Yu Pun Hoi and Others v. Sino-i.Com Ltd.
Read the full judgment text of HCMP 4918/2000 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 10 November 2000.
1. This is an application by the Directors of a company for an extension of time (being a period to be extended to 7 December 2000) under Section 122 (1A) of the Companies Ordinance. The section provides that a certain period should not be exceeded for the purposes of laying before the company a profit and loss account and balance sheet for the purposes of the Annual General Meeting.
Cited by 1 case
|
HCMP004918/2000 HCMP 4918/2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 4918 OF 2000 ____________
____________
____________ Coram: Hon Yuen J in Court Date of Hearing: 10 November 2000 Date of Decision: 10 November 2000 _______________ D E C I S I O N _______________ 1. This is an application by the Directors of a company for an extension of time (being a period to be extended to 7 December 2000) under Section 122 (1A) of the Companies Ordinance. The section provides that a certain period should not be exceeded for the purposes of laying before the company a profit and loss account and balance sheet for the purposes of the Annual General Meeting. 2. In the affirmation of one of the directors of the Company in support of the present application, that director has deposed to the fact that the Company has recently undergone certain expansion in business especially in the PRC and that the auditors have indicated that further time will be required for the preparation of the audited accounts. I have been told that the auditors have now indicated that they will be able to finalise matters by about 14 November and therefore an extension to 7 December is sought. 3. It would appear from the papers that there are bona fide reasons for the extension of time. The Company, being a listed company, has announced the same reasons in a newspaper advertisement prior to the issue of the present proceedings and, in my view, reasons do exist in the present case for an extension of time. 4. Accordingly, I would order that the period of six months specified in Section 122 (1A) of the Companies Ordinance in relation to the accounts of this company for the period from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000 be extended to 7 December 2000.
Representation: Mr Godfrey Lam, instructed by Preston Gates & Ellis, for Plaintiffs Defendant being absent |
Other judgments that cite this case