.png)
THE High Court in Kuala Lumpur has heard a dramatic opening to the RM30 million civil trial brought against Malaysian businessman Datuk Vinod Sekhar with the defence team securing a number of significant procedural rulings in their favour.
The suit, initiated by a group of twelve foreign investors, alleges that Sekhar committed fraud, misrepresentation and breach of contract in relation to failed investments worth over £2.5 million and US$3 million.
The plaintiffs further allege that the tycoon and philanthropist conspired to perpetuate the same misconduct and are seeking the return of their funds, along with interest, damages, and other reliefs.
The first day of proceedings saw the plaintiffs' attempt to amend their statement of claim rejected by the court, with the judge ordering the 12 parties to pay RM5,000 in costs each.
Defence counsel Datuk Seri Rajan Navaratnam then applied to strike out nearly 40 per cent of the witness statement submitted by the plaintiffs’ principal witness, Graham David Bell, describing large sections as irrelevant and inadmissible.
“These are very pertinent facts (in Bell’s witness statement) which were not in the statement of claim, which means they could not have been addressed at the (defendants’) statement of defence,” Rajan submitted before Judicial Commissioner Muhammad Adam @ Edward Abdullah.
“Having not pleaded it and having not addressed it at the statement of defence, I’m robbed of the opportunity to cross-examine these facts.”
Bell, a 66-year-old British investor and managing partner of Bridge Partners FZE, is the only plaintiff to have appeared in person to give evidence on Monday. His testimony sought to claim that Sekhar failed to disclose a history of bankruptcy during the period in which investments were made with Petra Equities Sdn Bhd, a Petra Group company.
According to Bell, the plaintiffs were “similarly unaware” of Sekhar’s alleged financial difficulties and would not have proceeded with their investments had they known. He cited a key email dated 30 September 2010 in which a co-plaintiff raised the issue of bankruptcy with Sekhar, only to be told that a certain “Anwar” would attend to it – a reference Bell claims was made in relation to the now-Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (who was imprisoned at that material time).
Under cross-examination, Bell conceded that several portions of his statement – including claims relating to companies such as Green Rubber Sdn Bhd, Sekhar Assets Sdn Bhd and GR Technologies Sdn Bhd – had not been pleaded in the original statement of claim, a fact seized upon by the defence.
Counsel for the plaintiffs, Colin Andrew Pereira, objected to the strike-out application, arguing that it was procedurally premature and that the plaintiffs had been caught off guard.
“I’ve been taken by surprise. He (Rajan) has come in prepared to object but never gave us any notice. We have not finished our re-examination yet so how can I even highlight these to the witness?” Pereira told the court. “He has not even completed his cross-examination, and I have not had the chance to re-examine, to clarify whether the issues have been pleaded or not. I’m not going to be rushed now, when he has had ample time to give us notice. With all due respect, the application is premature.”
The judge granted Pereira time to prepare a formal response, with the application to expunge parts of Bell’s statement set to be heard in due course.
The plaintiffs allege that Sekhar cited a combination of political pressures, health complications and the global pandemic to delay or avoid addressing concerns regarding the fate of their funds. Bell claims his own investment of US$250,000 ultimately disappeared.
In a separate matter during the day’s proceedings, hospital documentation was tendered to explain the absence of one of the plaintiffs’ witnesses, who is reportedly recovering from surgery and unfit to attend court.
The hearing resumes today before Judicial Commissioner Muhammad Adam. - October 7, 2025