in the court of appeal malaysia (appellate jurisdiction)

had acted in disregard of the petitioner’s interest. As can be seen from the
minutes of the Board of Directors meeting, the directors representing the 2 nd
respondent had been very accommodating to the directors representing the
petitioner in answering and explaining the issues raised by he directors
representing the petitioner. The directors representing the 2 nd respondent
had not brushed aside or refused to discuss the issues raised by the directors
representing the petitioner.
For the above reasons, we could not find any merit on the issues
raised by the petitioner. We hereby allow the appeal by the 2 nd and 3 rd
respondents and dismiss the petitioner’s petition with costs here and below.
The petitioner is to bear the costs on their own and not from the 1 st
respondent’s fund. The deposit is to be refunded to the 2 nd and 3 rd
respondents who are the appellants in this appeal.
Dated: 28 August 2007
(Datuk Haji Mokhtar bin Haji Sidin)
Judge
Court of Appeal, Malaysia
88