Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Winding‑up petition

Legal area

Court

30 Apr 2026

PEMPETISYEN Small Medium Enterprise Development Bank Malaysia Berhad Srimuda Jaya Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

JA-28NCC-16-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-28NCC-16-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Petitioner met the statutory requirements under s.466(1)(a) by proving a judgment debt and valid service of the statutory notice; respondent failed to rebut the presumption of inability to pay with credible evidence, there was no bona fide dispute as to the debt, and no recognised ground to exercise the court's discretion to refuse winding-up; consequently a winding-up order was granted and the Director General of Insolvency appointed liquidator.
5 Mar 2026

SHINE DC TECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD. 1. ) NI, KE 2. ) SHINE TECHNOLOGY PTE LTD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-321-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-321-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Affidavits were not expunged because the jurat defects were procedural irregularities that did not go to the root of the oath; the interim injunction was refused because, although there is a serious issue to be tried, damages are an adequate remedy for commercial losses and the balance of convenience disfavors an injunction that would unduly restrain the Defendants and interfere with winding-up proceedings pending in another High Court.
27 Feb 2026

MEGAFEST SDN BHD (DALAM LIKUIDASI) 1. ) SIVANANTHAM A/L MUTHU KARPAN 2. ) LIM KUI YONG 3. ) LIM KWEE GEE 4. ) Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi Selaku Wakil Sah Dan Pengurus Dan Penerima Estet Lim Thian Hock @ Lim Thiam Hock, Simati (Dalam Kebankra

Citation

J-02(NCvC)(W)-761-05/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

J-02(NCvC)(W)-761-05/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Allowed appeals against directors/insiders for void voluntary settlements within the 2‑year twilight and breach of directors' duties due to absence of valuable consideration or documentation; held fraudulent preference requires dominant intention and that Cemerlang Coke's receipts (pre‑petition cheques) were made under commercial pressure/no dominant intention so were not fraudulent, but the post‑petition payment (7th cheque) was not validated and must be set aside.
25 Feb 2026

PEMPETISYEN ANG JIMMY TJUN MIN 1. ) TJIANG GIOK MOY 2. ) ANG EILEEN 3. ) SRI SKUDAI SDN. BHD.

Citation

JA-28NCC-200-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-28NCC-200-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to cross‑examine was refused because the Petitioner failed to meet the heightened burden required in winding‑up proceedings: there was sufficient affidavit and contemporaneous documentary evidence to decide the petition, the proposed cross‑examination would likely only repeat affidavit averments and constitute a fishing expedition, and the late timing and absence of supporting documents undermined bona fides; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application and refuse leave.
4 Feb 2026

BOILERMASTER SDN BHD TANDEX CHEMICALS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC-712-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-712-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the defendant held a valid and enforceable CIPAA adjudication decision and enforcement order and the plaintiff had failed to pay, there was no sufficiently real and imminent actionable wrong to justify quia timet relief; consequently the defendant was entitled to pursue winding-up proceedings and the quia timet application was dismissed.
8 Jan 2026

PEMPETISYEN CENTRAL SUGARS REFINERY SDN BHD HOLSTEN MARKETING (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-28NCC-572-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-572-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Service was valid as it was effected at the registered office on the Company Secretary who is an officer; the Respondent’s counterclaim did not demonstrate a realistic prospect of success and thus could not defeat the petition; combining the HC and CA judgments into one petition was legitimate as they arose from the same proceedings; accordingly the winding‑up petition was granted and the striking out application dismissed, with costs awarded to the Petitioner.
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.
6 Nov 2025

IBC TOURS CORPORATION (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD GO & AWAY TRAVEL TOURISM SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC-301-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-301-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of deliberate and wilful disobedience of the interlocutory order on the material before the court; the evidence showed inadvertence and prompt remedial steps by the defendant and its solicitors, therefore leave to commence committal proceedings under Order 52 r3 was refused and the application dismissed with costs.
6 Nov 2025

PENS HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. HAMZAH JAAFAR (P) SDN. BHD.

Citation

RA-24NCvC-66-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

RA-24NCvC-66-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the evidence the court found the defendant's statement of account was not bona fide disputed on substantial grounds, the plaintiff failed to prove irreparable harm and its claimed solvency was not convincing; therefore the Fortuna injunction was refused and the originating summons in content 1 dismissed with costs of RM5,000 subject to taxation.
27 Oct 2025

Pembinaan BY Sdn. Bhd. Minda Muhibah Sdn. bhd. PENCELAH China State Construction Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-28JM-9-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28JM-9-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

China State, as an unsecured creditor, had locus to intervene. The Applicant failed to discharge the burden under s.405(1)(b) CA 2016 to show that a judicial management order was likely to achieve the survival of the company because there was no credible evidence of sufficient financing or a real prospect of rehabilitation; accordingly the JMA (Encl 1) was dismissed. Leave nunc pro tunc was granted to China State to validate its winding-up petition filed during the moratorium due to lack of knowledge of the moratorium at time of filing and prejudice if leave refused.