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

2020 MarsdenLR 2604

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
DEEPAK JAIKISHAN JAIKISHAN REWACHAND – Appellant
Versus
DATO SERI MOHD NAJIB TUN ABDUL RAZAK & ORS – Respondent
[Suit No: WA-22NCvC-679-10/2018]



Petitioner Advocates:Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla,Mohd Irzan Iswatt Mohd Noor ,Respondent Advocate: David Thomas Mathews,Chong Wei Teng

A shareholder lacks a direct claim to a company's assets and must establish standing to sue for losses affecting the company, especially where claims are rooted in illegality.

Headnote:(A) Rules of 2012 – Order 18 Rule 19 – Plaintiff's claim struck out for lack of locus standi, privity of contract, and insufficient particulars for conspiracy, undue influence, and conversion claims – Court affirmed the principle that a company is a separate entity from its shareholders. (Paras 14, 19, 25, 39)

(B) The Court found no reasonable cause of action or material particulars to sustain the claims of fraud and undue influence, leading to dismissal of the statement of claim. (Paras 10, 12, 24)

Facts of the case: The Plaintiff alleged wrongdoing by Defendants regarding the Acquisition Agreement and subsequent transactions, claiming to have suffered losses as a majority shareholder of Astacanggih Sdn Bhd. The Defendants filed applications to strike out the Plaintiffs’ claims, asserting Plaintiff lacked standing. (Paras 4-8)

Findings of Court: The Plaintiff lacked standing; the claims were unsustainable and lacked necessary particulars, and the allegations of fraud and corruption underpinned the illegality of the claims. (Paras 14-24, 72-73)

Issues: The main issues considered were Plaintiff's locus standi, privity of contract, and the sufficiency of allegations related to conspiracy and undue influence. (Paras 17, 19, 25)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court upheld that a shareholder has no direct claim to a company's assets, reinforcing the separate entity doctrine, and ruled that P's claims depended on an illegal act, rendering them void. (Paras 18-19, 72-74)

Result: Applications to strike out granted. (Paras 81)

JUDGMENT

Quay Chew Soon JC:

Introduction

[1] The 1st Defendant ("D1") and the 2nd Defendant ("D2") jointly filed an application vide encl 14 ("encl 14") to strike out the Plaintiffs ("P") Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim ("SOC"). Enclosure 14 was made under O 18 r 19(1) (a), (b), (c) or (d) of the Rules of 2012 ("Rules of ") or under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.

[2] Likewise the 3rd Defendant ("D3") and the 4th Defendant ("D4") jointly filed an application vide encl 9 ("encl 9") to strike out P's writ and SOC. Enclosure 9 was made under O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b) or (d) of the Rules of or under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.

[3] D1, D2, D3 and D4 are collectively referred to as the "Defendants". I allowed both encl 14 and encl 9. These are the grounds of my decision.

Background

[4] P sues in his capacity as a former director and shareholder of Astacanggih Sdn Bhd ("Astacanggih"). P's action is based on the torts of conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud, undue influence and conversion allegedly committed by the Defendants which resulted in losses allegedly suffered by P in relation to an Acquisition Agreement dated 16 May 2007 ("Acquisition Agreement").

[5] The parties to the Acquisition Agreement are Awan Megah Sdn Bhd ("Awan Megah") and Astacanggih. The Acquisition Agreement concerns the acquisition of certain lands in Bukit Raja, Klang, Selangor ("Land") by Astacanggih.

Plaintiffs Case

[6] From the SOC, P's claim is premised on his allegations that:

(a) D1, in his capacity as the then Minister of Defence, approved the acquisition of the Land by Astacanggih through the Acquisition Agreement. For approving the Acquisition Agreement, D1 requested RM30 million as 'consideration' to be paid in cash to his brother, Dato' Ahmad Johari bin Tun Abdul Razak ("JR"). P was at the material time the majority shareholder and a director of Astacanggih.

(b) Raja Ropiaah bte Raja Abdullah ("RR") was at the material time a director and substantial shareholder of Awan Megah and was D1 and D2's close associate or proxy. Following an alleged breach of the Acquisition Agreement by Awan Megah ("AA Breach"), Astacanggih commenced Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No:21NCVC-253-12/2011 ("Suit 253") for breach of contract. RR is alleged to have been responsible for causing the AA Breach. Astacanggih was allegedly compelled to withdraw Suit 253 ("Suit 253 Withdrawal") as a result of pressure exerted by D1 and D2.

(c) P was forced by D1 and D2 to sell 80% of the shares in Astacanggih to D4 by way of a share sale agreement dated 20 December 2012 ("Share Sale"). D1 and D2 ordered D3 to enter into the Share Sale through D4, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of D3. P says that he later tried to buy back the shares in Astacanggih from D4 but was unsuccessful.

(d) After the Share Sale, D1 and D2 ordered D3, through D4, to enter into a sale and purchase agreement dated 27 December 2012 for the purchase of the Land ("Land Sale"). Thereafter D1 and D2 ordered D3, through D4, to cause Astacanggih to sell the Land to UMW Holdings Bhd for a huge profit ("UMW Sale").

(e) P, as the majority shareholder of Astacanggih, has suffered loss by reason of the AA Breach, the Suit 253 Withdrawal, the Share Sale, the Land Sale and the UMW Sale.

[7] The background facts are as follows:

(a) There was a Privatisation Agreement dated 8 June 2005 ("Privatisation Agreement") entered into between Awan Megah, the Government of Malaysia ("Government") and Syarikat Tanah dan Harta Sdn Bhd ("STH"). The Defendants are not parties to the Privatisation Agreement nor the Acquisition Agreement.

(b) The Land was the consideration offered to STH under the Privatisation Agreement for the development of a National Defence Education Centre. Under the Privatisation Agreement, it was agreed that the Land will be transferred to Awan Megah.

(c) Awan Megah then entered into the Acquisition Agreement with Astacanggih whereby the Land would be transferred to Cebur Megah Development Sdn Bhd ("Cebur Megah


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 Back to top