in the court of appeal malaysia (appellate jurisdiction)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(2) That the 1 st Respondent may be wound up. The application by the petitioner to wind up the 1 st respondent is under section 181 of the Companies Act, 1965. Section 181 of the Companies Act provides: “181. Remedy in cases of an oppression. (1) Any member or holder of a debenture of a company or, in the case of a declared company under Part IX, the Minister, may apply to the Court for an order under this section on the ground - (a) that the affairs of the company are being conducted or the powers of the directors are being exercised in a manner oppressive to one or more of the members or holders of debentures including himself or in disregard of his or their interests as members, shareholders or holders of debentures of the company; or (b) that some act of the company has been done or is threatened or that some resolution of the members, holders of debentures or any class of them has been passed or is proposed which unfairly discriminates against or is otherwise prejudicial to one or more of the members or holders of debentures (including himself). (2) If on such application the Court is of the opinion that either of those grounds is established the Court may, with the view to bringing to an end or remedying the matters complained of, make such order as it thinks fit and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing the order may - (a) direct or prohibit any act or cancel or vary any transaction or resolution; 22
(b) regulate the conduct of the affairs of the company in future; (c) provide for the purchase of the shares or debentures of the company by other members or holders of debentures of the company or by the company itself; (d) in the case of a purchase of shares by the company provide for a reduction accordingly of the company’s capital; or (e) provide that the company be wound up. (3) Where an order that the company be wound up is made pursuant to subsection (2) (e) the provisions of this Act relating to winding up of a company shall, with such adaptations as are necessary, apply as if the order had been made upon a petition duly presented to the Court by the company. (4) Where an order under this section makes any alteration in or addition to any company’s memorandum or articles, then, notwithstanding anything in any other provision of this Act, but subject to the order, the company concerned shall not have power without the leave of the Court to make any further alteration in or addition to the memorandum or articles inconsistent with the order; but subject to the foregoing provisions of this subsection the alterations or additions made by the order shall be of the same effect as if duly made by resolution of the company. (5) An office copy of any order made under this section shall be lodged by the applicant with the Registrar within fourteen days after the making of the order. Penalty: One thousand ringgit. Default penalty.” We believe that the authority to wind up a company on the ground of oppression is Re Kong Thai Sawmill (Miri) Sdn Bhd; Kong Thai Sawmill 23
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: 16. Messrs Ernst and Young were app
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 and 88:
CONCLUSION As stated in the case of
Page 89:
For the Appellants: Counsel: Lim Pi
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?