1. ) GST Builder Sdn Bhd 2. ) Kwang Fatt Heng Enterprise Sdn Bhd 1. ) Sabah Development Bank Berhad 2. ) Sundarasan A/L Arumugam 3. ) Ling Sie Kong 4. ) Raveendra Kumar A/L Nathan 5. ) Goodwill Division Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) PENCELAH FON

1. ) GST Builder Sdn Bhd 2. ) Kwang Fatt Heng Enterprise Sdn Bhd 1. ) Sabah Development Bank Berhad 2. ) Sundarasan A/L Arumugam 3. ) Ling Sie Kong 4. ) Raveendra Kumar A/L Nathan 5. ) Goodwill Division Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) PENCELAH FON

The strike-out application failed because the applicants, as unsecured creditors, have statutory locus under s.393(3) CA 2016 to seek examination and remedies against receivers and, by necessary implication, the principal who appointed them; the applicants' pleadings disclose material facts sufficient to raise triable issues of misfeasance, breach of duty and undervalued sales and are not obviously unsustainable on the face of the pleadings; the procedural omission in the intitulement caused no prejudice and was amendable; forum objections are premature at strike-out stage and should be addressed at the leave hearing or by transfer if appropriate; accordingly Enclosure 29 must be...

Citation
JA-28PW-78-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant: GST Builder Sdn. Bhd.; Applicant: Kwang Fatt Heng Enterprises Sdn. Bhd.; 1st Respondent (secured Creditor): Sabah Development Bank Berhad; 2nd Respondent (erstwhile Receiver & Manager): Sundarasan A/L Arumugam; 3rd Respondent (erstwhile Receiver & Manager): Ling Sie Kong; 4th Respondent (current Receiver & Manager): Raveendra Kumar A/L Nathan; 5th Respondent (company in Liquidation): Goodwill Division Sdn. Bhd. (In Liquidation)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 January 2026
Case Number
JA-28PW-78-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up Petition / Post Winding Up Proceedings / Application to Strike Out (enclosure 29) Dismissed at High Court; Leave Application (enclosure 1) Pending; Appeal Filed to Court of Appeal by 1st Respondent
Outcome
Enclosure 29 (1st Respondent's striking out application) dismissed; costs awarded to Applicants; leave application (Enclosure 1) remains to be heard; 1st Respondent has appealed to the Court of Appeal
Legal Topics
Receivers and Managers, Misfeasance and Breach of Duty, Striking Out Under Order 18 R.19 ROC 2012, Forum/jurisdiction (winding Up Court V Civil Division), Leave to Commence Proceedings, Liquidator and Creditors' Remedies
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Receivers and Managers Misfeasance and Breach of Duty Striking Out Under Order 18 R.19 ROC 2012 Forum/jurisdiction (winding Up Court V Civil Division) Leave to Commence Proceedings +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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GST Builder Sdn. Bhd.

Applicant

Kwang Fatt Heng Enterprises Sdn. Bhd.

Applicant

Sabah Development Bank Berhad

1st Respondent (secured Creditor)

Sundarasan A/L Arumugam

2nd Respondent (erstwhile Receiver & Manager)

Ling Sie Kong

3rd Respondent (erstwhile Receiver & Manager)

Raveendra Kumar A/L Nathan

4th Respondent (current Receiver & Manager)

Goodwill Division Sdn. Bhd. (In Liquidation)

5th Respondent (company in Liquidation)

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up Petition / Post Winding Up Proceedings / Application to Strike Out (enclosure 29) Dismissed at High Court; Leave Application (enclosure 1) Pending; Appeal Filed to Court of Appeal by 1st Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether unsecured creditors have locus to apply under s.393(3) Companies Act 2016 to examine conduct of receivers and managers and to sue the secured creditor/principal
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action such that striking out under Order 18 r.19(1) is appropriate
  3. 3 Whether failure to cite the specific statutory provision in the intitulement is fatal and causes prejudice

Ratio Decidendi

The strike-out application failed because the applicants, as unsecured creditors, have statutory locus under s.393(3) CA 2016 to seek examination and remedies against receivers and, by necessary implication, the principal who appointed them; the applicants' pleadings disclose material facts sufficient to raise triable issues of misfeasance, breach of duty and undervalued sales and are not obviously unsustainable on the face of the pleadings; the procedural omission in the intitulement caused no prejudice and was amendable; forum objections are premature at strike-out stage and should be addressed at the leave hearing or by transfer if appropriate; accordingly Enclosure 29 must be...

Court Disposition

Enclosure 29 (1st Respondent's striking out application) dismissed; costs awarded to Applicants; leave application (Enclosure 1) remains to be heard; 1st Respondent has appealed to the Court of Appeal

Orders

  • Enclosure 29 dismissed by High Court
  • 1st Respondent to pay costs of RM5,000.00 to the Applicants subject to allocator fee