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

1996 MarsdenLR 1251

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
TAN HOE KOCK & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
ALI AKARBARA MANGUDIN & ORS – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:Pores Mr Royan ,Respondent Advocate: M Manoharan,V Somaskanthan

JUDGMENT

Kamalanathan Ratnam JC:

[1] The plaintiffs, husband and wife, had a controlling interest in two companies, namely PN Consolidated Sdn Bhd and Metroknit Sdn Bhd (hereinafter called 'the group'). The 1st defendant was at all material times the 1st plaintiff's personal assistant and was also the security manager of the group. The 2nd defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant and together were the only shareholders of the 3rd defendant. The 4th and 5th defendants were at all material times the only directors of another company called Weatherwell Corporation Sdn Bhd ('Weatherwell'). The 6th and 7th defendants were directors of and the agents or servants of the 8th defendant. The 9th defendant, being designers and traders in fashion garments was controlled by the 6th and 7th defendants who were its substantial shareholders. The 10th and 11th defendants are companies incorporated in Malaysia. The 1st to 3rd defendants were represented by one Counsel whilst the 4th to 11th defendants were collectively represented by another.

[2] The 4th to the 11th defendants filed their defence on 10 January 1996, but before delivering defence, by a letter dated 27 December 1995 they applied for fu

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