in the court of appeal malaysia (appellate jurisdiction)

another company called Maestro Products Sdn Bhd, the
Petitioner was justified in being suspicious and for feeling that
something was amiss which the auditor confirmed. I am not
unaware that the Company was already given the opportunity to
explain and had in fact attempted to explain by supplying the
documents through their letter dated 22 April 2004 as noted by
the auditor but fail to do so. If Liew Tuck Wah’s assertion that
the account had been reconciled is true and confirmed by the
auditor, that would be the end of the matter. If it cannot be
reconciled and an auditor so say, it would mean that what was
asserted by Liew Tuck Wah at the meeting was a ruse to get out
of the situation and made for the purpose of defeating the
petition; if it is such a ruse, it could only work for now but
cannot defeat a subsequent petition based on the failure to
reconcile the account because the failure worked to the
advantage of the 2 nd and 3 rd Respondent, it being that Maestro
Products Sdn Bhd is a company under their control. For the
present, the manner, described earlier, in which the accounts
had been maintained disadvantage of the Company and thus to
the detriment or disregard of the interests of the Petitioner and
that also explained their lack of urgency in resolving the matter
of the said deficit amount. It was not unreasonable for the
Petitioner on the matters I have referred to lose their trust and
confidence in the 2 nd Respondent as a partner of the joint
venture enterprise.
It was contended on behalf of the Respondents that “PW1
agreed during cross examination that the issue of advances and
interest charged on the advances by the 2 nd Respondent had
been resolved (page 14 NOP).” But that is not quite correct
because it was only the question of interest that was resolved as
can be gathered by the following question and answer of PWl,
Datuk Lo Vui Bin and not the question of the amount of the
loan:
Put Interest charged – issue resolved by 1 st respondent
agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 2.5% above
BLR
A Yes, subsequent to petition
45