Judge questions future viability of Violet Oon Inc if it is not bought over or wound up

WITH restaurateur Violet Oon and her family having brought a suit against their business partner, the presiding judge on Wednesday (Jul 19) asked how both parties could continue to work together if the company’s ownership remains divided.

Defendant Manoj Murjani holds 50 per cent of the shares in Oon’s eponymous group of restaurants, while Oon and her two children own the balance. Oon’s family is seeking either a court order to be able to purchase Murjani’s 50-per-cent shareholding in Violet Oon Inc, or for the company to be wound up.

Justice Philip Jeyaretnam asked Murjani: “If the court makes no buyout order, and no winding-up order... how would the company be able to continue to do business effectively?”

This is especially after Murjani had essentially called Oon’s son, director of operations Tay Yiming, “a thief” in an earlier written communication, the judge said.

In response, Murjani acknowledged that he made the assertion in the heat of the moment, and that Tay did not use the company and its funds as his own “piggy bank”, as Murjani had originally alleged.

“I was just upset that there was a lack of transparency, and if I had to rewrite it today, I will probably just stop there,” said Murjani, who was called to the stand for the third and final day.

He added that he would at least be able to continue to work with Oon, as he had “great respect” for her, and he did not believe she was the “bitter type”.

Asked Justice Jeyaretnam: “Do you think (Tay) would be able to sit down with you, after you called him a thief?”

“I would apologise for saying those words,” replied Murjani.

During Wednesday’s proceedings, the judge also asked Murjani if two equal shareholders should get “equal profit at the end of the day”, even if there was an imbalance in the financial risks undertaken by each party.

In his testimony on Jul 13, Tay said that the Oon family had injected some S$650,000 in additional working capital to keep the company afloat during the Covid-19 pandemic; no such funds came from Murjani.

The Oon family had also put up personal guarantees to secure bank loans for the company, while Murjani had never done so.

Murjani replied that his proposal had always been for Violet Oon Inc to take on third-party investments, and for there to be no obligation on the part of the Oon family to personally inject capital into the company.

But the family rejected the idea, because they did not want to dilute their shareholding, Murjani added.

Wednesday marked the final day of the eight-day trial, during which 13 witnesses were called to the stand. Lawyers for both parties will next make written submissions to the court, with closing submissions scheduled for Aug 18.