Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Winding up petition

Legal area

Court

9 Mar 2026

Pestech Sdn Bhd CEEC TIANJIN ELECTRIC POWER (M) SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24NCC-17-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-17-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The settlement agreements (Settlement Agreement No.1 and Settlement Agreement No.2) were valid and not credibly challenged, rendering the Debt undisputable on substantial grounds; accordingly a winding-up petition based on the statutory demand has a real prospect of success and the Plaintiff failed to establish grounds for a Fortuna injunction, so the originating summons must be dismissed.
6 Mar 2026

TTDI KL METROPOLIS SDN BHD China Construction Yangtze River (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-24NCC-45-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-45-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court was bound by Bluedream: an adjudication decision under CIPAA is not disputable in winding up proceedings; the proper forum to seek relief once a petition is presented is the winding up court; accordingly the Plaintiff's originating summons seeking a Fortuna injunction was dismissed and the application lacked merit.
25 Feb 2026

MLABS SYSTEMS BERHAD LONGHOUSE FILMS SDN BHD (DALAM PENYELESAIAN)

Citation

BA-24NCC-129-11/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCC-129-11/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because there existed a clear, genuine and substantial dispute as to the legal character of the RM500,000.00 payment supported by contemporaneous documents and competing evidence, and because the dispute required contractual interpretation and factual findings unsuitable for insolvency proceedings, the Plaintiff crossed the Fortuna threshold and injunction was granted to restrain presentation and advertisement of the winding up petition based on the statutory notice dated 23.10.2025.
25 Feb 2026

GAIA PLAS SDN BHD EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF MALAYSIA BERHAD

Citation

WA-24NCC-35-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-35-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court dismissed both applications because the judgment in default of appearance (JID) remained valid and enforceable, the Plaintiff produced no material to establish a genuine and substantial defence to render the Debt disputable, and a Fortuna injunction cannot be granted where the debt is undisputed; accordingly the injunctions sought were refused and costs were ordered as stated.
13 Jan 2026

FORAYPACK INDUSTRY SDN BHD INDOPACKAGING (M) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24NCvC-2591-11/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-2591-11/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Plaintiff failed to cross the high threshold for a Fortuna injunction because its case on credit terms is inconsistent and fact dependent, and even accepting some invoices may be premature a substantial undisputed sum (identified as RM1,449,812.87) remains payable; therefore the intended winding up petition has a real prospect of success and restraint is not justified; application dismissed with costs RM5,000.
21 Aug 2025

ENERGY EQUIPMENT TECH SDN BHD STRIKE MARINE (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC-611-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-611-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Plaintiff failed to establish a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds because the Letter of Assurance, read in its express terms and in light of the CPA's Entire Agreement clause, did not relieve the Plaintiff of its contractual payment obligations; the Plaintiff also failed to demonstrate commercial solvency or irreparable harm. Consequently the Fortuna injunction could not be granted and the application was dismissed with costs.
19 Dec 2024

ISC SDN BHD Le Bourne Sdn Bhd

Citation

BL-24NCC-5-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-24NCC-5-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for a second Fortuna injunction was dismissed because the debt was established by summary judgment in the Sessions Court and affirmed by the High Court, there was no sufficient bona fide dispute or prospect of success on appeal to justify restraining enforcement, and the plaintiff's application amounted to an abuse of process seeking to avoid a valid judgment.
12 Nov 2024

NOVABRITE LIGHTING SDN BHD EMRAIL SDN BHD PENCELAH 1. ) PARUSHAN WINPOINT SDN BHD 2. ) BALARANEE CONSTRUCTION. 3. ) Kuwait Finance House (Malaysia) Berhad 4. ) SUTRA RAIL SDN BHD (sebelum ini dirujuk sebagai SUTRA FABRICATORS SDN BHD) PIHAK

Citation

WA-28JM-14-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28JM-14-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

JMA6 was struck out and its filing set aside because Novabrite failed to prove mandatory statutory preconditions (no evidence that nominated JM was a licensed insolvency practitioner and no substantiated evidence of a reasonable probability of rehabilitating Emrail), and on the facts JMA6 was an abuse of process filed predominantly to trigger the moratorium and delay creditors; the Court acted ex proprio motu to cure the abuse and granted leave nunc pro tunc to validate Petition 249 such that winding up may proceed; leave to intervene for Balaranee was allowed.
26 Sept 2024

ELIN HONG PEI SHANG 1. ) TBH WELLNESS SDN. BHD. 2. ) TBH WELLNESS (ECO SANCTUARY) SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24NCC-424-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-424-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the plaintiff proved impracticability because the 1st Defendant deliberately frustrated validly requisitioned EGMs by refusing to attend, and the prior refusal of an ad interim injunction indicated the balance of convenience favored proceeding; the Licensing Agreement had been terminated and the EGM notices complied with statutory requirements, therefore the court exercised its discretion to grant the s.314 relief and ordered the proposed EGM to be convened and conducted as directed by the court.
26 Aug 2024

ISC SDN BHD LE BOURNE SDN BHD

Citation

BL-24NCC-4-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-24NCC-4-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found the plaintiff demonstrated a bona fide dispute grounded in the specific contractual 'call-off' terms which required resolution at full trial rather than by affidavit, and that without injunctive relief the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm and its appeal would be rendered futile; accordingly a Fortuna injunction was justified to preserve the status quo pending the appeal.