Advocates:
For the appellant - Maniam Raju (Asmawi Ismail & Indran Guru with him); M/s Ng, Fan & Assoc.
For the respondent - Wong Kim Fatt (Tho Kam Chew & Tng Poh Ying with him);M/s Gulam & Wong.

The grounds of appeal are as follows:

1. The appellant contends that the original judgment was based on a fundamental error of law, specifically in the misapplication of statutory provisions governing contractual obligations and shareholder rights (!) .

2. It is alleged that the court failed to adequately consider the bilateral nature of the contract, thereby misinterpreting the intentions and obligations of the parties involved (!) .

3. The appellant asserts that there was a misapprehension of the factual circumstances, particularly regarding the offer to transfer shares and the subsequent approval process, which affected the validity of the original decision (!) .

4. The appeal claims that there was a breach of natural justice, as the decision was made without affording the other shareholders an opportunity to be heard, thus compromising the fairness of the proceedings (!) .

5. It is further argued that the original judgment was rendered in excess of the court's jurisdiction or based on procedural irregularities that rendered the decision invalid, thereby justifying a rehearing or setting aside of the order (!) .

6. The appellant submits that the court erred in dismissing the application to revisit the case, failing to recognize that the procedural defects and jurisdictional issues present warranted an intervention under the court's inherent jurisdiction (!) .

7. Finally, the appellant asserts that the court’s refusal to re-examine the merits of the case undermines the principles of justice and fairness, especially in circumstances where procedural irregularities or jurisdictional errors are apparent (!) .

These grounds collectively challenge the validity of the original judgment and seek a reconsideration of the matter based on procedural and substantive errors.