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

2016 MarsdenLR 1353

HIGH COURT MALAYA IPOH
HO YEE CHIN – Appellant
Versus
HO MIN HAO & ORS – Respondent


Table of Content
1. plaintiff's status and company formation. (Para 1 , 3 , 4)
2. right to inspect accounting records. (Para 6 , 8 , 9)
3. legal framework for inspection rights. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
4. assumption of benefit; duty of care. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
SM Komathy Suppiah JC:

[1] The plaintiff is a Director of the 3rd defendant company, Sri Magjuta Sdn Bhd ("Sri Magjuta" or "the company"). She seeks an order under s 167(6) of the Companies Act 1965 for an auditor to inspect the companys accounting and financial records on her behalf. Her co-directors, the 1st and 2nd defendants resist the application.

[2] The scope of the exceptions and limitations of a Directors right to inspect company accounts under s 167(6) is a crucial point that arises for consideration in this application.

The Facts In Brief

[3] The plaintiff is the aunt of the 1st and 2nd defendants. The three of them are the Directors of Sri Magjuta.

[4] Sri Magjuta was incorporated on 7 September 1996, by the plaintiffs father, the late Hoo An Kee @ Ho Fong Shun ("HAK"). The first shareholders and Directors of Sri Magjuta were the plaintiff, her two sisters and her sister- in-law, the mother of the 1st and 2nd defendants. It

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