COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
KAO CHE JEN – Appellant
Versus
N CHANTHIRAN NAGAPPAN – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for winding-up of a company. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. required leave for removal of liquidator. (Para 5 , 6 , 14) |
| 3. interpretation of statutory provisions. (Para 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. importance of legislative intent. (Para 12 , 24 , 28) |
[1] One Ong Jin Ek, who was a contributory to STM Transformers Sdn Bhd ("the company"), petitioned to wind up the company on just and equitable ground pursuant to s 218(1)(i) of the Companies Act 1965 ("the Act"), by which petition, on 21 June 2013, the company was compulsorily wound up and the respondent was appointed a liquidator.
[2] On 30 June 2014, the appellant, who was also the company's shareholder and Director, sued by originating summons seeking to remove the respondent as the liquidator premised on s 232(1) of the Companies Act 1965 and to appoint the Official Receiver as a new liquidator. Supporting the application, the appellant in his affidavit in support complained of criminality of the acts of the respondent involving, inter alia, attempted bribery as well as the respondent's conduct in engaging gangsters allegedly to protect the company's assets and premises, to threaten to lock up the company's factorie
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.