Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
VS INDUSTRY BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
LIM CHANG HUAT & ORS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. oppression of minority shareholders (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 12 , 17) |
| 2. failure to hold board/agm meetings (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 33 , 40) |
| 3. historical context of oppression laws (Para 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 46) |
| 4. legal remedies available under s 346 ca 2016 (Para 70 , 72 , 76 , 89) |
| 5. decision for winding-up nep (Para 94) |
[Oppression Of Shareholder]
The Legislative History Of Relief Against Oppression Of Minority Shareholders
[1] The law recognises that although the will of the majority binds shareholders in a company, it will intervene if the act of the majority leads to tyranny.
[2] In Malaysia, the legal intervention against the tyranny of the majority comes in the form of s 181 of our Companies Act, 1965 which is the predecessor of our current s 346 Companies Act, 2016 Act 777 (" CA 2016").
[3] According to Lord Wilberforce in Re Kong Thai Sawmill (Miri) Sdn Bhd; Kong Thai Sawmill (Miri) Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Ling Beng Sung 1978 MarsdenLR 149 ; [1978] 2 MLJ 227, s 181 of our Companies Act,1965 "trace its descent from s 210 of the United Kingdom Companies Act, 1948 which was introduced in that year in order to strengthen the position of minority shareho
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
