in the court of appeal malaysia (appellate jurisdiction)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

eferred by either party to a firm of auditors mutually agreed upon (“the Auditors”) who shall determine the Fair and Commercial Price as experts and not as arbitrators and shall serve their determination on the Offeror and Offeree. If the Fair and Commercial Price so certified is unacceptable to the Offeror, the Offeror may elect to treat the offer to sell as terminated. If the Fair and Commercial Price so certified is accepted by the Offeror the offer shall remain open for acceptance by the Offeree for fourteen (14) days from the date of the Auditors’ certificate or the expiry of the thirty (30) days aforesaid, whichever is the later.” The “Offeror” in this case is Ngiu Kee Corporation (M) Bhd as provided by the provisions of clause 8.3:1 of the Joint Venture Agreement. Kindly let us have your client’s response in due course.” The respondent’s solicitors’ response to the above letter is a letter dated 1.6.2001: “Messrs. Cheu, Adnan.& Razi Suite 1-6-E7 & E8, 6 th Floor CPS Tower, Centre Point Sabah No. 1 Jalan Centre Point 88000 Kota Kinabalu Sabah. Dear Sirs, RE JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT DATED 10/7/98 BETWEEN PAN-PACIFIC CONSTRUCTION HOLDINGS SDN BHD & NGIU KEE CORPORATION (M) BHD NOTICE OF TERMINATION We refer to the above matter and your letter dated 29 May 2001. 60
We have been instructed by our client that the facts remain the same as stated in our letter dated 23 rd May 2001. In addition our client reiterates - 1. That the contract for the sale of the 30% shares by Pan- Pacific Construction Holdings Sdn Bhd to our client was concluded on the 19 th April 2001 i.e the day of the meeting between your Mr. Andrew Lo and our client when our client orally accepted your client’s offer to purchase the said shares. 2. That your client’s letter dated 11 th May 2001 was merely to confirm in writing the concluded sale and its terms and conditions. 3. That our client has already instructed Messrs Ernst and Young to determine the Fair and Commercial Price of the shares and shall proceed with the purchase of the said shares from your client in due course ; and 4. That the “Offeror” in this case is not Ngiu Kee Corporation (M) Bhd but Pan-Pacific Construction Holdings Sdn Bhd.” On 12.6.2001 the solicitors for the petitioner dispatched the following letter indicating that they would be filing an action in the High Court at Kota Kinabalu to seek a declaration: “Paul Cheah & Associates Advocates & Solicitors Unit A-11-8, 11 th Floor Megan Phileo Promenade No. 189 Jalan Tun Razak 50400 Kuala Lumpur Dear Sirs 61
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: Our client confirms that they will
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)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?