JARDIN PHARMA BERHAD v 1. ) SME BANK BHD 2. ) SMEB ASSET MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 3. ) XORIX SDN BHD (Dalam Penerimaan) 4. ) AZMY BIN A HAMID 5. ) ABDUL HALIM BIN MOHAMAD 6. ) RINOL AZHAR BIN RIDZUAN 7. ) SYED REDZUAN BIN SYED SALIM SHATRI 8. ) KAMARUDDIN BIN MAT DESA
wa-24ncc-387-08-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 14 November 2024 • WA-24NCC-387-08/2024 • 45 min read
21 cases cited
(0 SG, 21 foreign)
Catchwords
COMPANY LAW: Corporate capacity – Ultra vires doctrine – Challenge to validity of financing and security agreements – Commercial interpretation of objects clause – Whether objects clause permitted pharmaceutical business activities – Whether Section 20(1) Companies Act 1965 protects historical transactions via Section 620(4) Companies Act 2016 – Whether strict ultra vires doctrine reintroduced under Section 35 Companies Act 2016 – Whether objects clause to be construed liberally or restrictively – Whether later shareholder can challenge historical financing arrangements – Whether knowledge of business activities precludes ultra vires challenge – Whether regulatory compliance indicates authorized business scope CIVIL PROCEDURE: Locus standi – Receiver and managers' standing to appear in proceedings – Natural justice principles – Whether shareholder can challenge ultra vires acts without derivative action – Whether derivative action under Section 347 Companies Act 2016 exclusive remedy – Whether Section 346 oppression remedy available – Whether common law exceptions to Foss v Harbottle survive – Whether subsequent majority shareholder has standing – Whether res judicata bars subsequent challenge to agreements – Whether withdrawal of earlier suit precludes fresh action – Whether constructive knowledge of constitution affects standing CIVIL PROCEDURE: Interlocutory injunction – Application to restrain receivers and managers – Whether serious issues to be tried regarding validity of financing agreements – Whether damages adequate remedy – Whether balance of convenience favors preserving receivership – Whether status quo includes existing receivership – Whether bare undertaking as to damages sufficient – Whether secured creditors' rights should be preserved – Whether regulatory requirements affect balance of convenience – Whether manufacturing license renewal impacts injunction consideration – Whether commercial contracts affect balance assessment – Whether timing of share acquisition relevant to injunction – Whether self-induced hardship affects relief – Whether multiple proceedings constitute abuse of process
Judges (1)
Counsel (15)
Amelda Fuad Abi & Aidil Firm Ezmeel & Co Firm Mohana Krishnan Firm Shearn Delamore & Co. Firm Zack Lim Firm Abu Haziq Abu Talib Counsel Defendant Ahmad Ezmeel B Ahmad Tarmizi Counsel Plaintiff Ahmad Zakiuddin B Adnan Counsel Plaintiff Amelda Md Din Counsel Defendant Daud Sulaiman Counsel Defendant Pauline Koh Counsel Defendant Prabhkirat Singh Counsel Defendant Sathya Kumardas Counsel Defendant Siti Salehah Counsel Defendant Zack Lim Counsel Defendant
Parties (9)
JARDIN PHARMA BERHAD Applicant SME BANK BHD Respondent SMEB ASSET MANAGEMENT Sdn Bhd Respondent XORIX Sdn Bhd (Dalam Penerimaan) Respondent Abdul Halim bin Mohamad Respondent Azmy bin A Hamid Respondent Kamaruddin bin Mat Desa Respondent Rinol Azhar bin Ridzuan Respondent Syed Redzuan bin Syed Salim Shatri Respondent
Statutes Cited
Companies Act 2016 (Cap 777)
Cases Cited (21)
UK (4)
[1902] 1 Ch 745 [1918] AC 514 [1975] AC 396 [1975] AC 581
MY (17)
[1991] 3 MLJ 56 [1993] 3 MLJ 193 [1995] 1 CLJ 461 [1995] 1 MLJ 193 [1995] 4 CLJ 551 [2001] 6 CLJ 558 [2005] 5 MLJ 717 [2008] 3 MLJ 327 [2011] 3 MLJ 162 [2012] 1 CLJ 959 [2012] 4 CLJ 384 [2013] 3 MLJ 676 [2016] MLJU 1745 [2018] MLJU 2022 [2019] MLJU 364 [2024] 3 MLJ 223 [2024] 5 MLJ 580
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (wa-24ncc-387-08-2024)