PEMPETISYEN DEVONPORT SDN BHD COLONIAL BEACH AND SPA RESORT SDN. BHD.

PEMPETISYEN DEVONPORT SDN BHD COLONIAL BEACH AND SPA RESORT SDN. BHD.

The injunction was dismissed because there was no live basis for injunctive relief once the related strike‑out application was withdrawn and because the mandatory statutory requirement to advertise and gazette a winding‑up petition under Rule 24 precludes the court from restraining those steps; the respondent's grounds (service, appeal, solvency) are matters for the substantive petition hearing and do not justify interim injunctive relief.

Citation
WA-28NCC-1191-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner: Devonport Sdn Bhd; Respondent: Colonial Beach Resort
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 February 2024
Case Number
WA-28NCC-1191-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) / Interlocutory Injunction Application (enclosure 6) at Inter‑parte Stage; Application Dismissed
Outcome
Enclosure 6 (application for injunction) dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Winding Up Petitions, Advertisement and Gazette Requirements Under Rule 24, Service of Statutory Notice (s 466), Effect of Appeal on Execution, Irreparable Harm, Solvency as Defence
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Winding Up Petitions Advertisement and Gazette Requirements Under Rule 24 Service of Statutory Notice (s 466) Effect of Appeal on Execution Irreparable Harm +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Devonport Sdn Bhd

Petitioner

Colonial Beach Resort

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) / Interlocutory Injunction Application (enclosure 6) at Inter‑parte Stage; Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can grant an injunction restraining the advertisement and gazetting of a winding‑up petition under Rule 24 once the petition is filed
  2. 2 Whether alleged irregular service of the s 466 notice and a pending appeal justify injunctive relief
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's alleged solvency precludes winding‑up or justifies an injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction was dismissed because there was no live basis for injunctive relief once the related strike‑out application was withdrawn and because the mandatory statutory requirement to advertise and gazette a winding‑up petition under Rule 24 precludes the court from restraining those steps; the respondent's grounds (service, appeal, solvency) are matters for the substantive petition hearing and do not justify interim injunctive relief.

Court Disposition

Enclosure 6 (application for injunction) dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Enclosure 6 dismissed
  • Respondent ordered to pay costs to the Petitioner