in the court of appeal malaysia (appellate jurisdiction)

The Chairman requested for time until the end of this week to
sort out this issue with PPCH’s Head Quarter in Taiwan.
Ms Kat Yong reported that the Company has applied for RM6.0
million facility from BIMB for the purpose of repaying HSBC
and ‘will eventually transfer the whole account to BIMB’. She
added that BIMB is still considering the Company’s
application. She further reported that BIMB provides C.I.T.
security services to the Company free of charge versus
RM1,800.00 monthly charged by HSBC.
The Chairman reminded the Management that the operation of
the Account should be in line with the JV Agreement.”
From the minutes and the correspondence tendered as exhibits, it is
clear that the 2 nd respondent had been threatened by the bank in respect of
the banking facilities already given to the Company. The Board was also
informed that the HSBC was willing to continue the banking facilities on
condition that the 2 nd respondent and the petitioner provide additional
security. As can be seen the 2 nd respondent was willing to provide the
additional security and also agreed on the request by the petitioner to
indemnify the petitioner in respect of the petitioner’s share of additional
security and yet the petitioner was not ready to give the undertaking, on the
excuse that the Chairman on behalf of the petitioner had to refer the matter
to its headquarters in Taiwan. It is clear to us that the petitioner was not
willing to take any risk but to enjoy all the benefits under the JV.
66