SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 MarsdenLR 2252

HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
ZARIMAH ABDUL RAHIM & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
ZARIFAH ABDUL RAHIM & ANOR – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:Lim Jit Kiong,Koh Yie Wen ,Respondent Advocate: S R Raman

Judgement Key Points

Yes, this case resulted in the court dismissing the minority oppression claims. The court found that the complaints raised by the Plaintiffs were more personal in nature and related to their roles as directors rather than their rights as shareholders. The court emphasized that the allegations did not demonstrate oppression or disregard for shareholder interests, and that the Plaintiffs' grievances were primarily about their personal status and management issues rather than shareholder rights (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . Consequently, the originating summons filed by the Plaintiffs was dismissed with costs, indicating that the court did not find sufficient grounds to establish minority oppression under the relevant legal provisions (!) .


JUDGMENT

Julie Lack JC:

Introduction

[1] Enclosure 1 is an Originating summons which concerns a claim of minority oppression under s 436 Companies Act 2016 filed by the Plaintiffs against their elder sister, the 1st Defendant and the company, the 2nd Defendant of which they are all shareholders.

[2] The Plaintiffs are essentially seeking for the following reliefs:

(i) An order for an independent auditor appointed by the Court for purposes of investigating the status of the company and consequently value the shares held by the Plaintiffs in the company;

(ii) An order by the Court mandating the 1st Defendant to purchase the shares held by the Plaintiffs in the company at a fair value by an independent auditor; and

(iii) In the alternative to wind up the company.

The Background Facts

[3] The 2nd Defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'the company' was incorporated in 11 December 2000 by the 1st Defendant with other ex-directors.

[4] The 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs were each gratuitously given 20% shareholders in the company by the 1st Defendant. The 1st Plaintiff became a shareholder on 23 November 2017 and the 2nd Plaintiff became a shareholder on 8 February 2010.

[5] The remaining 60% or 300,00 sh


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top