Winding Up Petition
10 cases · August 2024 to November 2025
Case Volume by Year
2 24
8 25
2024–2025
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Cessation of business — Just and equitable — Whether it is established that the company has suspended its business for a whole year — Whether it is just and equitable to wind up the company — Whether the disputes are better suited to oppression remedies under Section 346 Companies Act 2016 — The appropriate appointment of liquidator — Companies not carries on active business since winding up of Ho Shen Lee — Commercially interdependent companies — Disputes between parties — Removal of directorship — Unilateral changes of bank signatories — Acts of oppression — Mutual trust and confidence has irretrievably broken down — Separate legal entities — Nomination of a private liquidator — Competence and impartiality of a liquidator — Section 465(1)(c) Companies Act 2016 — Section 465(1)(h) Companies Act 2016 — Section 346 Companies Act 2016 2 Directors have acted in the affairs of the company in the direction 's own interest rather than in the interests of the members as a whole or acted in any other manner which appears to be unfair or unjust to members — The Court is of opinion that it is just and equitable that the company be wound up -Appointment of Interim Liquidator — Ex-Parte Application — Whether the appointment on the Interim Liquidator should be set aside for procedural non-compliance — Whether the Petitioner failed to make full and frank disclosure at the ex parte stage -Urgency and Justification for Ex-Parte Appointment — No Sufficient Cause Shown to Set Aside the Appointment — Mere disagreement with the appointment or making counter-allegation against the Petitioner does not meets sufficient cause standard — Order 1A and Order 2 Rules 1 and 3 Rules of Court 2012 — Order 32 Rule 6 of Rules of Court 2012 — Section 465(1)(f) and (h) Companies Act 2016 2 Just and Equitable — Quasi-partnership — Absence of shareholders’ agreement — Whether the circumstances warrant the Court’s intervention to wind up the company on the “just and equitable” ground under section 465(1)(h) CA 2016 — Whether any alternative remedy or consideration should dissuade the Court from granting a winding-up order — Mutual Confidence — Complete deadlock — Irretrievable breakdown — Mutual breakdown of confidence and trust — Prevented access to information and premises — Personal relationship foundation -Exclusion from management -Unilateral decisions — Closure of business without consultation — Restriction of access to financial information — Loss of substratum — Whether Section 465(1)(f) Companies Act 2016 1 Judgement in Default of Appearance — Failure to satisfy judgement debt — Statutory Notice — Just and Equitable — Judicial Management — Whether the debt founded on the Judgement is bona fide disputed — Whether the Petitioner is entitled to rely on the presumption of insolvency under Section 466(1)(a) CA 2016 — Whether it is just and equitable for the Respondent to be wound up — Validity of judgement — Final and enforceable judgement — No attempt to set aside or appeal judgement — Presumption of Insolvency — Absence of financial disclosure — Absence of bona fide dispute debt — Delayed Enforcement — Section 465(1)(e) Companies Act 2016 — Section 466 (1)(a) Companies Act 2016. 1 Final Judgement affirmed by Court of Appeal — Presence of fraud — Court should go behind a judgement and determine the existence of a bona fide dispute — Whether the court should go behind the judgement and decline to act on it due to alleged fraud — Whether the Respondent is deemed unable to pay its debt under Section 466(1)(a) Companies Act 2016 — Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a winding up order under Section 465(1)(e) Companies Act 2016 — Final Judgement is a conclusive proof of debt unless presence of fraud or collusion — Bare allegation of fraud without credible evidence is insufficient to displace the regularity and conclusiveness of a final judgement — No audited or financial record to prove solvency of Respondent — Section 465 (1)(e) Companies Act 2016 — Section 466 (1) Companies Act 2016. 1 Failure to comply statutory demand raises statutory presumption of inability to pay debt — Debt founded on a final judgment that is undisputed and enforceable — Court is bound to grant winding up order unless there is fraud, illegality or other exception circumstances — Court should not go behind a valid judgement debt — Winding Up causes severe disruption of essential public transport system in Klang Valley — Contrary to public interest — Discretion of court under Section 465(1) Companies Act 2-16 to refuse a winding up order notwithstanding proof of insolvency — Exist genuine dispute of the debt — Bona fide effort to settle judgement sum — Commercial viable company with ongoing valuable contract — Demonstrate willingness to satisfy the judgement debt — Section 465 (1)(e) Companies Act 2016 — Section 466 (1) Companies Act 2016. 1 Application to Strike Out — Whether the Petition discloses a reasonable cause of action — Whether the Petition is frivolous or vexatious — Whether the Petition amounts to an abuse of the process of the court — Duplicity of Proceedings and Abuse of Process — Just and Equitable Jurisdiction Not Engaged — Frustrate or pre-empt the adjudication of the Derivative action — Presence of serious disputes of fact which is inconsistent and undermines the bona fide of the petition — Duplicity, timing and evident intent to gain procedural advantage is an abuse of court process — Just and Equitable grounds in winding up is a last resort and to be exercise sparingly — Section 456(1)(h) Companies Act 2016 — Order 18 Rule 19 (1)(b) and (d) of Rules of Court 2012. 1 Default in repayment of banking facilities — Final judgement — Failure to satisfy judgement debt — Statutory Notice — Commercial solvency — Just and Equitable — Active business operation — Absence of bona fide dispute of debt — Enforceable court judgement — Reliance on outdated financial statement — Whether the Petitioner has established a statutory presumption of insolvency under Section 466(1)(a) Companies Act 2016 — Whether the Respondent has successfully rebutted that presumption by showing a bona fide dispute of the debt or genuine solvency — Whether any equitable or discretionary grounds justify refusing a winding up order — Special circumstances — Section 465(1)(e) Companies Act 2016 — Section 466 (1)(a) Companies Act 2016. 1
Cessation of business — Just and equitable — Whether it is established that the company has suspended its business for a whole year — Whether it is just and equitable to wind up the company — Whether the disputes are better suited to oppression remedies under Section 346 Companies Act 2016 — The appropriate appointment of liquidator — Companies not carries on active business since winding up of Ho Shen Lee — Commercially interdependent companies — Disputes between parties — Removal of directorship — Unilateral changes of bank signatories — Acts of oppression — Mutual trust and confidence has irretrievably broken down — Separate legal entities — Nomination of a private liquidator — Competence and impartiality of a liquidator — Section 465(1)(c) Companies Act 2016 — Section 465(1)(h) Companies Act 2016 — Section 346 Companies Act 2016 2 cases
Directors have acted in the affairs of the company in the direction 's own interest rather than in the interests of the members as a whole or acted in any other manner which appears to be unfair or unjust to members — The Court is of opinion that it is just and equitable that the company be wound up -Appointment of Interim Liquidator — Ex-Parte Application — Whether the appointment on the Interim Liquidator should be set aside for procedural non-compliance — Whether the Petitioner failed to make full and frank disclosure at the ex parte stage -Urgency and Justification for Ex-Parte Appointment — No Sufficient Cause Shown to Set Aside the Appointment — Mere disagreement with the appointment or making counter-allegation against the Petitioner does not meets sufficient cause standard — Order 1A and Order 2 Rules 1 and 3 Rules of Court 2012 — Order 32 Rule 6 of Rules of Court 2012 — Section 465(1)(f) and (h) Companies Act 2016 2 cases
ba-28ncc-237-04-2024 Sulinder Kaur A/P Pikan v 1. ) SYARIKAT RODA BULK MOVER SDN. BHD 2. ) JASBEER SINGH A/L PIKAN PENCELAH 1. ) Syarikat Roda Bulk Mover Sdn Bhd 2. ) Jasbeer Singh a/l Pikan
12 August 2024
ba-28ncc-238-04-2024 Sulinder Kaur A/P Pikan v 1. ) SYARIKAT PENGANGKUTAN RODA BULK MOVER SDN. BHD. 2. ) JASBEER SINGH A/L PIKAN
12 August 2024
Judgement in Default of Appearance — Failure to satisfy judgement debt — Statutory Notice — Just and Equitable — Judicial Management — Whether the debt founded on the Judgement is bona fide disputed — Whether the Petitioner is entitled to rely on the presumption of insolvency under Section 466(1)(a) CA 2016 — Whether it is just and equitable for the Respondent to be wound up — Validity of judgement — Final and enforceable judgement — No attempt to set aside or appeal judgement — Presumption of Insolvency — Absence of financial disclosure — Absence of bona fide dispute debt — Delayed Enforcement — Section 465(1)(e) Companies Act 2016 — Section 466 (1)(a) Companies Act 2016. 1 case
Final Judgement affirmed by Court of Appeal — Presence of fraud — Court should go behind a judgement and determine the existence of a bona fide dispute — Whether the court should go behind the judgement and decline to act on it due to alleged fraud — Whether the Respondent is deemed unable to pay its debt under Section 466(1)(a) Companies Act 2016 — Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a winding up order under Section 465(1)(e) Companies Act 2016 — Final Judgement is a conclusive proof of debt unless presence of fraud or collusion — Bare allegation of fraud without credible evidence is insufficient to displace the regularity and conclusiveness of a final judgement — No audited or financial record to prove solvency of Respondent — Section 465 (1)(e) Companies Act 2016 — Section 466 (1) Companies Act 2016. 1 case
Failure to comply statutory demand raises statutory presumption of inability to pay debt — Debt founded on a final judgment that is undisputed and enforceable — Court is bound to grant winding up order unless there is fraud, illegality or other exception circumstances — Court should not go behind a valid judgement debt — Winding Up causes severe disruption of essential public transport system in Klang Valley — Contrary to public interest — Discretion of court under Section 465(1) Companies Act 2-16 to refuse a winding up order notwithstanding proof of insolvency — Exist genuine dispute of the debt — Bona fide effort to settle judgement sum — Commercial viable company with ongoing valuable contract — Demonstrate willingness to satisfy the judgement debt — Section 465 (1)(e) Companies Act 2016 — Section 466 (1) Companies Act 2016. 1 case
Application to Strike Out — Whether the Petition discloses a reasonable cause of action — Whether the Petition is frivolous or vexatious — Whether the Petition amounts to an abuse of the process of the court — Duplicity of Proceedings and Abuse of Process — Just and Equitable Jurisdiction Not Engaged — Frustrate or pre-empt the adjudication of the Derivative action — Presence of serious disputes of fact which is inconsistent and undermines the bona fide of the petition — Duplicity, timing and evident intent to gain procedural advantage is an abuse of court process — Just and Equitable grounds in winding up is a last resort and to be exercise sparingly — Section 456(1)(h) Companies Act 2016 — Order 18 Rule 19 (1)(b) and (d) of Rules of Court 2012. 1 case
Default in repayment of banking facilities — Final judgement — Failure to satisfy judgement debt — Statutory Notice — Commercial solvency — Just and Equitable — Active business operation — Absence of bona fide dispute of debt — Enforceable court judgement — Reliance on outdated financial statement — Whether the Petitioner has established a statutory presumption of insolvency under Section 466(1)(a) Companies Act 2016 — Whether the Respondent has successfully rebutted that presumption by showing a bona fide dispute of the debt or genuine solvency — Whether any equitable or discretionary grounds justify refusing a winding up order — Special circumstances — Section 465(1)(e) Companies Act 2016 — Section 466 (1)(a) Companies Act 2016. 1 case
Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Cases
ba-28ncc-746-11-2024
Wan Suraya Binti Wan Abdul Nasir v 1. ) Srikandi Ayla Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Shahida Nabila Binti Serat
6 November 2025
MYHC
ba-28ncc-730-11-2024
MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD v BRUNSFIELD ENGINEERING SDN BHD
26 October 2025
MYHC
ba-28ncc-626-11-2023
FUJIFILM BUSINESS INNOVATION ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LTD. (formerly known as Fuji Xerox Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.) v CAXPRINT SDN. BHD.
8 September 2025
MYHC
ba-28ncc-100-02-2024
1. ) TAN KEN MENG 2. ) WONG TEE MING v 1. ) HSL AUTO ENGINEERING SDN BHD 2. ) LIM SHEN LEE
27 August 2025
MYHC
ba-28ncc-96-02-2024
1. ) Tan Ken Meng 2. ) Wong Tee Ming v 1. ) TNL Plastic Manufacturer Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Lim Shen Lee
27 August 2025
MYHC
ba-28ncc-284-05-2024
A&A DINAR SDN.BHD. v RELTECH VENTURES SDN BHD
14 August 2025
MYHC
ba-28ncc-477-09-2023
LIM CHIN ONG v REKABINA CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) TAN SIEW MOI 2. ) TIMOTHY TAN QUAN CHIEN 3. ) CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD
24 July 2025
MYHC
ba-28ncc-547-10-2023
UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (MALAYSIA) BHD v K-PINTAR SDN BHD
23 April 2025
MYHC
ba-28ncc-237-04-2024
Sulinder Kaur A/P Pikan v 1. ) SYARIKAT RODA BULK MOVER SDN. BHD 2. ) JASBEER SINGH A/L PIKAN PENCELAH 1. ) Syarikat Roda Bulk Mover Sdn Bhd 2. ) Jasbeer Singh a/l Pikan
12 August 2024
MYHC
ba-28ncc-238-04-2024
Sulinder Kaur A/P Pikan v 1. ) SYARIKAT PENGANGKUTAN RODA BULK MOVER SDN. BHD. 2. ) JASBEER SINGH A/L PIKAN
12 August 2024
MYHC