PEMPETISYEN Eric Soon Boon Teck and Shuhaidah binti Ahmad for the Petitioner [Messrs Gan Dion & Partner] Jasneeta Kaur Bhullar for the Respondent [Messrs Azmi Fadzly Maha & Sim]

PEMPETISYEN Eric Soon Boon Teck and Shuhaidah binti Ahmad for the Petitioner [Messrs Gan Dion & Partner] Jasneeta Kaur Bhullar for the Respondent [Messrs Azmi Fadzly Maha & Sim]

Because the respondent failed to comply with a statutory demand for RM239,318.22 within 21 days, filed no affidavit in opposition and failed to settle within the court‑granted period (and after an unless order with conditions), the court properly concluded the respondent was unable to pay its debts and granted an order in terms to wind up the respondent.

Citation
WA-28NCC-124-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner: Kawasan Pilihan Sdn Bhd; Respondent: Crecom Burj Group Sdn Bhd; Contributory: Roslinda binti Jaafar
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 August 2022
Case Number
WA-28NCC-124-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Winding Up Petition (companies Act 2016) / Order in Terms Granted (23.8.2022); Respondent Has Filed Appeal
Outcome
Order in Terms granted to wind up the respondent on 23.8.2022; respondent has appealed the decision
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Winding Up, Unless Order, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Insolvency (winding Up) Commercial Law Contract Law Statutory Demand Winding Up Unless Order Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kawasan Pilihan Sdn Bhd

Petitioner

Crecom Burj Group Sdn Bhd

Respondent

Roslinda binti Jaafar

Contributory

Procedural Posture

Winding Up Petition (companies Act 2016) / Order in Terms Granted (23.8.2022); Respondent Has Filed Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent failed to comply with statutory demand under s466(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2016
  2. 2 Whether failure to file an affidavit in opposition and failure to settle within the court's unless period justifies a winding-up order
  3. 3 Whether interim restrictions on disposal of assets and entering new contracts should be imposed

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondent failed to comply with a statutory demand for RM239,318.22 within 21 days, filed no affidavit in opposition and failed to settle within the court‑granted period (and after an unless order with conditions), the court properly concluded the respondent was unable to pay its debts and granted an order in terms to wind up the respondent.

Court Disposition

Order in Terms granted to wind up the respondent on 23.8.2022; respondent has appealed the decision

Orders

  • Winding-up order in terms granted on 23.8.2022
  • Costs awarded of RM10,000 for the petition and enclosure 27