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

2016 MarsdenLR 1911

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
CHIN CHEE KEONG – Appellant
Versus
TOLING CORPORATION (M) SDN BHD – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:Oh Teik Keng ,Respondent Advocate: Saw Lip Khai

Table of Content
1. does subsection 304(1) provide a basis for imposing personal liability on directors? (Para 1 , 10 , 14 , 15 , 16)
2. what is the acceptable procedure for claims under subsection 304(1)? (Para 11 , 12 , 30 , 32)
3. what constitutes sufficient intent to defraud under the law? (Para 21 , 63)
Mary Lim Thiam Suan JCA:

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the learned High Court Judge who allowed the respondent's claim against the appellant who was the 1st defendant in the Court below. The respondent had sued the appellant as the 1st defendant and his mother as the 2nd defendant under subsection 304(1) of the Companies Act 1965 . The 2nd defendant passed away before the trial got underway. The action was however not withdrawn; the 2nd defendant's estate was represented by one Chin Chee Loy.

Some Background Facts

[2] These are the facts as set out in the decision of the learned High Court Judge. For easier understanding, the parties will be referred in their capacities before the High Court.

[3] The plaintiff is a company which supplies plastic resin used in the manufacture of plastic products. It supplied resin to a company called Pacific Plastic Industries Sdn Bhd

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