Keshvinder Kaur A/P Harvinder Singh

On the court record

Keshvinder Kaur A/P Harvinder Singh appears in the corpus in company and insolvency litigation, argued in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) and the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan). One High Court matter, appearing for the defendant, concerned a Fortuna injunction — an originating summons by which a company sought to restrain creditors from presenting a winding-up petition against it; the principal question was whether the company was entitled to that relief, and the subsidiary but decisive question was whether the debt on which the threatened petition rested was genuinely disputed rather than undisputed, the court having allowed the company's application and the defendants having appealed. A Court of Appeal matter, appearing for the respondent, concerned an alleged breach of directors' duties and raised whether the business judgment rule under section 214 of the Companies Act 2016 applied, what constitutes the best interest of the company, and whether the directors were entitled to be discharged under section 581 of the same Act. A third matter, in the High Court and appearing for the plaintiff, was a minority-oppression claim under section 346 of the Companies Act 2016 brought by a thirty per cent minority shareholder who said he had been excluded from management; the questions were whether the relationship between the plaintiff and the second defendant was a quasi-partnership, whether the plaintiff had a legitimate expectation of participating in management, and whether the conduct said to have led to the company's failure to purchase a property amounted to oppression, the court making no finding of oppression and taking into account the plaintiff's unclean hands. A thread linking the three is the recurring question of when the court will and will not intervene in the internal affairs of a company — restraining a creditor from resorting to winding-up where the debt is genuinely disputed, protecting directors whose decisions fall within the business judgment rule, and declining to find oppression where the complaining shareholder does not come with clean hands. Across the appearances the practice is concentrated on company law and the protection of companies and shareholders — the restraint of premature winding-up, the duties and protections of directors, and the statutory oppression remedy.