in the court of appeal malaysia (appellate jurisdiction)

(ii) that the respondent company has oppressed the minority
shareholders including himself.
On the whole, I am of the view that the circumstances and
matters complained of by the petitioner do not at all denote that
there was oppression within the meaning of s 181(1) of the Act.
There is nothing to show that the respondent company’s actions
complained of were designed to injure the petitioner in his
rights as a member. The petitioner was privy to the whole
transaction from day one, ie from the day the three lots were
sold to Wangsa Idaman Sdn Bhd and the negotiations and
agreements which ensued after TBC informed the respondent
company that Mustapha Buang was in a position to get the said
land ‘converted’ and subdivided for the purpose of developing
it into an industrial estate right up to his termination as chief
executive of the respondent company. He is a member of both
the respondent company and LMSB and there is evidence to
show that he was aware of the arrangement made between the
respondent company and Mustapha Buang who was using
Wangsa Idaman Sdn Bhd as a vehicle for the ‘conversion’ and
subdivision of the said land. His contention that the approval
was only with regard to surrender and re-alienation and not by
way of ‘conversion’ and subdivision has no bearing upon his
complaint at all as the end result was the same, ie the state
government has agreed to the surrender and re-alienation of the
said land in the form of several units with the category of land
use of ‘building’ and ‘industry’.”
Let us now turn to the present appeal. The learned judge in his
judgment said:
“The matters relied on by the Petitioner as justifying those
allegations concern (leaving out those which the Petitioner no
longer pursue):
(1) the loan of RM3.78 million and the interest
charged;
43