BUMIPUTRA-COMMERCE BANK BERHAD vs AUGUSTO POMPEO ROMEI & ANOR

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 MarsdenLR 1781

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
BUMIPUTRA-COMMERCE BANK BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
AUGUSTO POMPEO ROMEI & ANOR – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:S Ramesh,Gary Yap ,Respondent Advocate: Avtar Singh,Amarjeet Singh

Table of Content
1. court finds no locus standi for respondents. (Para 20 , 21)
2. court's ruling on locus standi (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
3. locus standi issue could invalidate respondents’ claims. (Para 25 , 27 , 28)
4. forfeiture of respondents' signatures confirmed (Para 29)
5. court agrees with trial court's finding on forged signatures. (Para 30 , 31 , 33)
6. appellant asserts turquand's rule applies. (Para 36 , 37 , 39)
7. turquand's rule application on internal management (Para 38 , 40 , 41)
8. directors had ostensible authority to execute charge. (Para 44)

[20] The meaning of a derivative action was succinctly explained by Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he then was) when delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Abdul Rahim Aki v. Krubong Industrial Park (Melaka) Sdn Bhd & Ors, [1995] 3 MLJ 417. This is what His Lordship said:

A derivative action is based upon the premise that the company which has been wronged, is unable to sue because the wrongdoers are themselves, in control of its decision-making organs, and will not, for that reason permit an action to be brought in its name. In this circumstances, a minority shareholder may bring an action on behalf of himself and all the other sha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 MarsdenLR 1781

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYABUMIPUTRA-COMMERCE BANK BERHAD – AppellantVersusAUGUSTO POMPEO ROMEI & ANOR – Respondent

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
BUMIPUTRA-COMMERCE BANK BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
AUGUSTO POMPEO ROMEI & ANOR – Respondent