Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA PULAU PINANG
THEOW SAY KOW @ TEOH KIANG SENG HENRY & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
TEOH KIANG HONG & ORS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of share transfers post-winding up. (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 2. factual background of shareholding and litigation (Para 7) |
| 3. transfer of mdm tan's shares in question (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. claim for ownership and legality of share transfers following winding-up. (Para 16 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. interpretation of s 223 ca regarding share transfers. (Para 34 , 39 , 41) |
| 6. interpretation of section 223 ca (Para 35 , 36) |
| 7. ruling on share transfers as void without validation order. (Para 72 , 96) |
| 8. conclusion and orders regarding the impugned transfers (Para 97) |
[1] The issues that arise in this case are as follows:
1.1. Whether a transfer of shares in a company after commencement of winding up (as defined in s 219(2) of the Companies Act 1965 ), that is, upon the presentation of a winding up petition in respect of that company), falls within the ambit of s 223 of the ("s 223 CA") such that vis-a-vis the company, the transfer is void, unless validated by the court. The other aspect of this issue is also whether the case of Nadaraja Muthu & Ors v. Palanisamy Ramasamy, 2003 MarsdenLR 1902 was decided per incuriam (collectively called "first issue").
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
