Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Winding‑up proceedings

Legal area

Court

30 Jan 2026

Ling Sie Kiiong Naushad Bin Abdul Rahiman PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) Sujad Sha Bin Abdul Rahman 2. ) Arashad Bin Abdul Rahman PIHAK TERKILAN SALIHIN

Citation

WA-28PW-268-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-268-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found all three directors in contempt: Arashad and Sujad for deliberate non-attendance in breach of the production/attendance orders, and Naushad for attending but failing to produce substantive documentary proof as required by the orders; accordingly the court imposed substantial fines with short default imprisonments and costs to vindicate the rule of law and to address prejudice to the liquidation process.
30 Jan 2026

Ling Sie Kiiong Naushad Bin Abdul Rahiman PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) Sujad Sha Bin Abdul Rahman 2. ) Arashad Bin Abdul Rahman PIHAK TERKILAN SALIHIN

Citation

WA-28PW-268-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-268-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found that Arashad and Sujad deliberately defied express court orders by failing to attend for examination and produce documents and that Naushad, although present, failed to produce substantive documentary proof required by the court orders; accordingly all three were held in contempt and sentenced: Arashad and Sujad fined RM200,000 each, Naushad fined RM100,000, each to pay costs of RM10,000 (subject to allocatur), fines payable within one month and in default each to be committed to prison for 7 days.
24 Jun 2025

1. ) CHAN KAH LON 2. ) CHAN SEE MAI 1. ) CHIN JIA YEE 2. ) CHIN THIEN CHOY 3. ) GIRONA VETERINARY SDN. BHD. 4. ) SOLE BIZ SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22NCC-609-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-609-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the reliefs sought would materially affect the legal status of the wound-up company and therefore cannot be treated as a mere nominal joinder (Scalenus must be joined as plaintiff or leave obtained); and the plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie conspiracy against MHH and its partners—there was no credible evidence of agreement, knowledge or motive, the technical tampering allegations were speculative without expert proof, and the application was tainted by inordinate delay and apparent bad faith.
27 Aug 2024

PEMPETISYEN 1. ) TAN KEN MENG 2. ) WONG TEE MING 1. ) HSL AUTO ENGINEERING SDN BHD 2. ) LIM SHEN LEE

Citation

BA-28NCC-100-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-28NCC-100-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Transfer was refused because the purported principal business premises in Negeri Sembilan were no longer operational and under liquidation/foreclosure, key professionals and proposed liquidators are based in Petaling Jaya making Shah Alam more convenient, respondents had submitted to Shah Alam's jurisdiction by participating in hearings, the virtual/affidavit nature of winding-up reduces the importance of physical forum, and transfer would likely cause delay and risk forum shopping.
3 May 2023

AMBANK (M) BERHAD 1. ) IKHMAS JAYA SDN. BHD. 2. ) TOP BUILDERS CAPITAL BERHAD (dahulunya dikenali sebagai Ikhmas Jaya Group Berhad)

Citation

WA-22NCC-236-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-236-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The re-hearing application was dismissed because the defendants failed to provide a valid explanation for delay or evidence of attempts to secure new counsel, failed to demonstrate an arguable defence to the judgment in default, and the Facilities Agreement (Clause 6.6) expressly permitted the plaintiff's daily interest calculation and monthly compounding, so there was no just cause to re-hear.
6 Oct 2020

Credit Guarantee Corporation Malaysia Berhad 1. Hall Delights Sdn Bhd 2. Ryzarul Anuar Bin Abdul Rahim 3. Ryzarul Azlan Bin Abdul Rahim

Citation

22-1176-2008 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22-1176-2008 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to execute was properly refused because the appellant failed to furnish sufficient and cogent reasons for repeated and lengthy delays in enforcement despite being within the statutory limitation period; being within s6(3) Limitation Act is not decisive and leave is discretionary.
16 Jan 2020

INNOSEVEN SDN BHD BIAXIS (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22C-11-02/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-11-02/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Plaintiff failed to demonstrate special circumstances relating to enforcement of the judgment or any matters occurring after judgment; winding-up proceedings cannot properly be stayed as part of execution; cash flow and project disruption were ordinary, unsupported or known before judgment and thus insufficient to justify a stay; application dismissed.

Malaysia Case Law

Ling Sie Kiiong Naushad Bin Abdul Rahiman PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) Sujad Sha Bin Abdul Rahman 2. ) Arashad Bin Abdul Rahman PIHAK TERKILAN SALIHIN

Ling Sie Kiiong Naushad Bin Abdul Rahiman PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) Sujad Sha Bin Abdul Rahman 2. ) Arashad Bin Abdul Rahman PIHAK TERKILAN SALIHIN

1. ) CHAN KAH LON 2. ) CHAN SEE MAI 1. ) CHIN JIA YEE 2. ) CHIN THIEN CHOY 3. ) GIRONA VETERINARY SDN. BHD. 4. ) SOLE BIZ SDN. BHD.

PEMPETISYEN 1. ) TAN KEN MENG 2. ) WONG TEE MING 1. ) HSL AUTO ENGINEERING SDN BHD 2. ) LIM SHEN LEE

AMBANK (M) BERHAD 1. ) IKHMAS JAYA SDN. BHD. 2. ) TOP BUILDERS CAPITAL BERHAD (dahulunya dikenali sebagai Ikhmas Jaya Group Berhad)

Credit Guarantee Corporation Malaysia Berhad 1. Hall Delights Sdn Bhd 2. Ryzarul Anuar Bin Abdul Rahim 3. Ryzarul Azlan Bin Abdul Rahim

INNOSEVEN SDN BHD BIAXIS (M) SDN BHD