C
Choong Chee Meng
Person 6 cases
About Choong Chee Meng
Choong Chee Meng appears as a party in 6 judgments in the MY Case Law database, spanning March 2024 to October 2025. Choong Chee Meng appeared as defendant in 5 cases, respondent in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (5), Federal Court (1).
How many court cases involve Choong Chee Meng?
Choong Chee Meng appears in 6 published judgments from March 2024 to October 2025. Most commonly as defendant (5 cases).
In which Malaysian courts has Choong Chee Meng appeared?
Choong Chee Meng has appeared across High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (5 cases) and Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) (1 cases), totaling 6 judgments.
Practice Areas
Contract 4 oppression action merger proposed allotment and issuance of new shares dilution of their shareholding shareholder pre-emptive rights disposals or acquisitions of substantial assets of a company by the directors failure of the directors to procure shareholder approval for a proposed merger share buy-back transactions ultra vires the company's articles of association constitution of a company High Court order validating prior share buy-back transactions rectification of contravention of Companies Act 2016 Companies Act 2016 section 85(1), section 223, section 582(3), section 346, section 67A(1) statutory purposive approach to interpretation section 17A of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 commercial sense business efficacy fundamental principle of governance in companies majority rule ‘subject to’ clause illegality 1 O.14, r1 1 Section 4.03 of the Agreement merely states that the plaintiff agrees and understands the financial risks associated with investment. But this acknowledgment of risk does not imply that the Investment Target Return or repayment of the Invested Sum are contingent upon the financial performance of Ace Credit-Section 4.03 of the Agreement does not override sections 2.01 and 2.03 of the Agreement which expressly provide that the Investment Target Return are to be paid annually and the Invested Sum are to be repaid in full at the end of the investment period-Investment Agreement-moneylending whereby a lender lends money with interest charged-Accordingly, when a court is called upon to interpret a document, it looks at the language. If the language is clear and unambiguous and applies accurately to existing facts, it shall accept the ordinary meaning; for the duty of the court is not to delve into intricacies of the human mind to disclose one’s undisclosed intention, but only to take the meaning of the words used by him, that is to say his expressed intentions-presumption under section 10 OA of the MA 1951-38. The case before me is not a loan agreement. The plaintiffs did not lend monies to Ace Credit. In fact, it is Ace Credit which is the licensed moneylender as stated and represented in the Agreement at Recital A. And at Recital B it is stated that Ace Credit agreed on the plaintiffs investing in Ace Credit- 1 Section 4.03 of the Investment Agreement merely states that the plaintiff agrees and understands the financial risks associated with the investment. But this acknowledgment of risk does not imply that the Investment Target Return or repayment of the Invested Sum are contingent upon the financial performance of Ace Credit-22- Section 4.03 of the Investment Agreement does not override sections 2.01 and 2.04 of the Investment Agreement which expressly provide that the Investment Target Return are to be paid annually and the Invested Sum is to be repaid upon early cancellation- I hold the Investment Agreement is not a moneylending transaction-The Investment Agreement states clearly that it’s an Investment Agreement whereby the investor is entitled to a fixed return per year for 5 years and repayment of his Investment Sum at the end of the 5-year period or to be repaid upon early cancellation-“34 Accordingly, when a court is called upon to interpret a document, it looks at the language. If the language is clear and unambiguous and applies accurately to existing facts, it shall accept the ordinary meaning; for the duty of the court is not to delve into intricacies of the human mind to disclose one’s undisclosed intention, but only to take the meaning of the words used by him, that is to say his expressed intentions.”-presumption under section 10 OA of the MA 1951-10 OA. Where in any proceedings against any person, it is alleged that such person is a moneylender, the proof of a single loan at interest made by such person shall raise a presumption that such person is carrying on the business of moneylending, until the contrary is proved. 1
Defendant (5)
wa-22ncc-698-09-2023 MYHC
JR JATIDIRI SDN BHD v 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN BHD 2. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG 3. ) CHANG AI NEE
7 October 2025
wa-22ncc-696-09-2023 MYHC
KHARISMA WIRA SDN BHD v 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG 3. ) CHANG AI NEE
15 July 2025
wa-22ncc-547-08-2023 MYHC
MOHD FARID BIN MOHAMED SANGIDO v 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN BHD 2. ) CHANG AI NEE 3. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG
17 February 2025
wa-22ncc-587-08-2023 MYHC
DATIN SRI AIDARAHMI BINTI ISMAIL v 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG 3. ) CHANG AI NEE
17 February 2025
wa-22ncc-293-05-2024 MYHC
MUHAMMAD SULHAN BIN GHAZALI v 1. ) CHANG AI NEE 2. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG
5 January 2025