Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Presumption of insolvency

Legal area

Court

10 Dec 2025

PEMPETISYEN SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD HENG SENG & COMPANY SDN BHD

Citation

WA-28NCC-201-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-201-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The statutory notice was validly served and the judgment debt remained unsatisfied beyond the 21-day period; absent any rebuttal evidence from the Company, the statutory presumption of inability to pay under the Companies Act 2016 applied, vesting the court with jurisdiction to grant a winding-up order which was therefore just and equitable.
1 Oct 2025

PEMPETISYEN GUI CHAI CHERN MEXLAND SDN. BHD.

Citation

JA-28NCC-106-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-28NCC-106-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the Petitioner proved an undisputed, liquidated debt of RM2,000,000.00, complied with procedural requirements, and the Respondent produced no affidavit or evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of insolvency under s465(1)(e) read with s466(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2016, the Court properly exercised its discretion to grant a winding‑up order.
29 Aug 2025

PEMPETISYEN AFFIN ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD GLOBAL VETERINARY SDN BHD

Citation

WA-28NCC-631-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-631-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court disregarded the Respondent’s late affidavit for failure to comply with mandatory rule 30(1); the Petition rested on a valid, unsatisfied judgment debt and a served statutory demand, giving rise to the statutory presumption of inability to pay under ss 465(1)(e) and 466(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2016 which the Respondent failed to rebut; accordingly the winding-up petition was granted with costs RM5,000.
4 Aug 2025

PEMPETISYEN FUJIFILM BUSINESS INNOVATION ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LTD. (formerly known as Fuji Xerox Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.) STARHUB HOLDINGS SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-28NCC-581-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-581-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Petitioner satisfied the statutory demand and service requirements; respondent failed to pay or compound within 21 days and failed to file any affidavit to rebut the resulting presumption of insolvency; accordingly the court ordered the respondent company wound up under section 465 Companies Act 2016 and awarded costs to the petitioner.
13 Jun 2025

PEMPETISYEN AMBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD WS RENT-A-CAR SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-28NCC-249-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-249-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found the Sessions Court judgment remained valid, the statutory demand was properly issued and not complied with within 21 days, the respondent failed to prove the alleged settlement or sale of assets and did not rebut the presumption of insolvency; accordingly the winding-up petition succeeded and the respondent company was ordered wound up with the Official Receiver appointed liquidator.
13 Jun 2025

PEMPETISYEN AMBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD WS RENT-A-CAR SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-28NCC-249-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-249-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Failure by the Respondent to pay the judgment debt within 21 days of a valid statutory demand gave rise to a rebuttable presumption of insolvency which the Respondent failed to discharge on the evidence; the petition was not an abuse of process and the Court will wind up the company and appoint the Official Receiver as liquidator.
15 Apr 2025

PEMPETISYEN 1. ) Chung Yoo Hock 2. ) Oceanergy Gases Sdn Bhd Zumatex Engineering Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-28NCC-706-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-706-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that Zumatex’s failure to comply with a valid statutory demand triggered the presumption of inability to pay; the undisputed portion of the judgment debt exceeded the statutory minimum and Zumatex failed to rebut the presumption with its financial evidence; a pending suit challenging only parts of the judgment did not defeat the winding up petition as the judgment remains effective until stayed or set aside; accordingly the winding up order was justified.
26 Aug 2024

PEMPETISYEN BANK ISLAM MALAYSIA BERHAD 5 STAR ROOM HOTEL SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-28NCC-1130-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-1130-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Respondent failed to rebut the statutory presumption of commercial insolvency arising from non‑compliance with the statutory demand and failed to raise a bona fide substantial dispute; therefore the winding up petition must be granted and costs awarded to the petitioner.
4 Jul 2024

PEMPETISYEN PETRONAS LUBRICANTS MARKETING (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD RIGAZ SDN BHD

Citation

WA-28NCC-1104-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-1104-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Respondent's failure to pay the judgment sum after service of a statutory notice created a rebuttable presumption of commercial insolvency which the respondent failed to rebut; the statutory demand sum was properly calculated and any inexactness does not defeat the petition; accordingly the winding up petition must be allowed.
10 Mar 2020

Jaya Teguh Sdn Bhd CTG Property Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-28NCC-531-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-531-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Service of the Ex Parte order, the Section 466 statutory notice and the petition at the respondent's registered address by leaving documents with the company secretary/agent complied with Rule 25 and Rule 18 of the Companies (Winding Up) Rules 1972; the respondent failed to establish substantial injustice from any formal defect; failure to comply with the statutory demand triggered the presumption of insolvency; accordingly the winding up petition succeeds and an order in terms of the petition is granted with costs.