That you wanted to read, that I want to make sure I, we re looking at the same document here.

46 Ok. It s the first paragraph on page. First paragraph on page, ok. When you say I refer to page of CBD-? Ok. Can I refer you to page of B? [00::00] You mean?, yes, that s what I said. Yes, ok. Yes, I m looking. Ok. So, based, you are basing this, there was a meeting based on this document at page, yes? Correct. At page.1.0, meeting at Concorde Shah Alam, right? Is that the one? Correct. Rahim, Razak, right? Correct. This is document that we are disputing and my question to you is, was this meeting at page on.01.0 recorded in your diary? No, it wasn t. So it wasn t recorded? No. And there is no it was not recorded in your diary, right?

47 Correct. Yes. Was that the only meeting you had? About. Could you repeat that question? You said that there was a meeting on You are just making that reference to that meeting, yes? For this particular discussions. Particular discussions, meeting. Do you agree, ultimately, the issue about this 0:0 profit sharing would be decided by the nd Defendant? It s a very interesting question. Could you repeat that again? Do you agree the issue of this 0:0 profit sharing, it is based on your negotiation with the nd Defendant, correct? There was a decision that you have to negotiate with the nd Defendant? The. Yes? It, I just wanted a yes or no. You agree or disagree? It s a mutual decision, you know, either party can walk away. So, you accepted the decision made by them? No, I didn t. As a matter of fact, they proposed that they wanted 0:0. Right.

48 And that s what we were discussing. The impact of that. And you agreed? Ultimately, it was agreed? Yes, it was agreed. It was agreed, alright. Yes, because there was another statement made by the nd Defendant that the senior management insisted on 0:0. Yes. But that is the nature of negotiation, isn t it? Sure enough. Yes. Not one sided all the time but mostly. You then also at the last paragraph of your answer, at page, 0, yes, can you see that? You also said that you had meeting? Page. Yes? And you said meeting Razak, Rahim and Chee as well as some other nd Defendant personnel? Correct. And you didn t mention a date in your witness statement for this meeting. When was this meeting? of January.

49 But when you answered, you said. And in, there were two entries. Correct. Right? Correct. If we based it on your evidence, it could be either one of it. No, it could not because one of them specifies where it took place. And you said there were some other nd Defendant personnel? Correct. And you do not mention any, the name of those personnel from the nd Defendant, correct? That s correct. And you also agree that looking at your diary, it has been over written, right? Not in my. You, that it, the five was more than? Yes, double strokes. You, yes, several strokes. Yes, that s.

50 And you yourself said it s over written when I asked you, yes, it were over written but now you say no, not in your eyes. I, most of the entries are going to double, over written like that. Double strokes and what not. And in fact, you said in your last answer in your witness statement, you said prior to this meeting, Rahim and Razak had also met with the Plaintiff at Silverlake? Correct. When was this prior meeting? Normally, it s quite ad hoc. When, if Rahim is there, he would say come over, we want to discuss something before a :00PM meeting with Silverlake (00:: inaudible). Prior to time? Prior to the :00PM. Prior to the :00PM. And this prior to :00PM meeting is not recorded in your diary? No, it was because in the diary, what goes in is what we are told. Say again? The entry in the diary. Yes? Is what is told and what I know as happening. 0

51 What is? And if there is a meeting prior to that on an ad hoc basis, it happens. But you agree the prior meeting is not recorded there? That s correct. And you also agree that the subject matter of the meeting was also not mentioned? In your diary? It s a continuation of all the discussions on 0:0. The question is very simple, Dr Narayanan. I agree. Why are you being so evasive? You agree? I agree. Yes. And Razak s name also is not mentioned in your diary? That s correct. Dr Narayanan, may I refer you to Q&A.1? At page 1. Correct. Are you with me, Dr? Yes, I am. You said in page, at page 1,.1, these are the activities which you had undertaken, right? 1

52 And you made a reference to performing other Kazakhstan opportunity evaluation for the nd Defendant and the Plaintiff developing presentation for the use by nd Defendant, upon request by both Rahim and Razak. First question, do you personally know when the request, when was the request made by Rahim and Razak? Or you were informed by Uday? Uday, yes. You don t personally know? No, it was again asking the Plaintiff to do it. Ok. Do you agree that this Kazakhstan and Indonesia opportunity evaluation, it is totally not, it s separate from the Bank Rakyat outsourcing project? I disagree. You disagree. Do you agree that the opportunity evaluation is not done for Bank Rakyat? That I agree. Do you agree that you do not have any evidence, written evidence to show that Rahim had asked you to develop the presentation? Yes, in my understanding, I don t have any evidence, right. Ok, yes, listen to my question. And can I now refer you to Q&A.1? This is the elaboration of the point you made in.1, correct? [00:0:00] It only addresses Kazakhstan.

53 Yes. But it is an elaboration about the issue of Kazakhstan? Elaboration about Kazakhstan, yes. Yes. And when you say that Razak and Rahim again, you do not actually have personal knowledge they request that? That s correct. And it was to your advantage to prepare such materials, correct? Totally disagree. Totally. So, there s no advantage to you when you prepare such presentation? There was no guarantee that it ll benefit us in the long run. There is no guarantee? But what, my question is this, that you were also interested to do the evaluation because it is also opportunity for you, for the Plaintiff? We were asked to do this because they were going to present Silverlake s marketing opportunities. Yes. There s opportunities for you, that s what, for the Plaintiff. Unless Silverlake continued with the same model as in Bank Rakyat, it won t have helped us. Yes, that is the reason why you do it. If not, you wouldn t do it. If there s no opportunity for you.

54 In general, one wouldn t but we have done a lot of things out of pure faith. Yes, it is like looking for opportunity, right? Ok, I ll go with that. Correct? Yes? I ll go with it. Were you, did you go to Kazakhstan for this presentation? I validated some of it that we are saying. Sorry? I validated the contents. No, the question is, did you go to Kazakhstan for the presentation? To Kazakhstan? Yes. No, absolutely not. No, you didn t. So, you wouldn t know who went to Kazakhstan? Based on feedback, I do but I, that I have no written evidence on that. Yes, you don t have any personal knowledge who went?

55 Based. Your personal knowledge, you were not there. How do you define personal knowledge? Did you see or hear? Ok. No. No? No, I didn t. Right Thank you. So, when you say that although Plaintiff was not sure why Rahim, who was an employee of Bank Islam, went along a business trip for Bank Islam vendor business event purpose, you don t actually know? I don t know why he went but I knew. But you don t know whether he actually went? But I know that based on what he told us. Based on what he told you? But you personally don t know, do you? If he says he went and he recited some events that took place, then you believe it.

56 I put it to you that he did not go and you do not have any evidence to say that he went, you agree? I have evidence because he told us, that s about it. But you cannot prove that he went, correct? Not without any written evidence, correct. You are in the habit of making assumptions, it appears, from your evidence, yes? Dr Narayanan? Nothing in these are assumptions. They re all what we were told. That s, that is assumption. Anyway, you said that on.0.0, you sent an to Rahim about this presentation. Uday sent, not I. Uday sent? Correct. You don t know? I know everything that Uday sends. You know everything? So, and you agree that this is a year after the so-called request was made?

57 Yes? Because it s a typo again. 0 it doesn t exist. Sorry? It should not have said 0. So, which one is typo? Can I have the question again? Yes, Yang Arif? Can I have the question again? Sorry. He said, Yang Arif, she said, sorry, Yang Arif, I m also. The question is that the was sent to Rahim on.0.0 and he answered was, My Lady, it was a typo. I take it back. It is 0. You take it back? You keep on saying things, typo, making mistakes in here and it raises question of the truthfulness of your evidence, Dr. And it is clear that it was sent a year later, correct? After, from which, your so-called request was made by whoever it was, right? It was a same material sent upon request. The material is the same as what was sent on.0.0. So, it was sent one year later?

58 This one is when he asked for the same file because they lost it, we sent it again. The question is simple. It was sent a year later. Why are you being so evasive? Correct. It s a simple question. You re a clever man. You understand what I asked you. Once again, I m not clever but I ll go with that. And do you agree at.0.0, your relationship with the nd Defendant had deteriorated? There were still negotiations going on, yes. Yes, but you were not best of friends anymore, alright? I wouldn t go that far at all because when you say best of friends, it is personal about how you look at friendship versus another person s. so I won t do that. Yes. But you were already at the verge where negotiations were not going so well? They were going through rough times, yes. Right? You were going through rough times? And.