SupremeToday Landscape Ad
AI Thinking

AI Thinking...

Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!


AI Overview

AI Overview...

Section 50 Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016) - Register of Members

  • Register Requirement: Section 50(1) CA 2016 mandates a Registrar of members (register of members), with subsection (3) stating: The registrar of members shall be prima facie evidence of any matters inserted in the registrar as required of the authorised by this Act. Comparable to Section 158(4) CA 1965. ["

    BORHAN MOHD DOYA vs MAHA PERSADA CAPITAL SDN BHD; DATO IR HJ YUSNI MEON (APPLICANT/INTERVENER) - 2017 MarsdenLR 1596

    "]
  • Inspection and Access: SSM or third parties may (i) request to inspect the Register of Members; and/or (ii) request for a copy of the Register of Members (or of any part thereof). ["

    BORHAN MOHD DOYA vs MAHA PERSADA CAPITAL SDN BHD; DATO IR HJ YUSNI MEON (APPLICANT/INTERVENER) - 2017 MarsdenLR 1596

    "]
  • Related Contexts: Register of members referenced alongside registered office in share transfers (Section 103(1) CA 1965 requires delivery to company secretary) and as evidence, but no explicit link to CA 2016 location. ["

    BORHAN MOHD DOYA vs MAHA PERSADA CAPITAL SDN BHD; DATO IR HJ YUSNI MEON (APPLICANT/INTERVENER) - 2017 MarsdenLR 1596

    "] ["1970 0 Supreme(SC) 76"]

Analysis and Conclusion

Sources confirm Section 50 CA 2016 requires companies to maintain a register of members, serving as prima facie evidence, with inspection rights, but do not explicitly state it must be kept at the registered office (unlike implied CA 1965 precedents). No direct support for location mandate in provided materials. ["

BORHAN MOHD DOYA vs MAHA PERSADA CAPITAL SDN BHD; DATO IR HJ YUSNI MEON (APPLICANT/INTERVENER) - 2017 MarsdenLR 1596

"]
Companies Act 2016 Register of Members: Is Keeping Records at the Registered Office Mandatory?

CA 2016 Section 50: Must Companies Keep Register of Members at Registered Office?

In the world of Malaysian company law, maintaining accurate records is crucial for compliance, governance, and resolving disputes. A common question arises: under Section 50 of the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016), must companies maintain a register of members at their registered office? This query touches on fundamental obligations for businesses, especially those limited by shares or guarantee. While the register of members is pivotal for proving ownership and shareholdings, the specific location requirement isn't straightforward. Let's dive into the legal landscape, drawing from key provisions and authoritative documents.

The Role of the Register of Members in Malaysian Company Law

The register of members is the cornerstone for establishing who qualifies as a 'member' of a company. Under CA 2016, Section 2 defines a 'member' clearly: (a) in the case of a company limited by shares, a person whose name is entered in the register of members as the holder for the time being of one or more shares in the company; or (b) in the case of a company limited by guarantee, a person whose name is entered in the register of members.

EKA NOODLE BERHAD vs NORHAYATI TUKIMAN (ENCL 1) - 2021 MarsdenLR 3201

DATO GUE SEE SEW & ORS vs HENG TANG HAI & ORS - 2020 MarsdenLR 2578

This definition underscores the register's evidentiary power. Earlier under the Companies Act 1965 (CA 1965), Section 158 required every company to keep a register of its members and enter therein the particulars of its members and in the case of a company having a share capital a statement of the shares held by each member, the date at which the name of each person was entered in the register as a member, the date of every allotment of shares to members and the number of shares comprised in each allotment.

TAN KIM HOR & ORS vs TAN HENG CHEW & ORS - 2008 MarsdenLR 2454

Furthermore, Section 158(4) of the Act reads: The register of members shall be prima facie evidence of any matters inserted therein as required or authorized by this Act.

TAN KIM HOR & ORS vs TAN HENG CHEW & ORS - 2008 MarsdenLR 2454

BORHAN MOHD DOYA vs MAHA PERSADA CAPITAL SDN BHD; DATO IR HJ YUSNI MEON (APPLICANT/INTERVENER) - 2017 MarsdenLR 1596

These principles carry over into CA 2016, emphasizing the register's role as prima facie evidence in disputes over membership or shareholdings. For listed companies, additional layers apply under the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991 via depositor accounts, but the core register remains essential.

EKA NOODLE BERHAD vs NORHAYATI TUKIMAN (ENCL 1) - 2021 MarsdenLR 3201

Analyzing Section 50 of Companies Act 2016

A direct search through relevant legal documents reveals no explicit reference to Section 50 of CA 2016 imposing a duty on companies to maintain the register of members at the registered office. Discussions center on the register's content, maintenance, and evidentiary value rather than its physical location. No provision ties the register of members specifically to the registered office under CA 2016 or its predecessor.

This absence contrasts with other statutory requirements. For instance, while the documents do not link the members' register to the registered office, they highlight its importance for inspection rights and legal proof without mandating a location.

TAN KIM HOR & ORS vs TAN HENG CHEW & ORS - 2008 MarsdenLR 2454

BORHAN MOHD DOYA vs MAHA PERSADA CAPITAL SDN BHD; DATO IR HJ YUSNI MEON (APPLICANT/INTERVENER) - 2017 MarsdenLR 1596

Comparison: Register of Members vs. Register of Directors

It's worth noting a key distinction with other registers. Under CA 1965, Section 141 explicitly requires: Every Company shall keep its registered office a register of its director, managers and secretaries.

LIEW LAI YING & SATU LAGI LWN. PENDAKWA RAYA - 2018 MarsdenLR 2524

This pertains to Form 49 and includes director particulars, but does not extend to the register of members.

Similar patterns appear in comparative contexts. For example, under India's Companies Act, 1956, Section 303 mandates: Every company is required to keep at its registered office a register of its Directors, Managing Director, manager and secretary containing the particulars... 2016 5 Supreme 417 2011 0 Supreme(UK) 69 2011 1 Supreme 742 These provisions reinforce that directors' registers often have explicit registered office requirements, unlike members' registers in Malaysian law as per the reviewed documents.

In practice, companies typically keep the register of members accessible, often at the registered office or principal place of business, to facilitate inspections. However, no statutory compulsion under Section 50 CA 2016 is evident from the sources.

Key Obligations for the Register of Members

  • Content Requirements: Must include names, shares held, entry dates, and allotments.

    TAN KIM HOR & ORS vs TAN HENG CHEW & ORS - 2008 MarsdenLR 2454

  • Evidentiary Status: Prima facie proof of membership.

    BORHAN MOHD DOYA vs MAHA PERSADA CAPITAL SDN BHD; DATO IR HJ YUSNI MEON (APPLICANT/INTERVENER) - 2017 MarsdenLR 1596

  • Inspection Rights: Members can inspect, reinforcing transparency.

    BORHAN MOHD DOYA vs MAHA PERSADA CAPITAL SDN BHD; DATO IR HJ YUSNI MEON (APPLICANT/INTERVENER) - 2017 MarsdenLR 1596

  • No Specified Location: Unlike directors' register.

    LIEW LAI YING & SATU LAGI LWN. PENDAKWA RAYA - 2018 MarsdenLR 2524

Exceptions and Special Cases

For public listed companies, reliance on the register may shift due to central depository systems under SICDA, potentially reducing the need for a traditional physical register.

EKA NOODLE BERHAD vs NORHAYATI TUKIMAN (ENCL 1) - 2021 MarsdenLR 3201

Striking off provisions under CA 2016 Sections 550-554 can dissolve companies, affecting register access indirectly, but not its maintenance location.

PUBLIC BANK BERHAD vs GMP MASYHUR SDN BHD - 2024 MarsdenLR 2758

Other sources touch on related themes, such as vesting orders under banking laws or accreditation guidelines, but none address Section 50 CA 2016 directly for members' registers.

KESATUAN KEBANGSAAN PEKERJA-PEKERJA PERDAGANGAN vs BUMIPUTRA-COMMERCE FACTORLEASE BERHAD

VEERAJAH GANAPATHY vs MYSTIQUE BAY SDN BHD

In Indian jurisprudence, failure to update the register of members can undermine claims, as seen in cases stressing compliance with transfer procedures under Sections 108 and 150. 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 2126

Practical Implications for Malaysian Companies

Companies should prioritize accurate maintenance of the register to avoid disputes. While not explicitly required at the registered office under Section 50 CA 2016, best practices suggest keeping it there for easy access by members, auditors, or regulators. Non-compliance with general maintenance duties could invite penalties, though location-specific issues remain unaddressed in the documents.

In analogous scenarios, courts have emphasized the register's primacy. For instance, unregistered share transfers may not confer membership status. 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 2126 Directors post-resignation are not liable for subsequent company actions, highlighting the need for timely updates. 2016 5 Supreme 417

Key Takeaways and Recommendations

  • No evidence supports a Section 50 CA 2016 mandate for keeping the register of members at the registered office.

    TAN KIM HOR & ORS vs TAN HENG CHEW & ORS - 2008 MarsdenLR 2454

    EKA NOODLE BERHAD vs NORHAYATI TUKIMAN (ENCL 1) - 2021 MarsdenLR 3201

  • Focus on content accuracy and evidentiary use under Sections 2 and 158 equivalents.
  • Distinguish from directors' register, which has a clear registered office requirement.

    LIEW LAI YING & SATU LAGI LWN. PENDAKWA RAYA - 2018 MarsdenLR 2524

  • For listed entities, consider SICDA overlays.

    EKA NOODLE BERHAD vs NORHAYATI TUKIMAN (ENCL 1) - 2021 MarsdenLR 3201

This analysis is based on reviewed legal documents and generally reflects positions under CA 2016. However, laws evolve, and specifics may vary by company type. Companies should consult primary legislation, the Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM), or legal professionals for tailored advice. This post is for informational purposes only and not a substitute for professional legal counsel.

References:1.

TAN KIM HOR & ORS vs TAN HENG CHEW & ORS - 2008 MarsdenLR 2454

: CA 1965 s 158 details.2.

BORHAN MOHD DOYA vs MAHA PERSADA CAPITAL SDN BHD; DATO IR HJ YUSNI MEON (APPLICANT/INTERVENER) - 2017 MarsdenLR 1596

: Inspection and evidentiary role.3.

EKA NOODLE BERHAD vs NORHAYATI TUKIMAN (ENCL 1) - 2021 MarsdenLR 3201

: CA 2016 s 2 definition.4.

DATO GUE SEE SEW & ORS vs HENG TANG HAI & ORS - 2020 MarsdenLR 2578

: Member definition reinforcement.5.

LIEW LAI YING & SATU LAGI LWN. PENDAKWA RAYA - 2018 MarsdenLR 2524

: Directors' register location. #CompaniesAct2016 #MalaysiaCompanyLaw #RegisterOfMembers
Chat Download
Chat Print
Chat R ALL
Landmark
Strategy
Argument
Risk
Chat Voice Bottom Icon
Chat Sent Bottom Icon
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
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