in the court of appeal malaysia (appellate jurisdiction)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

had acted in disregard of the petitioner’s interest. As can be seen from the minutes of the Board of Directors meeting, the directors representing the 2 nd respondent had been very accommodating to the directors representing the petitioner in answering and explaining the issues raised by he directors representing the petitioner. The directors representing the 2 nd respondent had not brushed aside or refused to discuss the issues raised by the directors representing the petitioner. For the above reasons, we could not find any merit on the issues raised by the petitioner. We hereby allow the appeal by the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents and dismiss the petitioner’s petition with costs here and below. The petitioner is to bear the costs on their own and not from the 1 st respondent’s fund. The deposit is to be refunded to the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents who are the appellants in this appeal. Dated: 28 August 2007 (Datuk Haji Mokhtar bin Haji Sidin) Judge Court of Appeal, Malaysia 88
For the Appellants: Counsel: Lim Pitt Kong Solicitors: Messrs P.K. Lim & Co Nos. 9 & 11 (1 st Floor) Jalan Sentosa Kampong Air 88000 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. For the respondents: Counsel: Dr. David Fung Solicitors: Messrs Alex Pang & Co 8 th Floor, Wisma Yakin Jalan Datuk Salleh Sulong 88000 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. 89
Page 1 and 2:
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL MALAYSIA (AP
Page 3 and 4:
4. The 2 nd Respondent’s group co
Page 5 and 6:
Business of the Company. The chairm
Page 7 and 8:
14. The 1 st Respondent continued t
Page 9 and 10:
problems or complaints with regard
Page 11 and 12:
34. This was and is a clear breach
Page 13 and 14:
Contributions and any other contrib
Page 15 and 16:
3. costs of and occasioned by this
Page 17 and 18:
2.1:1 to set up and operate the Dep
Page 19 and 20:
9. In accordance with the terms of
Page 21 and 22:
16. Messrs Ernst and Young were app
Page 23 and 24:
(b) regulate the conduct of the aff
Page 25 and 26:
judge dismissed the application but
Page 27 and 28:
directors exercised. These might be
Page 29 and 30:
But if a case of “oppression” o
Page 31 and 32:
In Kumagai Gumi Co Ltd v. Zenecon-K
Page 33 and 34:
sufficient to constitute oppression
Page 35 and 36:
emove the petitioner from the compa
Page 37 and 38: the starting point in any case unde
Page 39 and 40: Thus the personal relationship betw
Page 41 and 42: an oppressive manner. The learned a
Page 43 and 44: (ii) that the respondent company ha
Page 45 and 46: another company called Maestro Prod
Page 47 and 48: stores, for eg. Robert Tan, adverti
Page 49 and 50: the staff was also made use of to h
Page 51 and 52: ecognized the expertise of the 2 nd
Page 53 and 54: Agreement dated 10 July 1998, which
Page 55 and 56: 1.1 Upon the signing of a sale of s
Page 57 and 58: The response to the last two letter
Page 59 and 60: Our client confirms that they will
Page 61 and 62: We have been instructed by our clie
Page 63 and 64: the change of shareholding in the 2
Page 65 and 66: In addition to the three issues rai
Page 67 and 68: follows: Further down the minutes i
Page 69 and 70: Ms Kat Yong also highlighted the fi
Page 71 and 72: y demonstrating its ability to pay
Page 73 and 74: agreement of the Joint-Venture (“
Page 75 and 76: until all avenues be exhausted befo
Page 77 and 78: security. For that reason, the bank
Page 79 and 80: The “Report on Verifications of S
Page 81 and 82: It is clear to us that the learned
Page 83 and 84: their staff in the central purchasi
Page 85 and 86: shareholder in the Company. The lea
Page 87: CONCLUSION As stated in the case of
show all

in the court of appeal malaysia (appellate jurisdiction)

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?