INSAS BHD. v. NADINUSA SDN. BHD. [1992] 2 CLJ 562 (Rep) [1992] 4 CLJ 1859

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the plaintiff – Robert Lazar (Lim Kian Leong with him); M/s. Lim Kian Leong & Co.

High Court

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction – Preventive relief – Discretion of the Court – Injunction – Whether transaction between parties contrary to Moneylenders Ordinance 1951 – Whether the defendant was an unlicensed moneylender – Whether contract being rendered unenforceable prevents defendant from claiming repayment – Injunction to restrain defendant from presenting petition to wind-up plaintiff – Sections 50, 51 of Specific Relief Act 1950 (Revised 1974) – Companies Act 1965.

S. PONNIAH S/O SINNIAH v. SIVALINGAM S/O S. PONNIAH & 9 ORS. [1991] 3 MTC 271 or [1991] 3 CLJ 468 (Rep) or [1991] 2 CLJ 1602

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the 4th to 8th defendants – Lim Kian Leong; M/s. Lim Kian Leong & Co.

High Court

Company Law: Shares – whether held by children on trust for father – beneficial ownership – doctrine of advancement – presumption – rebuttal – evidence – clear and distinct proof of trust – intention at time of allotment of shares – possession of share certificates – control of companies.

Equity: Doctrine of advancement – whether shares of company held in trust – beneficial interest – rebuttal – clear and distinct evidence of trust – intention at time shares were allotted.

KANG KOK KWANG v. BUKIT BARU CENTRE SDN. BHD. & ORS. [1991] 2 CLJ 789 (Rep) or [1991] 1 CLJ 343

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the 5th defendant – Lim Kian Leong; M/s. Lim Kian Leong & Co

High Court

COMPANY LAW: Trusts – Articles of association – Relationship between trustees and their "cestui que" – Trust not recognised by companies – Companies Act 1965 s. 163(4) .

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Courts – Whether has jurisdiction to hear an ex parte oral application to vary or dissolve an injunction – Prerequisites.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction – Ex parte – Whether Court has jurisdiction to hear an ex parte application to vary or dissolve an injunction – Interlocutory – Right to obtain interlocutory action is not a cause of action.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out summarily – Plain and obvious cases – Whether omission of allegations in statement of claim can be made good by affidavit evidence – Rules of the High Court 1980 O.18 r. 19.