Jayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & Jamil
  • About
  • Our People
    • Partners
    • Consultant
    • Associates
  • Practice Areas
  • Publications
    • Legal Updates
    • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
    • Articles
    • News & Bulletin
  • We Care
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

Legal Update 9 of 2016

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 9 of 2016
    NextPrevious

    Legal Update 9 of 2016

    By admin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 8 January, 2017 | 0

    Company – Whether it was impracticable to call for a meeting and conduct a meeting.

    Case:

    Tamabina Sdn Bhd & Anor v Nakamichi Corporation Berhad [2016] 2 MLRA 649

    Brief Facts:

    • The respondent (“Nakamichi”) had purchased 51{17537d436ed2421b601d4e8347a4bca0113a3bc001127a695927b11585f47eb2} of shares in the 1st appellant (“Tamabina”).
    • The 2nd appellant (Lai Yun Fung, “LYF”) was a Director and shareholder in Tamabina.
    • Nakamichi had applied for an order that an extraordinary general meeting (“EGM”) in Tamabina to be called, held and conducted after its purchase of the majority shares in Tamabina.
    • Among the items on the EGM’s agenda was the removal of one Lo Man Heng and LYF as Directors of Tamabina.
    • The trial judge allowed Nakamichi’s application and found that “the court is satisfied that it is impractical to call a meeting in accordance with the articles and the CA [Companies Act 1965]”.
    • In this appeal, the appellants submitted, inter alia, that Nakamichi had not shown any circum-stances that it was impractical to call for a meeting of Tamabina.
    • Nakamichi contended that by being the majority shareholder in Tamabina, it had a right to call a meeting and exercise its voting power to remove Lo Man Heng and LYF as Tamabina’s Directors.
    • Nakamichi further justified by stating that it had the right to call for an EGM because:
      a) the mismanagement of Tamabina had caused the company to run into debts and LYF and Lo Man Heng were unwilling or unable to deal with the debts; b) LYF and another Tamabina shareholder (one Lo Shwu Fen) had failed to attend the second EGM which was called by Lo Man Heng.

    Decision: Allowing Tamabina and LYFs appeal.

    • In order for Nakamichi to show impracticality in calling for a meeting, it was necessary to show evidence of attempts to call and hold a meeting and that such attempts were futile.
    • In this case, the lack of quorum (i.e. LSF and Lo Shwu Fen did not attend the second EGM called) was not sufficient evidence of impracticality of calling or holding a meeting.
    • LYF had in her affidavit reasonably explained her absence from the second EGM, and had also explained why she considered the second EGM to be illegal.
    • Therefore, the trial judge had erred in holding that it was impracticable to call for a meeting and that it was impracticable to conduct a meeting in accordance with the company’s articles or the CA.

    No tags.

    admin

    https://t.me/pump_upp

    More posts by admin

    Related Post

    • Legal Update 9 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a civil servant be dismissed from employment by a local authority without affording him the right to be heard? Case: PIHAK BERKUASA TATATERTIB MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SEBERANG PERAI & ANOR v. MUZIADI MUKHTAR [2020] 1Read more

    • Legal Update 10 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the payment of quit rent, assessment rates, electricity and water bills be used to prove ownership of property? Case: HS REALTY SDN BHD v. YOW HONG SOON [2020] 1 LNS 230 Brief Facts: HSRead more

    • Legal Update 11 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can accused persons who are convicted of disobeying the Movement Control Order appeal for alternative punishment instead of imprisonment in the interest of justice? Case: CHIN CHEE WEI & ANOR V PP [2020] 1 LNSRead more

    • Legal Update 12 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a foreign national have a permanent contract of employment? Case: AHMAD ZAHRI MIRZA ABDUL HAMID v. AIMS CYBERJAYA SDN BHD [2020] 1 LNS 494 Brief Facts: Ahmad, an expatriate, received a letter of appointmentRead more

    • Legal Update 13 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the giving of legal advice by an adjudged bankrupt, whose practising certificate has been suspended, amount to practising law in contravention of the Legal Profession Act 1976? Case: DARSHAN SINGH KHAIRA v. ZULKEFLI HASHIMRead more

    • Legal Update 14 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can individual parcel owners enforce rights relating to common property on their own behalf? Case: SYARIKAT EAST COAST & ORS v. MAKNA MUJUR SDN BHD & ORS [2020] 2 MLRA 440 Brief Facts: Syarikat EastRead more

    • Legal Update 15 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      When is the point of time when a debtor is considered to be unable to pay his debts? Case: AFFIN BANK BERHAD V. ABU BAKAR ISMAIL [2020] 2 MLRA 99 Brief Facts: Affin Bank BerhadRead more

    • Legal Update 16 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Whether an article containing allegations of corrupt practices and giving of bribes was defamatory to the owner of an education institution? Case: EAGLE ONE INVESTMENT LTD & ORS V. ASIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING SDN BHDRead more

    Leave a Comment

    Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    NextPrevious

    JHJ Bulletin

    • S.Jeyaraman: The Magic of Memory
    • Andreas Dorn: Your Unconscious Mind on Change and Money

    Legal Updates

    • Legal Update 22 of 2022
    • Legal Update 21 of 2022
    • Legal Update 20 of 2022
    • Legal Update 19 of 2022
    • Legal Update 18 of 2022
    • Legal Update 17 of 2022
    • Legal Update 16 of 2022

    Legal Cauldron

    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 1 of 2016

      Click here to view & download
    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 2 of 2015

      Click here to view & download
    Copyright 2017 All Rights Reserved Contact Us         Like & Follow Us On:Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
    • About
    • Our People
      • Partners
      • Consultant
      • Associates
    • Practice Areas
    • Publications
      • Legal Updates
      • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
      • Articles
      • News & Bulletin
    • We Care
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
    Jayadeep Hari & Jamil