THEOW SAY KOW @ TEOH KIANG SENG, HENRY v 1. ) HIGHWAY LANDMARK SDN. BHD. 2. ) TAN SAI HONG 3. ) TEOH KIANG HONG

pa-28ncc-124-08-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 12 November 2025 • PA-28NCC-124-08/2025 • 25 min read

70 cases cited (2 SG, 68 foreign)

Catchwords

1. Petitioner filed a winding-up petition under Sections 465(1)(f), and (h) of the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016). 2. Respondent filed an application to struck out the Petition under Order 18 Rule 19(1) (a), (b) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012) and/or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court (Enclosure 5). 3. This Court has allowed Enclosure 5 and dismissed Petition.

Judges (1)

Suzana binti Muhamad Said Delivered

Counsel (4)

Gregory Ling Firm Ismail Khoo & Associates Firm Gregory Ling Counsel Respondent Indhumaliniy a/p Mahendiran Counsel Petitioner

Parties (4)

HIGHWAY LANDMARK Sdn Bhd Respondent Tan Sai Hong Respondent Teoh Kiang Hong Respondent Theow Say Kow @ Teoh Kiang Seng, Henry Petitioner

Case Significance

THEOW SAY KOW @ TEOH KIANG SENG, HENRY v 1. ) HIGHWAY LANDMARK SDN. BHD. 2. )... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated November 12, 2025 (citation: pa-28ncc-124-08-2025). The case was decided by Suzana binti Muhamad Said.

What was the outcome of THEOW SAY KOW @ TEOH KIANG SENG, HENRY v 1. ) HIGHWAY LANDMARK SDN. BHD. 2. )...?

THEOW SAY KOW @ TEOH KIANG SENG, HENRY v 1. ) HIGHWAY LANDMARK SDN. BHD. 2. )... is a High Court decision dated November 12, 2025. The case was heard by Suzana binti Muhamad Said. See the full judgment for details.

Statutes Cited

Companies Act 1965 (Cap 777)

s 218

Companies Act 2016 (Cap 777)

Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (70)

SLR (2)

[1998] 1 SLR 374 [2018] 1 SLR 763

UK (3)

[1972] 2 All ER 492 [1972] 2 WLR 1289 [1973] AC 360

MY (65)

[1982] 2 MLJ 133 [1985] 2 MLJ 385 [1987] 1 MLJ 82 [1988] 2 MLJ 1210 [1988] 3 MLJ 49 [1993] 2 AMR 1969 [1993] 3 MLJ 16 [1993] 3 MLJ 36 [1993] 4 CLJ 7 [1994] 1 MLRH 836 [1994] 2 AMR 1137 [1994] 2 MLJ 266 [1994] 3 CLJ 511 [1995] 3 AMR 2559 [1995] 3 CLJ 783 [1995] 3 MLJ 189 [1996] 1 MLJ 30 [1996] 2 MLRH 144 [1996] 2 MLRH 631 [1996] 3 AMR 3000 [1996] 3 CLJ 695 [1996] 3 MLJ 259 [2001] 4 AMR 4807 [2001] MLJU 566 [2004] 6 MLJ 37 [2005] 3 MLJ 522 [2007] 1 MLRH 650 [2007] 3 CLJ 263 [2007] 3 MLRH 858 [2007] 4 MLJ 33 [2007] 7 MLJ 618 [2008] 4 MLRH 814 [2008] 7 CLJ 453 [2008] AMEJ 0061 [2008] MLJU 110 [2010] 5 MLJ 34 [2010] 8 CLJ 775 [2011] 1 AMR 21 [2011] 2 MLJ 192 [2011] 5 CLJ 481 [2011] 5 MLJ 521 [2013] 3 MLJ 511 [2016] 3 CLJ 1 [2016] 3 MLJ 1 [2017] 1 AMR 517 [2017] 2 MLRH 68 [2017] 5 CLJ 187 [2017] 9 MLJ 32 [2018] 1 AMR 837 [2018] 2 MLJ 133 [2018] 3 CLJ 1 [2020] 5 MLJ 43 [2020] 7 CLJ 84 [2020] 8 AMR 533 [2020] AMEJ 0517 [2021] 1 CLJ 1 [2021] 1 MLJ 180 [2021] 2 AMR 52 [2021] 2 CLJ 318 [2021] 3 MLJ 914 [2021] AMEJ 2078 [2021] MLJU 2360 [2021] MLJU 2815 [2022] 6 MLJ 276 [2023] MLJU 1115

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (pa-28ncc-124-08-2025)