SABAH DEVELOPMENT BANK BERHAD TYL LAND & DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD PEMPETISYEN MCC OVERSEAS (M) SDN BHD

SABAH DEVELOPMENT BANK BERHAD TYL LAND & DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD PEMPETISYEN MCC OVERSEAS (M) SDN BHD

The applicant had elected to value the charged property and participate in the liquidation for the unsecured shortfall (s524(1)(b)) as evidenced by contemporaneous documents, communications with the Official Receiver, voting at the creditors' meeting and other conduct; there was no mistake justifying expungement under Rule 95 or the court's inherent jurisdiction; the motion is dismissed and the applicant must bear costs.

Citation
WA-28PW-255-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner: MCC Overseas (M) Sdn Bhd; Respondent: TYL Land & Development Sdn Bhd; Applicant: Sabah Development Bank Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 March 2022
Case Number
WA-28PW-255-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Post Winding Up / Hearing on Motion to Expunge Proofs of Debt Under Rule 95
Outcome
Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Proofs of Debt, Secured Creditor Election, Section 524 Companies Act 2016, Rule 95 Companies (winding Up) Rules 1972, Expungement of Proof of Debt, Liquidator's Discretion
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Insolvency Banking and Finance Proofs of Debt Secured Creditor Election Section 524 Companies Act 2016 Rule 95 Companies (winding Up) Rules 1972 Expungement of Proof of Debt +1 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MCC Overseas (M) Sdn Bhd

Petitioner

TYL Land & Development Sdn Bhd

Respondent

Sabah Development Bank Berhad

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Post Winding Up / Hearing on Motion to Expunge Proofs of Debt Under Rule 95

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's proofs of debt could be expunged under Rule 95 or the court's inherent jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the applicant had elected under s524(1)(b) to value the charged property and rank as unsecured creditor for shortfall
  3. 3 Whether the proofs were filed by mistake or were estopped by the applicant's conduct (voting, communications with the Official Receiver, participation in liquidation)

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant had elected to value the charged property and participate in the liquidation for the unsecured shortfall (s524(1)(b)) as evidenced by contemporaneous documents, communications with the Official Receiver, voting at the creditors' meeting and other conduct; there was no mistake justifying expungement under Rule 95 or the court's inherent jurisdiction; the motion is dismissed and the applicant must bear costs.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed

Orders

  • Motion dismissed
  • Costs of MYR 12000 to be paid by the Applicant to the Respondent