MOHAMMAD ANSAR BIN ABDUL RASHID Chong Chuan Long [PELIKUIDASI NAUTICAL WEALTH SDN BHD (DALAM LIKUIDASI) (NO SYARIKAT.: 201101006650 (934787-M)] PENCELAH HAI MING DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.

MOHAMMAD ANSAR BIN ABDUL RASHID Chong Chuan Long [PELIKUIDASI NAUTICAL WEALTH SDN BHD (DALAM LIKUIDASI) (NO SYARIKAT.: 201101006650 (934787-M)] PENCELAH HAI MING DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.

The Court dismissed the application to set aside the Validation Order and dismissed the related prayers; because the primary relief was refused, the earlier refusal to grant a stay became academic and no stay was required. Costs were ordered against the Applicant to both the Respondent and the Intervener.

Citation
WA-28PW-47-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant / Perayu: Mohammad Ansar bin Abdul Rashid; Respondent / Liquidator of Nautical Wealth Sdn Bhd (in Liquidation): Chong Chuan Long; Respondent: Hai Ming Development Sdn Bhd; Company (subject of Winding Up): Nautical Wealth Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 October 2024
Case Number
WA-28PW-47-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding‑up) Application to Set Aside Validation Order / Judgment (application Dismissed)
Outcome
Application dismissed (prayers 1(i) and 1(ii) dismissed); earlier stay application (prayer 1(iii)) previously dismissed; costs awarded against Applicant.
Legal Topics
Winding‑up, Validation Order, Stay of Execution, Consent Judgment, Section 517 Companies Act 2016
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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Ansar bin Abdul Rashid

Applicant / Perayu

Chong Chuan Long

Respondent / Liquidator of Nautical Wealth Sdn Bhd (in Liquidation)

Hai Ming Development Sdn Bhd

Respondent

Nautical Wealth Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation)

Company (subject of Winding Up)

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding‑up) Application to Set Aside Validation Order / Judgment (application Dismissed)

  1. 1 Whether the ex‑parte Validation Order dated 12.12.2023 should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the decision of the liquidator to cause the Company to enter into the Consent Judgment dated 16.11.2023 should be reversed
  3. 3 Whether a stay of execution of the Validation Order should be granted pending disposal of the setting‑aside application

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the application to set aside the Validation Order and dismissed the related prayers; because the primary relief was refused, the earlier refusal to grant a stay became academic and no stay was required. Costs were ordered against the Applicant to both the Respondent and the Intervener.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed (prayers 1(i) and 1(ii) dismissed); earlier stay application (prayer 1(iii)) previously dismissed; costs awarded against Applicant.

Orders

  • Prayer 1(i) to set aside the Validation Order dated 12.12.2023 dismissed
  • Prayer 1(ii) to reverse the decision causing the Company to enter the Consent Judgment dated 16.11.2023 dismissed