J
Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia
Organisation 5 cases
About Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia
Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia appears as a party in 5 judgments in the MY Case Law database, spanning January 2025 to October 2025. Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia appeared as aggrieved party in 1 case, applicant in 1 case, defendant in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (4), Court of Appeal (1).
How many court cases involve Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia?
Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia appears in 5 published judgments from January 2025 to October 2025. Most commonly as aggrieved party (1 cases).
In which Malaysian courts has Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia appeared?
Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia has appeared across High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (4 cases) and Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) (1 cases), totaling 5 judgments.
Practice Areas
Appeal 1 1. A company was wound up by Court Order. The Official Receiver (OR) was appointed the liquidator. 1 2. This proceeding is the OR's post-winding up application for a Court Order to remove the caveats that Respondent entered on the properties, so that the properties can be vested in the OR. 1 2. Should the caveats be removed so that the OR can deal with the properties in the liquidation process? 1 No specific financial losses were shown by the Plaintiff during trial. As special damages must be proven, this Court must consider the evidence adduced. Substantial monetary awards require concrete evidence. Due to the absence of evidence to show specific financial losses, this Court does not allow this prayer for special damages due to the negligence of the Defendants.\ Costs of this trial in the amount of RM20,000.00 subject to allocateurallocator fee. The Defendants are ordered to pay the Plaintiff the said amount for costs. 1 ABSTRACT 1 A mother claimed her bankrupt son held his property share on trust for her, seeking all sale proceeds (RM1,100,000). The property was jointly owned for 40 years. After the son's bankruptcy (2013-2024) and property sale (2023), the Director General of Insolvency claimed his share (RM400,298.33) for creditors owed RM537,656.34. The High Court dismissed the claim. The mother failed to prove the trust—only late statutory declarations existed after the DGI's claim, with no trust deed or secondary evidence. The timing showed bad faith. The son's interest vested in the DGI upon bankruptcy under s 8(1)(b) Insolvency Act 1967. Discharge doesn't divest vested property. The court found both parties acted with improper motives to defeat creditor claims. Accepting such claims would undermine land registration and bankruptcy systems. 1 KEYWORDS 1