Contents :

• (1) CIVIL SUIT NO. S6-23-74-2005
  We refer to our announcement dated 24 November 2005 relating to the above proceeding. We wish to announce that our wholly owned subsidiary, Celcom (Malaysia) Berhad (“Celcom”) has, on 9 January 2006. filed its Defence and instituted a Counterclaim against the Plaintiff, MCAT GEN Sdn Bhd (“MCAT”).
  
  The Defence is based on the grounds that (i) there is no concluded contract between Celcom and MCAT as alleged in the Statement of Claim and (ii) the alleged defamatory words on which the action is founded (a) were not published by Celcom and (b) are not defamatory of MCAT. Celcom is also relying on the defence of justification and qualified privilege.
  
  The Counterclaim is predicated on an action for passing off by Celcom against MCAT based on advertisements and promotions issued by MCAT. Celcom’s claim is that MCAT has passed off its products and services as those of Celcom or implied a trade association with Celcom in respect of those products and services when no such association exists. Celcom further claims that MCAT has represented itself as a reseller of Celcom’s products and services when there is no contractual relationship to this effect.
  
  Celcom seeks relief by way of an injunction to restrain such acts of passing off and also an order for an inquiry as to damages / an account of profits.
  
  Celcom has also today filed an application to strike out MCAT’s claim in this proceeding on the grounds that the Statement of Claim discloses no cause of action, is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process of the Court. The striking out application is premised on, inter alia, the following grounds: (i) the alleged defamatory words relied on (a) were not expressly pleaded in the Statement of Claim and (b) are not capable of bearing a defamatory meaning and (ii) MCAT has, by a letter dated 13 October 2005, admitted that it was not entitled to launch its pre-paid package and/or advertise any association with Celcom and that it had unilaterally advertised its pre-paid package without the knowledge and consent of Celcom. Celcom is also seeking, in the alternative, to strike out MCAT’s claim for damages of RM1 Billion on the grounds that the same is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.
  
  
  (2) KUALA LUMPUR HIGH COURT (CIVIL DIVISION) (2) KUALA LUMPUR HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION)
  SUIT NO. D4-22-1682-2005
• We refer to our announcement dated 24 November 2005 relating to the above proceeding. We wish to announce that Celcom has, on 9 January 2006, filed its Defence against the Plaintiff, MCAT.
  
  The Defence is based on the ground that there is no concluded contract between Celcom and MCAT as alleged in the Statement of Claim.