Hong Leong Bank Berhad B-Mathavon stores (M) Sdn Bhd

Hong Leong Bank Berhad B-Mathavon stores (M) Sdn Bhd

The court held that the respondent failed to show the debt was disputed on substantial grounds and failed to prove solvency; the JID stood until set aside and the existence of a charge over property did not preclude issuance of the statutory demand or winding up; therefore the petitioner established inability to pay under s.465(1)(e) and the winding up order with appointment of the Official Receiver as interim liquidator and costs was justified.

Citation
WA-28NCC-138-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner: Hong Leong Bank Berhad; Respondent: B‑Mathavon Stores (M) Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 December 2019
Case Number
WA-28NCC-138-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Winding Up Petition Under Companies Act 2016 / Judgment at Final Hearing (winding Up Order Granted)
Outcome
Winding up petition granted
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Statutory Demand, Judgment in Default, Appointment of Interim Liquidator, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Contract Law Winding Up Statutory Demand Judgment in Default Appointment of Interim Liquidator +1 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hong Leong Bank Berhad

Petitioner

B‑Mathavon Stores (M) Sdn Bhd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Winding Up Petition Under Companies Act 2016 / Judgment at Final Hearing (winding Up Order Granted)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was unable to pay its debts under s.465(1)(e) Companies Act 2016
  2. 2 Whether the debt was disputed on substantial grounds so as to defeat a winding up petition
  3. 3 Whether existence of charged property or foreclosure proceedings prevents issuance of statutory notice or winding up

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondent failed to show the debt was disputed on substantial grounds and failed to prove solvency; the JID stood until set aside and the existence of a charge over property did not preclude issuance of the statutory demand or winding up; therefore the petitioner established inability to pay under s.465(1)(e) and the winding up order with appointment of the Official Receiver as interim liquidator and costs was justified.

Court Disposition

Winding up petition granted

Orders

  • Winding up order made against B‑Mathavon Stores (M) Sdn Bhd
  • Appointment of the Official Receiver as Interim Liquidator of the respondent company pursuant to Section 477(1)(a) Companies Act 2016