Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Liquidation

Legal area

Court

3 Nov 2025

PEMPETISYEN IVMI SDN BHD KTL SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-28NCC-544-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-544-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The respondent failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute on substantial grounds: the purported cross-claim was raised belatedly without cogent contemporaneous evidence and lacked bona fides; the challenge to the interest claim did not eliminate the principal debt which exceeded the statutory threshold; the respondent failed to rebut the presumption of insolvency arising from non-compliance with the statutory demand; consequently the winding-up order and appointment of the Official Receiver were properly granted and costs awarded.
30 Oct 2025

1. ) Alliance Investment Bank Berhad 2. ) AmBank (M) Berhad 3. ) Malayan Banking Berhad 4. ) Malaysian Industrial Development Finance Berhad GULA PERAK BERHAD DALAM LIKUIDASI)

Citation

B-02(NCC)(A)-1168-07/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCC
Case number

B-02(NCC)(A)-1168-07/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the appeals because the ex parte leave application was not made bona fide and constituted an abuse of process, material proofs of debt were admitted without proper scrutiny and related-party votes distorted the statutory 75% approval threshold, the scheme's dominant purpose was to release the guarantor rather than rescue the company, and the High Court failed to properly analyze these matters and rendered non-speaking reasoning; accordingly the impugned High Court orders were set aside and the scheme declared invalid.
22 May 2025

HONG LEONG ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD SONATA CREST SDN BHD PENCELAH MEGAFEST SDN. BHD. PIHAK TERKILAN MAPLE TRICOT INDUSTRIES SDN BHD

Citation

JB-24FC-83-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-24FC-83-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Company failed to establish a proprietary interest in the land (its pleaded remedy was predominantly damages and it did not plead grounds under s340 NLC to defeat the registered transfer or charge), the Plaintiff had no notice of any subsisting caveat at the time the charge was created, and the Order for Sale had been drawn up and perfected; therefore the Company was not entitled to intervene or to a stay in the foreclosure proceeding and the proper remedy was to commence a fresh action. Both intervention applications were dismissed with costs.
7 Mar 2025

CLASSIC MARITIME INC 1. ) LION DIVERSIFIED HOLDINGS BERHAD (DALAM LIKUIDASI) 2. ) Benapro Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

W-02(A)-1956-10/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-02(A)-1956-10/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The appellant failed to discharge the evidential burden that the liquidator breached his duty to obtain the best price; the liquidator acted within his discretion, ran a public tender and relied on a licensed corporate finance valuation (with a marketability discount) producing a sale price not shown to be undervalue; the 26 August 2021 directions were final and peremptory judicial orders appealable to this Court, so the appellant should have appealed rather than invoke section 517 to set aside a court order; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
27 Aug 2024

1. ) Nor Badril Binti Mohd Noor 2. ) Mohd Roslan Bin Mohd Noor 3. ) Nordiana Binti Mohd Noor 4. ) Che Nor Bidari Binti Mohd Noor 5. ) Mohd Jamil Bin Mohd Noor 6. ) Mohamad Adnan Bin Mohamad Noor 7. ) Mohd Naeem Bin Mohd Noor 8. ) Mohamad Na

Citation

KA-22NCvC-38-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-22NCvC-38-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs lacked locus standi because they were not registered shareholders, had not obtained letters of administration, and the company had been finally wound up with matters under the liquidator's control; consequently the preliminary issue under Order 33 disposed of the action and the court struck out the writ and made associated interlocutory applications academic.
30 Jul 2024

CK RUBBER INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD. 1. ) Shivdev Singh A/l Lal Harcharan Singh (Yang Beramal Di Bawah Nama Tetuan L. H. Singh & Co.) 2. ) DSG HOLDING SDN BHD

Citation

AA-24NCvC-53-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-24NCvC-53-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The proposed intervener acted and signed the consent judgment as agent/director of Defendant One and not in a personal capacity; he failed to demonstrate a separate direct interest or credible evidence of fraud or forgery that would justify intervention under O 15 r 6(2)(b); therefore the application to intervene is without merit and is dismissed with costs.
30 Oct 2023

WONG WENG FOO & CO. Lim San Peen (Dalam Kapasiti Sebagai Pelikuidasi London Biscuits Berhad)(dalam Penyelesaian))

Citation

W-02(A)-1991-10/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-02(A)-1991-10/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Termination benefits and indemnity in lieu of notice do not constitute wages or salary under section 527 Companies Act 2016 and therefore may not be paid in priority to the body of unsecured creditors; the liquidator's payment of such sums amounted to an unlawful preference warranting leave to sue and setting aside his discharge.
11 Oct 2023

SKN Land & Development Sdn Bhd Crest Worldwide Resources Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) PENCELAH 1. ) MUDAJAYA CORPORATION BERHAD 2. ) Nazura Dilnasheen Zaman Khan 3. ) SKN EQUITIES & ASSETS BERHAD 4. ) SKN Equities & Assets Berhad 5. ) Jason Wil

Citation

WA-28PW-527-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-527-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application to terminate or permanently stay winding-up dismissed because applicant failed to satisfy the requirements of section 493 CA 2016: debts were not discharged, the pledged sum did not extinguish liabilities, directors had not complied with statutory duties, there was evidence of questionable dealings warranting investigation, and the application was motivated to frustrate liquidator's inquiries.
20 Oct 2022

Kelly Khoo Seo Ju for the Applicant [Messrs Malis & Khoo] Ahmad Ezmeel bin Ahmad Tarmizi for Wong Weng Foo the Liquidator (for Kilang Papan Wakaf Tapai Sdn Bhd) (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) [Messrs Ezmeel & Co.] PENCELAH Lau Kee Se

Citation

WA-28PW-224-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-224-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that the consent/compromise order dated 8.10.2021 admitted the applicant's claim of RM1,425,000 and therefore no fresh POD was required; pursuant to statutory provisions on proof of debts and insolvency practice the applicant is entitled to be paid the dividends he missed and the joint liquidators were ordered to pay 65% (RM926,250) within seven days; objections by one liquidator that a new POD must be lodged and that the payment must await a general distribution were rejected and treated as matters that should have been raised earlier and are barred by res judicata.
3 Oct 2022

Kwan Will Sen and Pang Huey Lynn for the Liquidator [Messrs Lim Chee Wee Partnership] Tan Eng Kiat and Yap Bing Yew for the Wong Weng Foo & Co. [Messrs Gan, Lee & Tan]

Citation

WA-28PW-139-05/2021 & WA-28PW-282-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-139-05/2021 & WA-28PW-282-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the liquidator acted reasonably and within statutory and court-authorised powers: retention of employees and payments were commercially justified to maximise value and enabled a packaged sale; remuneration and payments were sanctioned by a prior Validation Order and schedule; breaches or delays in procedural rules were either inapplicable (no COI) or directory and curable without substantial injustice; no real conflict or personal unfitness proven to justify removal, and continuity favored appointment of Victor Saw.