Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial management

Legal area

Court

29 Jan 2026

1. ) Sukri Bin Ahmad 2. ) Mohd Razuan Bin Abu Kasim 3. ) Azalan Bin Ahmad 4. ) Rashdan Bin Baharuddin 5. ) Harfeezah Binti Mohd Ariff 6. ) Haris Bin Abdul Majid 7. ) Ruhani Binti Ibrahim 8. ) MOMY GOLD SDN BHD 9. ) Anuar Bin Haron 10. ) Eza

Citation

BA-24-25-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24-25-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Discovery ordered in part because specified categories of financial and corporate documents were identified and are relevant and necessary; prayer for an Extraordinary General Meeting refused as outside Order 24; Mareva injunction granted against first defendant (Energy Eco Berhad) up to RM6.5 million because plaintiffs showed a good arguable case and real risk of dissipation; extension to second to fourth defendants refused for lack of evidence of control or ownership by first defendant.
29 Jan 2026

1. ) Sukri Bin Ahmad 2. ) Mohd Razuan Bin Abu Kasim 3. ) Azalan Bin Ahmad 4. ) Rashdan Bin Baharuddin 5. ) Harfeezah Binti Mohd Ariff 6. ) Haris Bin Abdul Majid 7. ) Ruhani Binti Ibrahim 8. ) MOMY GOLD SDN BHD 9. ) Anuar Bin Haron 10. ) Eza

Citation

BA-24-25-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24-25-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Discovery ordered in part because specified financial and corporate documents were relevant and necessary under Order 24; Mareva injunction granted against the first defendant up to RM6.5 million because plaintiffs established a good arguable case and a real risk of dissipation; extension to second to fourth defendants refused for lack of evidence of control or that their assets were D1's assets.
19 Jan 2026

ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD PENCELAH 1. ) MUHAMMAD FIRDAUS BIN HASHIM 2. ) MOHD IKRAM BIN RAHIM 3. ) FOONG SOON FEI 4. ) WONG LI GINN 5. ) WONG CHIN YAP 6. ) TRANSVISION ENGINEERING SDN BHD PIHAK KETIGA Sundarasan Arum

Citation

WA-28JM-32-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28JM-32-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court appointed a Judicial Manager because ASM was shown to be unable to pay its debts (notably two unsatisfied CIPAA awards), the IJM's credible preliminary report established a high probability that rehabilitation would succeed based on significant unencumbered land assets and GDV potential, and there were serious concerns about management's disclosure and related‑party transactions such that the Court’s discretion properly favored placing the company under an independent statutory officer to verify liabilities and maximize creditors' recoveries.
18 Dec 2025

MAJU-TH SDN BHD PENCELAH LEMBAGA TABUNG HAJI

Citation

WA-28JM-8-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28JM-8-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although Maju-TH is insolvent (s.405(1)(a) satisfied), the applicant failed to discharge the strict evidential burden under s.405(1)(b) to show a JMO would be likely to achieve survival as a going concern or a better realisation of assets — the Revised Proposal relied on a non‑binding NDA, lacked proof of ERBE's commitment and financial capacity, and provided no evidence of interim funding — therefore the JMO (Encl 1) was dismissed.
11 Dec 2025

PEMPETISYEN DEVONPORT SDN BHD COLONIAL BEACH AND SPA RESORT SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-28NCC-1191-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-1191-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The statutory demand was validly served and remained unpaid, creating the presumption of inability to pay under s466(1)(a); the Respondent failed to raise a bona fide dispute and adduced no evidence to rebut the presumption; AMGSB's alleged post-petition AOD did not create perfected security and could not defeat the properly founded winding-up petition under s472 — therefore a winding-up order was warranted.
11 Dec 2025

PEMPETISYEN DEVONPORT SDN BHD COLONIAL BEACH AND SPA RESORT SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-28NCC-1191-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-1191-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The statutory demand was validly served and remained unpaid against a final judgment debt; no bona fide dispute or stay existed; the statutory presumption of inability to pay under s.466(1)(a) arose and was unrebutted; post-petition arrangements and an AOD executed after presentation of the petition could not defeat the petition under s.472; accordingly the Court had jurisdiction and correctly made a winding-up order.
3 Dec 2025

PASTPRESENTFUTURE SDN BHD (dahulunya dikenali sebagai Poly Ritz Development Sdn Bhd) PENCELAH 1. ) WAN SAZALI BIN WAN AB GHANI (BERTINDAK DALAM KAPASITI SEBAGAI PENTADBIR HARTA PUSAKA WAN AB GHANI BIN WAN YUSUF 2. ) KEH CHUAN SENG 3. ) TMH

Citation

WA-28JM-8-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28JM-8-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The judge followed the Court of Appeal decision in Million Westlink and held that unsecured creditors have locus to intervene in judicial management proceedings; Rule 13 does not deprive unsecured creditors of the right to be heard, and therefore leave to intervene was granted to the Proposed Interveners.
3 Dec 2025

PASTPRESENTFUTURE SDN BHD (dahulunya dikenali sebagai Poly Ritz Development Sdn Bhd) PENCELAH 1. ) WAN SAZALI BIN WAN AB GHANI (BERTINDAK DALAM KAPASITI SEBAGAI PENTADBIR HARTA PUSAKA WAN AB GHANI BIN WAN YUSUF 2. ) KEH CHUAN SENG 3. ) TMH

Citation

WA-28JM-8-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28JM-8-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that unsecured creditors have locus standi to intervene in judicial management proceedings; Rule 13 of the CRM Rules does not exclude unsecured creditors from being heard and only prescribes notice obligations for those entitled to appoint receivers or certain secured creditors. In view of conflicting Court of Appeal authorities, the High Court followed the decision in Maybank Investment Bank Berhad & Ors v Million Westlink Sdn Bhd and granted leave to intervene to the proposed interveners.
3 Dec 2025

PASTPRESENTFUTURE SDN BHD (dahulunya dikenali sebagai Poly Ritz Development Sdn Bhd) PENCELAH 1. ) WAN SAZALI BIN WAN AB GHANI (BERTINDAK DALAM KAPASITI SEBAGAI PENTADBIR HARTA PUSAKA WAN AB GHANI BIN WAN YUSUF 2. ) KEH CHUAN SENG 3. ) TMH

Citation

WA-28JM-8-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28JM-8-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that Rule 13, properly construed, does not deprive unsecured creditors of the right to be heard in judicial management proceedings; following the Court of Appeal decision in Maybank Investment Bank Berhad & Ors v Million Westlink Sdn Bhd the judge granted leave for the proposed interveners (unsecured creditors) to intervene and be heard.
19 Nov 2025

MAJU HOLDINGS SDN BHD PENCELAH 1. ) BRIDGEX SDN BHD 2. ) Maybank Islamic Berhad 3. ) ANTAH SCHINDLER SDN. BHD. 4. ) ZAFAS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-28JM-18-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28JM-18-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant is insolvent but failed to prove on the required standard that a judicial management order would be likely to achieve the survival of the company as a going concern because (i) the Revised Proposal lacks credible, binding evidence of sufficient funding to complete the Ulu Tiram Turnkey Project and to generate sufficient net proceeds; and (ii) related creditors owed circa RM1.72 billion are left subordinated with no viable plan for settlement, leaving the company irreversibly insolvent; accordingly the JM application is dismissed with costs RM20,000.