PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN 1. ) Menara Jutamas Sdn Bhd 2. ) Amcorp Global Limited (dahulu dikenali sebagai Tee Land Limited) PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Abdul Kadir Bin Haji Sheikh Fadzir

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN 1. ) Menara Jutamas Sdn Bhd 2. ) Amcorp Global Limited (dahulu dikenali sebagai Tee Land Limited) PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Abdul Kadir Bin Haji Sheikh Fadzir

The High Court held the Bankruptcy Order valid and dismissed the debtor's challenge: a change of company name did not require leave under O.46 r.2(1)(b); the Interim Order expired on 7.1.2025 and the creditors' meeting on 4.2.2025 was invalid so no VA operated to prevent bankruptcy; the debtor failed to establish ability to pay; and the creditors had exhausted available enforcement against the wound‑up principal by filing a proof of debt, entitling them to proceed against the guarantor.

Citation
WA-29NCC-928-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Judgment Debtor: Abdul Kadir bin Haji Sheikh Fadzir; Judgment Creditor: Menara Jutamas Sdn Bhd; Judgment Creditor: Amcorp Global Limited (formerly Tee Land Limited)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
12 November 2025
Case Number
WA-29NCC-928-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Insolvency / High Court Judgment (appeal to Court of Appeal Filed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Bankruptcy Order upheld
Legal Topics
Voluntary Arrangement (va), Interim Order (io), Creditor's Petition, Leave to Commence Bankruptcy Against Guarantor, Change of Company Name, Winding‑up and Enforcement Exhaustion
Source Language
Malay/English

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Kadir bin Haji Sheikh Fadzir

Judgment Debtor

Menara Jutamas Sdn Bhd

Judgment Creditor

Amcorp Global Limited (formerly Tee Land Limited)

Judgment Creditor

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy / Insolvency / High Court Judgment (appeal to Court of Appeal Filed)

  1. 1 Whether Order 46 r.2(1)(b) RoC required prior leave for a mere change of company name
  2. 2 Whether a Voluntary Arrangement and Interim Order remained valid when creditors' meeting was held after IO expiry
  3. 3 Whether the debtor demonstrated ability to pay under s.6(3) IA

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the Bankruptcy Order valid and dismissed the debtor's challenge: a change of company name did not require leave under O.46 r.2(1)(b); the Interim Order expired on 7.1.2025 and the creditors' meeting on 4.2.2025 was invalid so no VA operated to prevent bankruptcy; the debtor failed to establish ability to pay; and the creditors had exhausted available enforcement against the wound‑up principal by filing a proof of debt, entitling them to proceed against the guarantor.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Bankruptcy Order upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs of RM10000.00 to be paid by the Judgment Debtor to the Judgment Creditors