A
ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD
Organisation 5 cases
About ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD
ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD appears as a party in 5 judgments in the MY Case Law database, spanning January 2025 to July 2025. ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD appeared as respondent in 2 cases, defendant in 1 case, garnishee in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (5).
How many court cases involve ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD?
ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD appears in 5 published judgments from January 2025 to July 2025. Most commonly as respondent (2 cases).
Practice Areas
Recusal 1 Termination of winding up order-contributory and former director of the company has expended RM8million to redeem charged lands to settle the purchasers’ claims- settlement agreement-liquidator not to proceed with liquidation-Liquidator breached the understanding by proceeding to sell the lands at undervalue and without the director’s consent-Director alleges forgery in the process of obtaining titles-director seeks for termination of winding up order and ancillary reliefs under section 486(2), 494 and 510 Companies Act 2016 (‘ÇA 2016’)-whether the applicant has met the threshold for terminating the winding up order-whether the alleged misconduct by the liquidator justifies judicial intervention under section 486(2)-whether the applicant has locus standi and/or procedural compliance to pursue relief against the liquidator-section 493-court may order the termination of a winding up where there is proof to the satisfaction of the court that all proceedings in relation to the winding up ought to be terminated-the legal burden lies squarely on the applicant to make a positive of sufficient case for termination-factors to be considered by court under section 493-whether debts of the company to its creditors have been satisfied-whether stakeholders agree to the termination-other facts the court considers appropriate-termination of a winding up order is not appropriate where debts are not fully settled-applicant fail to present concrete and credible evidence to show that company is viable and capable of operating as going concern-the liquidator opposed the termination-it is against public interest and against commercial morality to terminate a winding up without clarity that all creditors obligations have been met or that a legitimate and viable business continuation plan exists-applicant seeks relief under section 510 without obtaining leave from court-procedural defects-applicant’s complaints of misfeasance and forgery are inadequately supported- there is also unexplained delay in filing the application-applicant failed to demonstrate that PASB or ATSB are viable going concerns-the challenge of the Liquidator’s remuneration is misconceived-application is dismissed with costs. 1 The Applicant is a Judgment Creditor, having secured a judgment against the Respondent in 2023, thereby rendering the Defendant a Judgment Debtor. To enforce the said judgment, the Judgment Creditor initiated garnishee proceedings against the Judgment Debtor’s accounts in 18 banks, pursuant to Order 49 of the Rules of Court 2012. However, these efforts proved futile when the High Court at Shah Alam, in Suit BA-37G-104-07/2024 (“Suit 104”), declined to grant the garnishee order absolute sought by the Plaintiff. The present dispute specifically concerns the Judgment Creditor and the Sixth Garnishee. Having successfully resisted the Judgment Creditor’s application for a garnishee order absolute before the Shah Alam High Court in Suit 104, the Sixth Garnishee now faces a fresh challenge 1 When the Respondent obtained the Amended Judgment in Default in the First Suit, the Respondent’s cause of action based on the Appellants’ breach of the Loan Facility had merged with the said judgment, thereby extinguishing the original cause of action 1 Issue 1 1