XORIX SDN. BHD. (PENERIMA & PENGURUS DILANTIK) JARDIN PHARMA BERHAD

XORIX SDN. BHD. (PENERIMA & PENGURUS DILANTIK) JARDIN PHARMA BERHAD

The application was dismissed because the central question was non-justiciable and vague, the tenancy dated 01.07.2023 is valid and the plaintiff lacks standing to challenge it in these proceedings, material factual disputes made the matter unsuitable for determination on affidavit under originating summons, and the issues overlap with active litigation risking multiplicity; consequently no relief was warranted.

Citation
WA-24NCC-607-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (receivers & Managers Appointed): Xorix Sdn. Bhd.; Defendant (tenant): Jardin Pharma Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 July 2025
Case Number
WA-24NCC-607-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under Section 384 Companies Act 2016 / Judgment (grounds of Judgment Dated 11 July 2025)
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Receivers and Managers, Section 384 Companies Act 2016 (declaratory Relief), Tenancy and Possession, Justiciability, Multiplicity of Proceedings, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Insolvency and Restructuring Property/tenancy Law Civil Procedure Receivers and Managers Section 384 Companies Act 2016 (declaratory Relief) Tenancy and Possession Justiciability +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Xorix Sdn. Bhd.

Plaintiff (receivers & Managers Appointed)

Jardin Pharma Berhad

Defendant (tenant)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under Section 384 Companies Act 2016 / Judgment (grounds of Judgment Dated 11 July 2025)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a tenancy dated 01.07.2023 prevents the R&Ms from managing Xorix's business and assets at the premises
  2. 2 Whether the R&Ms have the right to take possession of the premises
  3. 3 Whether entry by the R&Ms constitutes trespass given court orders affirming appointment

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the central question was non-justiciable and vague, the tenancy dated 01.07.2023 is valid and the plaintiff lacks standing to challenge it in these proceedings, material factual disputes made the matter unsuitable for determination on affidavit under originating summons, and the issues overlap with active litigation risking multiplicity; consequently no relief was warranted.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.