TAN TIEN SENG

TAN TIEN SENG

Yakin Mulia was not a 'contributory' within s.4(1) and thus had no locus standi to oppose; the statutory notice was not a prerequisite but in any event was valid; the judgment debt was enforceable because the conditional stay lapsed when respondent failed to meet conditions and subsequent appeal was dismissed; respondent's failure to comply with demand and to file accounts for five years gave rise to a presumption of insolvency which respondent failed to rebut; accordingly a winding up order under s.218(1)(e) was warranted.

Citation
TAN TIEN SENG
Parties
Petitioners / Judgment Creditors: Tan Tien Seng & Anor; Respondent / Judgment Debtor: Grobina Resorts Sdn Bhd
Court
Malaysian court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) No: MT1 28 1 2006 / Judgment
Outcome
Winding up order made against Grobina Resorts Sdn Bhd under s.218(1)(e) Companies Act 1965
Legal Topics
Winding Up Under S.218, Definition and Locus Standi of Contributory, Statutory Demand, Presumption of Insolvency, Failure to File Statutory Accounts
Source Language
en
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Winding Up Under S.218 Definition and Locus Standi of Contributory Statutory Demand Presumption of Insolvency Failure to File Statutory Accounts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tan Tien Seng & Anor

Petitioners / Judgment Creditors

Grobina Resorts Sdn Bhd

Respondent / Judgment Debtor

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) No: MT1 28 1 2006 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Yakin Mulia has locus standi as a contributory to oppose the winding up petition
  2. 2 Whether the judgment debt is enforceable despite interlocutory appeals and stays
  3. 3 Whether a statutory notice is a prerequisite to a s.218 petition and whether the notice was defective

Ratio Decidendi

Yakin Mulia was not a 'contributory' within s.4(1) and thus had no locus standi to oppose; the statutory notice was not a prerequisite but in any event was valid; the judgment debt was enforceable because the conditional stay lapsed when respondent failed to meet conditions and subsequent appeal was dismissed; respondent's failure to comply with demand and to file accounts for five years gave rise to a presumption of insolvency which respondent failed to rebut; accordingly a winding up order under s.218(1)(e) was warranted.

Court Disposition

Winding up order made against Grobina Resorts Sdn Bhd under s.218(1)(e) Companies Act 1965

Orders

  • Winding up order made against Grobina Resorts Sdn Bhd in terms of the petition
  • Appointment of the Director General of the Insolvency Department as provisional liquidator (as sought in petition)