[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – Mustafa Center chief’s half-brother, Mustaq Ahmad, felt his family were treated as “servants” and lived as construction workers, the High Court heard on Thursday (October 15) in an ongoing trial.
Ayaz Ahmed told the court that he and 13 other members of the extended family were housed in a single-family home on Chancery Lane while Mustaq was building an apartment block.
After the building was completed, Mr. Ayaz did not move and instead lived in a 2,800-square-foot apartment with 10 other people, which he compared to the living conditions of construction workers.
The details emerged when Ayaz was questioned by Mustaq’s attorney, lead attorney Alvin Yeo, for a third day.
Mr. Ayaz, his four brothers and his mother have sued Mr. Mustaq, his wife and their two children for minority oppression.
The plaintiffs are calling for the liquidation of Mohamed Mustafa and Samsuddin Co (MMSC), the company behind the popular department store, and for a liquidator to be appointed to investigate the affairs of the company.
Mustaq maintains that the lawsuit was fueled by greed and that his reconstituted family was “turning around to bite the hand that feeds them” after he paid their expenses over the years.
On Thursday, Mr. Yeo noted that Mr. Mustaq provided Mr. Ayaz with a “free apartment” and a townhouse.
Mr. Ayaz replied that he, his wife and their two children had a room in the house, which they shared with others, including Osama, Mr. Mustaq’s son. “I wanted to be separated with my own family,” he said.
Mr. Yeo also suggested that Mr. Ayaz had hired consultant Rajesh Bafna in 2016 to “find issues that you may raise in a lawsuit against Mr. Mustaq.” Mr. Ayaz did not agree.
According to Mr. Ayaz, it was after he became engaged to Mr. Bafna that he learned of two “improper” share assignments in 1995 and 2001, which effectively increased the involvement of Mr. Mustaq and his wife.
The plaintiffs have challenged the authenticity of the shareholder resolutions authorizing the awards, noting that there are discrepancies between the resolutions and the resolution notice presented to the authorities.
Mr. Yeo showed Mr. Ayaz documents to suggest that the company’s corporate secretarial practices at the time were “quite informal” and that the discrepancies did not mean that the documents were not genuine.
Mr. Yeo added that the share allocations were agreed upon by all shareholders at that time, and they signed these minutes of the extraordinary general meeting.
Mr. Ayaz did not accept this.
The trial continues.
[ad_2]
