EKUITI SETEGAP SDN BHD vs PLAZA 393 MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (ENCLS 1 & 9)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 MarsdenLR 1396

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
EKUITI SETEGAP SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
PLAZA 393 MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (ENCLS 1 & 9) – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Kamaraj Nayagam,Kent Chai Wai Hong ,Respondent Advocate: Aimee SH Liew,Au Yong Wai Nyan,Chin Weng Yan

Table of Content
1. ex parte originating summons must justify the demand for declaratory relief. (Para 1 , 2 , 16)
2. agm conducted without implied voting participation is invalid. (Para 4 , 5)
3. legal rights to vote at agms stem from statutory provisions. (Para 18 , 20)
4. the applicant argued that without validly determined charges, voting rights shouldn't be denied. (Para 19)

[1] This is my grounds of judgment in respect of the applicant's application by way of an ex parte originating summons ("OS") (encl 1) and the defendant's application (encl 9) to strike out the applicant's OS.

[2] In the OS, the applicant prayed for the following reliefs:

(i) a declaration that the applicant is entitled to attend and vote at the annual general meeting of the defendant which is scheduled to be held on 6 May 2018 ("AGM");

(ii) an order that the duly elected Chairman of the AGM shall not prevent the applicant from casting its votes and shall accept the votes of the applicant in any motion or resolution proposed in the AGM;

(iii) in the event that the originating summons cannot be heard before 6 May 2018, an order that any AGM held without the participation of the applicant shall be null and void, of n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 MarsdenLR 1396

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUREKUITI SETEGAP SDN BHD – AppellantVersusPLAZA 393 MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (ENCLS 1 & 9) – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
EKUITI SETEGAP SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
PLAZA 393 MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (ENCLS 1 & 9) – Respondent