in the court of appeal malaysia (appellate jurisdiction)

security. For that reason, the bank withdrew the financial facilities in stages.
Indirectly, the petitioner was not willing to contribute additional fund or to
secure continuation of the bank’s financial facilities when the petitioner
knew that the 1 st respondent was hard-pressed for funds. It is clear to us that
in addition to paying the suppliers, the respondents had to pay the rental of
the business premises, the large amount of electricity bills and the
administrative expenses. Even the request by the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents
for the petitioner to ask the landlord (the petitioner’s subsidiary) to withhold
or reduce the rent was refused. The Chairman, speaking on behalf of the
petitioner, said that the rentals must be paid in accordance with the JV
Agreement. The petitioner only suggested that the 1 st respondent looked
into other banks for its financial facilities which the 1 st respondent had done
but was not successful. We would not be wrong to say that the petitioner
wanted the 1 st respondent to go bust.
It was in this situation that the 2 nd respondent advanced the RM3.78
million to float or assist the 1 st respondent. It is easy to understand why the
2 nd respondent was willing to do so, because it wanted to save its 70%
investment. In our view, this was not an oppressive act by the 2 nd
respondent, but rather an oppressive act by the petitioner in particular the
Chairman, Dato’ Lo.
77