TC Success Jewellery Sdn.Bhd. Primepoint Engineering Sdn.Bhd. PIHAK KETIGA Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia

TC Success Jewellery Sdn.Bhd. Primepoint Engineering Sdn.Bhd. PIHAK KETIGA Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia

Application refused because the court was not satisfied the debt was fully settled given inconsistent evidence, the applicant company is not a statute‑authorised applicant under ss492/493, and a perpetual stay is incompatible with s492 which requires a specified time.

Citation
PA-28PW-46-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner: TC SUCCESS JEWELLERY SDN. BHD.; Respondent: PRIMEPOINT ENGINEERING SDN. BHD.; Third Party: Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia (Malaysian Department of Insolvency)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 December 2023
Case Number
PA-28PW-46-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) / Post Winding Up Application / Application to Terminate or Stay Winding Up Under Sections 492 and 493
Outcome
Application to terminate or perpetually stay the winding up dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Stay of Winding Up, Termination of Winding Up, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
Malay/English
Companies Law Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Winding Up Stay of Winding Up Termination of Winding Up Statutory Interpretation

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

Parties

TC SUCCESS JEWELLERY SDN. BHD.

Petitioner

PRIMEPOINT ENGINEERING SDN. BHD.

Respondent

Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia (Malaysian Department of Insolvency)

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) / Post Winding Up Application / Application to Terminate or Stay Winding Up Under Sections 492 and 493

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the winding up order should be terminated under s493
  2. 2 Whether a perpetual stay of the winding up may be granted under s492
  3. 3 Whether the applicant (the company) is an eligible applicant under ss492/493

Ratio Decidendi

Application refused because the court was not satisfied the debt was fully settled given inconsistent evidence, the applicant company is not a statute‑authorised applicant under ss492/493, and a perpetual stay is incompatible with s492 which requires a specified time.

Court Disposition

Application to terminate or perpetually stay the winding up dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Application to terminate the winding up under Section 493 refused.
  • Application for a perpetual stay under Section 492 refused.