COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
CHEMFERT SDN BHD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
LIM HUA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. company shareholder disputes and petitions (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. arguments on res judicata application (Para 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. analysis of res judicata principles (Para 13 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
Appeal
[1] On 10 December 2009, we allowed the appellants' appeal and set aside the order made by the High Court against them pursuant to the respondent's petition presented under s 181 of the Companies Act 1965 . (A reference hereinafter to a section is a reference to that section in the , unless otherwise stated).
[2] We now provide our grounds.
Agreed Facts
[3] The agreed facts prepared and signed by the parties' counsel respectively are simple and straightforward.
[4] In and around 2003, the second appellant ("Phuar Kong Seng") and the respondent ("Lim Hua") were the only shareholders and directors of the first appellant, Chemfert Sdn Bhd ("the company").
[5] At the instance of Phuar Kong Seng and pursuant to a Court-convened extraordinary general meeting under s 150, an additional director was appointed, while Lim Hua was removed as director of the company on 21 September 2004.
[6] Subsequently, Lim Hua presented a pet
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.