Nakeeran Kumar Kanthavel

On the court record

Nakeeran Kumar Kanthavel appears in the corpus in corporate-rescue litigation in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi), concentrated on judicial management under the Companies Act 2016. One matter, appearing for the respondent, concerned the appointment of an interim judicial manager under section 405 of the Companies Act 2016, and turned on the elements required for such an appointment and whether an interim appointment was in fact necessary in the circumstances. Two further matters, appearing for the applicant, concerned applications for a full judicial management order under sections 404 and 405 of the Act, and engaged the pre-conditions to relief and, in particular, whether the statutory objectives in section 405(1)(b) — including the survival of the company as a going concern — were likely to be achieved. In one, the court examined a company in severe insolvency whose rehabilitation depended on the subordination of related creditors and on a future construction project for which there was no proof of financing, and treated the rehabilitation proposal as speculative and lacking the strict proof required. In the other, the court considered a revised debt-settlement proposal against the applicable threshold — whether the statutory objective was shown on a 'real prospect' or a 'more probable than not' basis — and again required strict proof, weighing whether the judicial management order ought to be granted or refused. These matters go to the heart of the rescue jurisdiction: the balance between giving a viable company breathing space to restructure and refusing to shield an insolvent company behind a speculative or unfinanced plan. The recurring insistence on strict proof reflects the seriousness of the relief sought, since a judicial management order suspends the ordinary rights of creditors and hands control of the company to an appointed manager, and the court is therefore unwilling to grant it on the strength of a rehabilitation plan that rests on unfinanced or speculative future projects. Across the appearances the practice is that of counsel specialising in judicial management, where the credibility of the rehabilitation proposal and the strictness of the proof required determine whether a company obtains the protection of a moratorium.