MULTAZAM DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD DIRIJOHAN SDN BHD

MULTAZAM DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD DIRIJOHAN SDN BHD

The application was dismissed because the court found (1) the Originating Summons was a defensive action not requiring leave under Section 471(1); (2) the Section 466 notice was a demand to enforce an existing judgment and did not require a fresh DGI sanction; and (3) the Plaintiff failed to show the judgment debt was bona fide disputed on substantial grounds or that a winding up petition would be bound to fail, therefore the Fortuna injunction threshold was not met; costs awarded RM10,000 to the Defendant.

Citation
WA-24NCC-781-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Multazam Development Sdn Bhd; Defendant: Dirijohan Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 July 2023
Case Number
WA-24NCC-781-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (fortuna Injunction Under Companies Act 2016) / Judgment on Application (dismissed)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Fortuna Injunction, Winding Up Petition, Statutory Demand (section 466), Leave Requirement (section 471), Sanction by Director General of Insolvency, Enforcement of Judgment
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Commercial Litigation Fortuna Injunction Winding Up Petition Statutory Demand (section 466) Leave Requirement (section 471) +2 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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Multazam Development Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

Dirijohan Sdn Bhd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (fortuna Injunction Under Companies Act 2016) / Judgment on Application (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave under Section 471(1) CA 2016 was required before bringing this application
  2. 2 Whether the Section 466(1)(a) notice was defective for want of a fresh sanction from the Director General of Insolvency
  3. 3 Whether the debt under the judgment was bona fide disputed on substantial grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the court found (1) the Originating Summons was a defensive action not requiring leave under Section 471(1); (2) the Section 466 notice was a demand to enforce an existing judgment and did not require a fresh DGI sanction; and (3) the Plaintiff failed to show the judgment debt was bona fide disputed on substantial grounds or that a winding up petition would be bound to fail, therefore the Fortuna injunction threshold was not met; costs awarded RM10,000 to the Defendant.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application in Enclosure 1 dismissed
  • Costs of RM10,000 awarded to the Defendant, subject to allocator fee