PEMPETISYEN PIONEER MILLION TECH SDN BHD NEOVEST SDN.BHD

PEMPETISYEN PIONEER MILLION TECH SDN BHD NEOVEST SDN.BHD

The court found the respondent produced no credible evidence of solvency and that the allegations of forgery or duress were unsubstantiated, tardy and inconsistent (police reports lodged after service, undated WhatsApp); accordingly the presumption of commercial insolvency was not rebutted and an order for winding...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-28NCC-239-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner: Pioneer Million Tech Sdn Bhd; Respondent: Neovest Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 October 2022
Case Number
WA-28NCC-239-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up / Final Judgment (winding Up Order)
Outcome
Winding up order granted (Order in Terms)
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Inability to Pay Debts, Abuse of Process, Section 465(1)(e), Section 466(1)(a)
Company Law Insolvency Commercial Law Winding Up Inability to Pay Debts Abuse of Process Section 465(1)(e) Section 466(1)(a)

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pioneer Million Tech Sdn Bhd

Petitioner

Neovest Sdn Bhd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up / Final Judgment (winding Up Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent company is unable to pay its debts such that a winding up order is justified
  2. 2 Whether the Petition amounted to an abuse of process due to alleged falsification/duress in the Letter of Undertaking
  3. 3 Whether the respondent has rebutted the presumption of commercial insolvency by adducing evidence of solvency

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the respondent produced no credible evidence of solvency and that the allegations of forgery or duress were unsubstantiated, tardy and inconsistent (police reports lodged after service, undated WhatsApp); accordingly the presumption of commercial insolvency was not rebutted and an order for winding up was granted under ss.465(1)(e) and 466(1)(a) Companies Act 2016.

Court Disposition

Winding up order granted (Order in Terms)

Orders

  • Order in Terms for paragraph 15 prayers (a), (b) and (c) of the Petition (winding up of Neovest Sdn Bhd)