PEMPETISYEN Thalia Rohaina binti Abdul Latiff for the Petitioner [Messrs Rohaina & Co.] Teoh Chye Yi and Ng Sai Yeang for the Respondent [Messrs Tetuan Raja, Darryl & Loh] PIHAK TERKILAN Angel Ngu for the Bank Pembangunan Malaysia [Messrs L

PEMPETISYEN Thalia Rohaina binti Abdul Latiff for the Petitioner [Messrs Rohaina & Co.] Teoh Chye Yi and Ng Sai Yeang for the Respondent [Messrs Tetuan Raja, Darryl & Loh] PIHAK TERKILAN Angel Ngu for the Bank Pembangunan Malaysia [Messrs L

The court, exercising its discretion under s465(1) Companies Act 2016, dismissed the winding up petition because the respondent was under receivership with secured creditors, the business and essential contracts were being preserved, the power plant produced improved cashflow and supplied public electricity such...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-28NCC-925-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner: COUNTRY EARTH SDN BHD; Respondent: PESAKA TECHNOLOGIES SDN BHD; Secured Creditor: Bank Pembangunan Malaysia
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1 August 2022
Case Number
WA-28NCC-925-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Winding Up Petition / Decision on Winding Up Petition (grounds of Judgment)
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Winding Up Discretion, Inability to Pay Debts, Enforcement of Arbitration Award, Receivership and Secured Charges, Preservation of Going Concern, Public Interest in Essential Services
Companies Law Insolvency Arbitration Contract Law Banking Law Public Interest Law Winding Up Discretion Inability to Pay Debts +4 more

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

COUNTRY EARTH SDN BHD

Petitioner

PESAKA TECHNOLOGIES SDN BHD

Respondent

Bank Pembangunan Malaysia

Secured Creditor

Procedural Posture

Winding Up Petition / Decision on Winding Up Petition (grounds of Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent is unable to pay its debts within s465(1)(e) Companies Act 2016
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to wind up despite an unpaid arbitration award and statutory demand
  3. 3 Effect of receivership and secured charges on creditors' interests and on the utility of a winding up order

Ratio Decidendi

The court, exercising its discretion under s465(1) Companies Act 2016, dismissed the winding up petition because the respondent was under receivership with secured creditors, the business and essential contracts were being preserved, the power plant produced improved cashflow and supplied public electricity such that winding up would yield no practical benefit to creditors and would risk public interest; preservation of the going concern outweighed the petitioner's right to wind up.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition dismissed with no order as to costs