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

Case No.HCMP 4918/2000
Court
High Court CFI
Date10 Nov 2000
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

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

____________

IN THE MATTER of Sino-i.com Limited

and

IN THE MATTER of Section 122 of the Companies Ordinance, Cap. 32 of the Laws of Hong Kong

____________

BETWEEN
YU PUN HOI Plaintiffs
LAM BING KWAN
ZHANG HONG REN
LI SHILIN
LUO NING
SUN YALEI
WONG WAI MING
FRANCISCO PAREDES ACOSTS
AND
SINO-I.COM LIMITED Defendant

____________

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.

(Maria Yuen)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Representation:

Mr Godfrey Lam, instructed by Preston Gates & Ellis, for Plaintiffs

Defendant being absent

Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case