JUDGMENT

Hamid Sultan Abu Backer JC:

[1] This is my judgment in respect of the petitioner's petition pursuant to s. 181 of Companies Act 1965 (CA 1965), inter alia, seeking the following reliefs namely:

(a) a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to be a director of the 9th respondent as long as the petitioner shall hold shares in the 9th respondent. (b) an order that the 1st to 7th and 9th respondents shall reinstate the petitioner as managing director of the 9th respondent at a monthly salary of RM17,000, effective from August 2003. (c) an order that the 1st respondent shall cease forthwith to be the managing director of the 9th respondent. (d) an injunction to restrain the 1st respondent from acting as managing director of the 9th respondent. (e) an order that the board of directors of the 9th respondent shall take all steps necessary to reinstate the petitioner as a compulsory bank signatory to all the 9th respondent's banking accounts so long as he shall be a director of the 9th respondent. (f) an order that the 9th respondent shall forthwith pay to the petitioner all declared dividends due by the 9th respondent to the petitioner. (g) an order that the 9th respondent shall pay all future dividends to its shareholders within 60 days of the date of declaration. (h) an injunction be granted to restrain the 1st to 7th and 9th respondents by themselves and their servants or agents from denying the petitioner and his servants or agents from denying the petitioner and his servants or agents or his invitees access to the premises (both office and factory) of the 9th respondent. (i) an injunction to restrain the 1st and 7th respondents, by themselves or any proxies, corporate representatives or attorneys acting on their behalf, from exercising their votes at any general meeting of the company to remove the petitioner as director of the 9th respondent. (j) an order that the 1st and 8th respondents shall account to the 9th respondent for all profits made by the 8th respondent from all its dealings with the 9th respondent. (k) damages against the 1st to 7th and 8th respondents. (l) in the alternative, an order that the 1st to 7th respondents shall purchase the shares of the petitioner in the company at a consideration based on the valuation of the shares of the company by a reputable firm of public accountants based in Kuala Lumpur, within 90 days from completion of the valuation. (m) that the shares of the company be valued at the date of this petition (22 August 2006) and the costs of such valuation be borne by the 1st and 7th respondents.

[2] There are 2 firms of solicitors representing the respondents. 1st, 5th, 6th, 8th and 9th respondents (hereinafter referred to as Malaysian Group) are represented by one firm of solicitors and 2nd to 4th and 7th respondents (hereinafter referred to as Japanese Group) are represented by the other firm of solicitors.

[3] I have also on this day delivered a judgment on the petitioner's petition to wind up Sanyan Holdings Sdn. Bhd on just and equitable ground. I find many of the allegations in this petition are repetitions from the previous petition. Some of my observations in that judgment will equally apply here even though I have not set them out herein.

[4] The petitioner in the petition, inter alia, says (i) the petitioner and the 1st respondent are founding subscriber and director of the 9th respondent. (ii) the 2nd to 4th respondents are nominees of the 7th respondent. The 5th respondent is the eldest son of the 1st respondent. The 6th respondent is the nominee of the 1st respondent. The 7th respondent is a shareholder of the 9th respondent. The 8th respondent is a company owned and controlled by the 1st respondent. The petitioner and the 1st to 6th respondents sit in the board of directors of the 9th respondent. (iii) the object and purpose for the incorporation of the 9th respondent was to undertake a joint venture business with the Malaysian Group and the Japanese Group.

[5] Under