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

1991 MarsdenLR 424

HIGH COURT, SINGAPORE

CHAO HICK TIN J


GEE HOE CHAN TRADING CO. PTE. LTD., RE
versus
.

ORIGINATING PETITION NO. 98/89

Decided On : 06-29-91

Advocates:
For the plaintiffs - David Yeow (Walter Woon and Wilson Wong with him)
For the respondents - Cheong Yuen Hee (Ng Char Yeow with him)

JUDGMENT

Chao Hick Tin J:

This was an application by certain shareholders for reliefs under s. 216 of the Companies Act. At the conclusion of the hearing I was satisfied that a case was made out and I ordered that the company be wound-up. I now give my reasons.

Gee Hoe Chan Trading Co. Pte. Ltd., hereinafter called the company, was incorporated as a private limited company on 20 December 1960. At the time of the filing of the petition for relief, the main line of business of the company was as commission agent and in investment in real property.

Before the incorporation of the company, there was a partnership business established by one Ng Ah Kim and another Ng Boon Hong. Ng Boon Hong died in 1952. After his death, his interest in the partnership was retained by his widow, Madam Tan Ah Huan (4th petitioner herein) and his children, Ng Kim Kee, Ng Kim Ming, Ng Kin Yeow and Ng King Leang (the 5th to 8th Petitioners herein) and the partnership business was managed entirely by Ng Ah Kim. On the incorporation of the company in 1960, Madam Tan Ah Huan and her children were made shareholders. She was also made a director.

Ng Ah Kim died in 1976. Before his death, most of his shares in the company were bought over by another company, Ng Ah Kim Development Pte. Ltd. Ng Ah Kim Development Pte. Ltd., was and is owned by the respondents. There was a dispute as to the circumstances under which Ng Ah Kim Development Pte. Ltd., managed to obtain the money to purchase the shares of Ng Ah Kim in the company. The petitioners alleged that the respondents obtained loans from the company to enable Ng Ah Kim Development Pte. Ltd. to buy the shares of Ng Ah Kim in the company. The evidence would appear to show that the respondents had credits with the company and that the respondents were withdrawing their own money. I was satisfied that there was nothing in this allegation.

At the time of the hearing before me the shareholders of the company and the number of shares held by each, were as follows:

Ng Ah Kim (deceased) 120 0.35%

Ng Ah Kim Dvpt. Pte. Ltd 4,934 14.60%

Ng Boon Lin (1st respondent) 5,484 16.20%

Ng Boon Wah (2nd respondent) 1,774 5.20%

Ng Boon Hong (3rd respondent) 2,786 8.20%

Ng Boon Siong (4th respondent) 1,774 5.20%

Ng Mong Hui (5th respondent) 1,774 5.20%

Ng Seow Hiong

(1st respondent's son) 1,286 3.80%

19,932 58.75%

Tan Poh Tee (deceased) 2,028 6.00%

Ng Boon Hock (1st petitioner) 1.694 5.00%

Ng Boon Leong (2nd petitioner) 1.694 5.00%

Ng Mong Siew (3rd petitioner) 1.694 5.00%

Tan Ah Huan (4th petitioner) 4,050 12.00%

Ng Kim Kee (5th petitioner) 340 1.00%

Ng Kim Ming (6th petitioner) 1,016 3.00%

Ng Kin Yeow (7th petitioner) 1,016 3.00%

Ng King Leang (8th petitioner) 340 1.00%

13,872 41.00%

And the members of the Board of Directors were the following:

Ng Boon Lui (1st respondent) Chairman & managing director

Director since 1960

Ng Boon Wah (2nd respondent) Director since 1976

Ng Boon Hong (3rd respondent) Director since 1960

Ng Boon Siong (4th respondent) Director since 1960

Ng Mong Hui (5th respondent) Director since 1967

Ng Ah Kim was a director until he died in 1976. Madam Tan Ah Huan ceased to be a director when she failed to get re-elected in June 1988.

The 1st, 2nd and 3rd petitioners are related to the respondents in that they are half brothers; the former being children of Ng Ah Kim and his second wife, Madam Tan Poh Tee.

On the death of Ng Ah Kim, the company allowed Madam Tan Poh Tee to draw a sum of $1,200 per month for the support of herself and her children. This was continued even after the death of Madam Tan Poh Tee. It stopped in June l984. There was a dispute as to the basis upon which Madam Tan Poh Tee and her children were allowed to draw the sum from the company. The first three petitioners said that their entitlement to draw arose from an explicit understanding reached between Ng Ah Kim and Ng Boon Lin, the latter being then the managing director of the company. On the other hand the respondents said that Madam Tan

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 Back to top