PEMPETISYEN COUNTRY EARTH SDN BHD PESAKA TECHNOLOGIES SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN Bank Pembangnan Malaysia Bhd

PEMPETISYEN COUNTRY EARTH SDN BHD PESAKA TECHNOLOGIES SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN Bank Pembangnan Malaysia Bhd

The Court exercised its discretion to dismiss the winding up petition because preservation of the Respondent as a going concern and continuity of an essential public service (local energy supply) outweighed the Petitioner’s claim: the Receiver & Manager maintained and improved operations, the only material assets are project‑specific plant likely to be scrapped if wound up, secured creditors exist and the Petitioner would be paid only from any surplus, so winding up would not benefit creditors or the public.

Citation
WA-28NCC-925-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner: Country Earth Sdn Bhd; Respondent: Pesaka Technologies Sdn Bhd; Secured Creditor / Intervener: 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 Under Companies Act 2016 S465(1)(e) / Judgment on Petition (dismissed)
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Ability to Pay Debts, Registered Arbitration Award, Statutory Demand, Receivership, Going Concern Preservation, Public Interest in Essential Services
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Insolvency and Liquidation Arbitration Contract Law Banking Law Public Interest / Energy Regulation Winding Up Ability to Pay Debts +5 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 3 Authorities cited 6 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 / Intervener

Procedural Posture

Winding Up Petition Under Companies Act 2016 S465(1)(e) / Judgment on Petition (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent is unable to pay its debts under s465(1)(e) of the Companies Act 2016
  2. 2 Whether registration of an arbitration award and service of statutory demand justify winding up
  3. 3 Effect of existing receivership and secured creditors on the appropriateness of winding up

Ratio Decidendi

The Court exercised its discretion to dismiss the winding up petition because preservation of the Respondent as a going concern and continuity of an essential public service (local energy supply) outweighed the Petitioner’s claim: the Receiver & Manager maintained and improved operations, the only material assets are project‑specific plant likely to be scrapped if wound up, secured creditors exist and the Petitioner would be paid only from any surplus, so winding up would not benefit creditors or the public.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.