Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Committee of inspection

Legal area

Court

3 Jul 2025

Chatar Singh A/L Santa Singh The Liquidator of Atlas Corporation Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation)

Citation

WA-28PW-13-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-13-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because applicant failed to obtain the mandatory prior leave of the Winding Up Court; the application constituted a new proceeding governed by the Companies Act 2016 (section 509) which limits relief to inspection (not compelled delivery of copies); the documents sought were post-winding up and not shown to be relevant to the applicant's pre-existing Guaranteed Rental Return claim, and no fraud or bad faith by the liquidator was established.
1 Jul 2025

Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor (PKNS) Tinta Anggun Engineering Sdn. Bhd (In Liquidation) PENCELAH NG YIN MENG PIHAK TERKILAN MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD

Citation

WA-28PW-389-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-389-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Having regard to post‑hearing creditor sentiment (withdrawal of Maybank's opposition), the predominance of creditor support by value, the substantial unexplained diminution of assets, material discrepancies in the Statement of Affairs and OR report, and the project's complexity requiring specialist rehabilitation and forensic skills, the Court exercised its discretion under the Companies Act 2016 to substitute the Official Receiver with the nominated private liquidator to better protect the interests of creditors, purchasers and other stakeholders, subject to a Committee of Inspection and Cou…
21 Jan 2025

Dato' Suki Mee FAR ORIGIN SDN. BHD ( DALAM PENGGULUNGAN)

Citation

AA-28PW-40-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-28PW-40-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to commence proceedings against the liquidator is refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case and pecuniary loss; the share transfer allegations are barred by res judicata following prior Court of Appeal determination; the purported irrevocable power of attorney did not confer proprietary rights to Arena Ria and ARSB's liquidator made no claim; a COI is unnecessary and improperly sought; applicant lacks standing to compel directorship changes in PSSB. Application dismissed and costs awarded to respondent RM2000.
25 Jul 2023

Emiprima Sdn Bhd Wonderful Castle Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation)

Citation

B-02(A)-1256-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

B-02(A)-1256-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The High Court erred in accepting the COI's percentage-based calculation under Table C without independent scrutiny. Subsection 479(3) imposes a statutory duty on the winding up court to examine whether a COI-determined remuneration is fair and reasonable when challenged by a contributory holding at least 10%; Table C percentages are not an automatic entitlement for private liquidators. The correct remedy is to remit the matter to the High Court for full taxation to determine a fair and reasonable remuneration supported by particulars of work. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the High Co…
28 Apr 2023

ARKITEK ZAINUDDIN HARUN SRI ALAM SDN BHD (IN CREDITORS VOLUNTRAY LIQUIDATION)

Citation

WA-28PW-342-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-342-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found cause shown to remove the joint liquidators: they proceeded with a COI meeting on 19.11.2020 in the absence of creditor representatives (demonstrating lack of independence/unbias), failed to comply with parts of the Consent Orders (notably inadequate steps to recover substantial overseas funds and failure to deposit land compensation with designated solicitors), and thus were removed; the Court appointed Ralph Ravin Ratnaswamy as liquidator as he was suitably qualified and supported by majority creditors.
28 Apr 2023

ARKITEK ZAINUDDIN HARUN SRI ALAM SDN BHD (IN CREDITORS VOLUNTRAY LIQUIDATION)

Citation

WA-28PW-342-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-342-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Cause shown to remove the joint liquidators: on the balance of probabilities the joint liquidators demonstrated lack of independence and impartiality (proceeding with COI meeting of 19.11.2020 without creditor representation), failed to comply with material terms of consent orders (failure to deposit land compensation as ordered; failure to take adequate steps to pursue recovery of substantial Singapore funds within a reasonable time), thereby undermining creditor confidence and justifying removal under s453(2); replacement by an impartial, qualified liquidator (Ralph Ravin Ratnaswamy) was ap…
20 Sept 2022

SHENCOURT SDN. BHD. (DALAM PENGGULUNGAN) Tetuan Putra Gill (Sebuah Firma) PENCELAH DATO NARENDRAKUMAR JASANI A/L CHUNILAL RUGNATH

Citation

WA-28PW-26-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-26-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

SSB's proof of debt had been rejected by previous joint liquidators and therefore SSB is not a creditor though it is a contributory holding 127,500 shares and thus has locus to apply; the Federal Court order of 28.7.2020 did not bar the distinct reliefs in PW 390; while the creditors' resolution of 17.10.2019 was upheld, the COI was not validly appointed because the contributories' meeting required by Section 241 Companies Act 1965 has not been properly held; consequently resolutions passed at the purported COI meeting on 21.10.2019 (including the withdrawal resolution) are invalid; the Offic…
20 Sept 2022

1. ) Ponnie Govindasamy for the Applicant in both (Enclosure 1) suit PW 26 & PW 390 [Messrs Bodipalar Ponnudirai De Silva] 2. ) Jagjit Singh Gill for the Applicant in (Enclosure 4) suit PW 26 and (Enclosure 5) suit PW 390 [Messrs Putra Gill

Citation

WA-28PW-26-01/2021 & WA-28PW-390-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-26-01/2021 & WA-28PW-390-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

SSB is not a creditor because its proof of debt was rejected and not overturned, but SSB has locus as a contributory holding 127500 shares; the Federal Court upheld the creditors' resolution of 17.10.2019 but the COI was not validly appointed because the requisite contributories' meeting under s241 Companies Act 1965 had not been held/confirmed, therefore resolutions passed at the purported COI (including withdrawal of civil matters and the acceptance of certain PODs) are invalid until the COI is validly formed by compliance with statutory procedure; the Official Receiver is directed to conve…
20 Sept 2022

SHENCOURT SDN. BHD. (DALAM PENGGULUNGAN) Jagjit Singh Gill PIHAK TERKILAN Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia

Citation

WA-28PW-390-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-390-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

SSB's proof of debt was previously rejected and remains rejected, so SSB is not a creditor though it is a contributory holding 127,500 shares and has locus to challenge; the Federal Court order of 28.7.2020 upheld the creditors' resolution of 17.10.2019 but did not render ineffective the statutory requirement under Section 241 Companies Act 1965 that the COI be confirmed by a contributories meeting; consequently the purported COI formed on 21.10.2019 and its resolutions (including the Withdrawal Resolution) are not yet valid or binding until the contributories' meeting confirms the COI or s24…
9 Jul 2021

Kelly Khoo for the Applicants [Messrs Malis & Khoo] S Raven and Mohammad Danial bin Hazizan for the Respondents [Messrs S Ravenesan]

Citation

POST (WINDING UP) NO. WA-28PW-62-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

WINDING UP
Case number

POST (WINDING UP) NO. WA-28PW-62-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the applicants demonstrated a prima facie case and that the contested sums in the consent order were unquantified and therefore could not be recovered by proof of debt in the winding up; accordingly leave under s.471 was granted but conditioned: applicants must pursue taxation of costs under Order 59 rule 7 on the existing OS 487 and not commence the proposed new originating summons to avoid multiplicity of expensive litigation.