in the court of appeal malaysia (appellate jurisdiction)

judge dismissed the application but on appeal the Federal Court ([1976] 1
MLJ 59) held: (a) that the purchase by the second appellant of the yacht,
Berjaya Malaysia was misuse of the company’s funds and the moneys which
he had paid out or for which he had himself reimbursed from the company’s
funds in respect of the donations to political parties were improperly paid.
The second appellant should therefore take over the Berjaya Malaysia and
pay to the company all the money spent on it and also pay the company the
amount of donations paid to the political parties; (b) that in order to protect
the minority shareholders in this case the court would order: (i) that one of
the younger brothers be appointed director to safeguard their interests; (ii)
that donations be made in future only with the prior approval of the board of
directors; (iii) that no bank account be operated without the signatures of
two directors, one of whom shall be other than the elder brothers, i.e., the
majority shareholders; (iv) that no moneys be drawn by any of the directors
without the prior approval of the Board; (v) that the power delegated to the
first respondent to make investments on behalf of the company be cancelled;
(vi) that three clear days’ notice be given in writing of any directors’
meetings, and (vii) that the bonus for the directors in future be 2% of the
nett profits and that no bonus be paid until after the passing of the
25