BANK OF CHINA BERHAD
About BANK OF CHINA BERHAD
BANK OF CHINA BERHAD appears in 3 reported Malaysia court cases (2025–2026). BANK OF CHINA BERHAD is recorded as Petitioner (1), Intervener (1) and Applicant (1). These cases were heard before MYHC (3).
On the court record
A lender whose matters illustrate the three levers of bank recovery: statutory winding up, an order for sale of charged land against the cause-to-the-contrary defence, and intervention in a scheme of arrangement.
Bank of China (Malaysia) Berhad appears in the corpus as a lender and creditor pursuing the standard enforcement and insolvency remedies, and its matters give a representative view of a bank's recovery litigation. In a winding-up matter the bank petitioned against a corporate debtor under sections 465(1)(e) and (h) and 466(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2016, on the ground that the company was unable to pay its debts and that it was just and equitable to wind it up; the court allowed the winding up and dismissed an interlocutory application to stay the proceedings, finding no special circumstances to justify a stay.
On the secured-lending side, the bank applied for an order for sale of charged land under the National Land Code. The chargor resisted, alleging that the Form 16D notice demanded sums not lawfully due and that a pledge of a fixed deposit referred to in the bank's own documents was sufficient to extinguish the debt; with no record of the fixed deposit, the court considered whether a question had been raised as to the existence of the debt and whether the chargor had shown cause to the contrary against the grant of an order for sale under section 256(3). The bank also appeared as an intervener in a scheme-of-arrangement matter under sections 366 and 368 of the Companies Act 2016, concerning the convening of a scheme meeting and a restraining order.
For a reader, the cluster illustrates the three principal levers of bank recovery: winding up on the statutory insolvency presumption, an order for sale of charged land subject to the cause-to-the-contrary defence, and participation in a debtor's scheme of arrangement. The bank and corporate parties are named; individual parties are referred to by their procedural role only. Across its matters the bank is seen exercising the standard creditor remedies in sequence, and each is subject to its own defence: a winding-up petition may be met by a substantial dispute or a stay application, an order for sale by the cause-to-the-contrary objection, and a scheme of arrangement by contests over classification and disclosure. The cluster is a compact primer on secured and unsecured recovery.
How many Malaysia court cases involve BANK OF CHINA BERHAD?
BANK OF CHINA BERHAD appears in 3 reported Malaysia court cases (2025–2026).
Which courts does BANK OF CHINA BERHAD appear in?
BANK OF CHINA BERHAD appears before MYHC (3).
On what basis did the bank obtain a winding-up order?
It petitioned under sections 465(1)(e) and (h) and 466(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2016 on grounds that the company could not pay its debts and that winding up was just and equitable; the court allowed the winding up and refused a stay for want of special circumstances.
What defence did a chargor raise to the order for sale?
That the Form 16D notice demanded sums not lawfully due and that a pledge of a fixed deposit extinguished the debt; with no record of the fixed deposit, the court considered whether cause to the contrary had been shown under section 256(3) of the National Land Code.