Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 346 companies act 2016

Legal area

Court

14 Jan 2026

1. ) A GANASAN A/L K ARUMUGAM 2. ) ABDUL HAFIZ BIN ABDUL RASHID @ ABD KHALID SYED YUSOF BIN SYED MOHD

Citation

BA-24NCC-113-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCC-113-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found a strong prima facie case of oppression under s346 based on evidence of exclusion, attempts to remove directors and consolidate control; it rejected the illegality and non-joinder defences as insufficient to bar relief and held the court has discretion to grant appropriate remedies without joining all shareholders; accordingly the Plaintiffs' originating summons was allowed and the Defendant's interlocutory applications were struck out with costs.
10 Jan 2025

GOLDEN CRESCENT SDN BHD 1. ) PDC ASSOCIATES SDN BHD 2. ) PELABUHAN BAGAN DATOH SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC-417-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-417-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The unregistered shareholders' agreement cannot override the articles because it was not incorporated or notified as required by s36(3); notices were validly served in accordance with the articles and any technical defect (including auditor notice) can be cured under s582; deliberate, repeated non-attendance established impracticability under s314 and justified exercise of the court's power to order a single-member quorum and ancillary directions to enable an EGM to proceed.
17 Oct 2024

Anita binti Gelam Nabib 1. ) Medic Dot Com Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Mohd Zulkifli Bin Mohd Yassin

Citation

BA-24NCC-15-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCC-15-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Conversion to a writ was unjustified because the only genuinely triable issue requiring oral evidence was the existence of an oral trust (for which leave to cross-examine on affidavits was granted); other matters either fell outside Section 346 (employment complaints) or lacked proper notice (intended counterclaim), therefore the Originating Summons should proceed and Enclosure 7 is dismissed with costs.
20 Jun 2024

HO SUE SAN @ DAVID HO SUE SAN 1. ) HOVID BERHAD 2. ) UOBM Nominees (Tempatan) Sdn. Bhd. 3. ) FAJAR ASTORIA SDN. BHD.

Citation

W-02(NCC)(A)-162-01/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCC
Case number

W-02(NCC)(A)-162-01/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appellant failed to prove the relationship was in the nature of a quasi‑partnership or that equitable considerations applied; the VGOs were commercial bargains and any breach was contractual only; the requisition and proposed resolution were an exercise of statutory rights (s.311) consistent with TAEL's known exit plan and did not amount to unfair discrimination or prejudice under s.346(1)(b); appeal dismissed.
5 Sept 2023

Datuk Kasi A/L K.L. Palaniappan 1. ) Modern Eden Sdn Bhd 2. ) PB Trustee Services Berhad (Wasi Bagi Harta Pusaka Allahyarmah Tan Sri Datuk Haji Mustapha Kamal Bin Haji Abu Bakar No. K/P: 490318-08-5599) 3. ) Felina Binti Tan Sri Datuk Haji

Citation

WA-24NCC-411-09/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-411-09/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion to admit the narrowed further affidavit documents (those shown to be relevant and already in common bundles) and granted leave to cross-examine Farah Mahami and Felina because (i) the documents and allegations directly relate to the central disputed issues (the alleged Understanding, New Board Understanding and alleged breaches) under s.346 CA 2016; (ii) there was no prejudice or unfair surprise and the documents were produced in the common bundles following procedural history; (iii) the Court of Appeal's order expressly preserved liberty to apply to cross-e…
5 Sept 2023

Datuk Kasi A/L K.L. Palaniappan 1. ) Menara Embun Sdn Bhd 2. ) PB Trustee Services Berhad (Wasi Bagi Harta Pusaka Allahyarmah Tan Sri Datuk Haji Mustapha Kamal Bin Haji Abu Bakar No. K/P: 490318-08-5599) 3. ) Felina Binti Tan Sri Datuk Haji

Citation

WA-24NCC-410-09/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-410-09/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion to admit the narrowed set of further affidavit documents and to grant leave to cross-examine Farah Mahami and Felina because the contested existence and breaches of the alleged unwritten Understandings are central disputed facts that cannot be resolved on affidavits and contemporaneous documents alone, the Court of Appeal had granted liberty to apply for cross-examination, there was no prejudice or undue delay, and the Setia Haruman findings did not operate as res judicata to bar separate oppression complaints in relation to Menara Embun and Modern Eden.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) A GANASAN A/L K ARUMUGAM 2. ) ABDUL HAFIZ BIN ABDUL RASHID @ ABD KHALID SYED YUSOF BIN SYED MOHD

GOLDEN CRESCENT SDN BHD 1. ) PDC ASSOCIATES SDN BHD 2. ) PELABUHAN BAGAN DATOH SDN BHD

Anita binti Gelam Nabib 1. ) Medic Dot Com Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Mohd Zulkifli Bin Mohd Yassin

HO SUE SAN @ DAVID HO SUE SAN 1. ) HOVID BERHAD 2. ) UOBM Nominees (Tempatan) Sdn. Bhd. 3. ) FAJAR ASTORIA SDN. BHD.

Datuk Kasi A/L K.L. Palaniappan 1. ) Modern Eden Sdn Bhd 2. ) PB Trustee Services Berhad (Wasi Bagi Harta Pusaka Allahyarmah Tan Sri Datuk Haji Mustapha Kamal Bin Haji Abu Bakar No. K/P: 490318-08-5599) 3. ) Felina Binti Tan Sri Datuk Haji

Datuk Kasi A/L K.L. Palaniappan 1. ) Menara Embun Sdn Bhd 2. ) PB Trustee Services Berhad (Wasi Bagi Harta Pusaka Allahyarmah Tan Sri Datuk Haji Mustapha Kamal Bin Haji Abu Bakar No. K/P: 490318-08-5599) 3. ) Felina Binti Tan Sri Datuk Haji