in the court of appeal malaysia (appellate jurisdiction)

As for the matter of the interest, even if it had been resolved it
does not mean the end of the petition because, as said in Re
Kong Thai Sawmill (Miri) Sdn Bhd, at p.229:
What is attacked by sub-section (l)(a) is not particular
acts but the manner in which the affairs of the company
are being conducted or the powers of the directors
exercised. And these may be held to be “oppressive” or
“in disregard” even though a particular objectionable act
may have been remedied. A last minute correction by the
majority may well leave open a finding that, as shown by
its conduct over a period, a firm tendency or propensity
still exists at the time of the proceedings to oppress the
minority or to disregard its interests so calling for remedy
under the section.
It bears mentioning that before the matter of the interest was
resolved the 3 rd Respondent had attempted to explain that
certain interest was not really interest but “3% charged by
Maestro Products Sdn Bhd as commission is actually for freight
charged incurred on centralizing purchasing”. At the very least,
that attempted explanation was a clear admission that the
accounts kept do not reflect the actual nature of the transaction
and surely it is not a behavior that one expects from a joint
venture partner.
(2) Company paying salaries of three staffs of 2 nd Respondent
It is not in dispute that the Company was made to pay for the
salaries of three staffs who were based in the office of the 2 nd
Respondent in Kuala Lumpur totaling over RM30,000.00 per
month. The 3 rd Respondent justified it in these words:
Q 2002 board meeting, you reported that 3 staff prorata
- P2(265)
A I notice that there were a lot of duplication in the
job function of all the store. For administrative
efficiency purpose, consolidated some of these
functions for all the stores as a means of cost
cutting and administrative harmony among the
46