in the court of appeal malaysia (appellate jurisdiction)

agreed to pay the interest at that rate. He could not say otherwise because at
the Board of Directors meeting held on 2.12.2002 which he chaired the
Board unanimously agreed that the interest is payable on the advances to be
obtained from the shareholders. In our view, the learned judge erred in
making an issue on this when the parties had agreed to it.
For the reasons we have stated above, we find that the petitioner failed
to prove that the advances of RM3.78 million and the interest had oppressed
the petitioner or that they have the effect of disregarding the interests of the
petitioner. On the other hand, we find the advances were done to help the
Company of which the petitioner is a shareholder.
(2) Company paying salaries of three staffs of 2 nd respondent
The respondents admitted during the Board of Directors’ meetings of
paying the salaries of three staff members of the 2 nd respondent. The
respondents did not hide this fact from the Board of Directors. The
explanation for paying them was given during the meeting. This is found at
the Board of Directors’ meeting held on 6.9.2002. In that meeting it was
explained that the three staff members were stationed in the central
purchasing office so that they could help identify goods ordered by the 1 st
respondent. It is not disputed that other outlets have placed members of
82