K
KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN INSOLVENSI MALAYSIA
Organisation 7 cases
About KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN INSOLVENSI MALAYSIA
KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN INSOLVENSI MALAYSIA appears as a party in 7 judgments in the MY Case Law database, spanning January 2025 to November 2025. KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN INSOLVENSI MALAYSIA appeared as respondent in 4 cases, defendant in 2 cases, intervener in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (6), Court of Appeal (1).
How many court cases involve KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN INSOLVENSI MALAYSIA?
KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN INSOLVENSI MALAYSIA appears in 7 published judgments from January 2025 to November 2025. Most commonly as respondent (4 cases).
In which Malaysian courts has KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN INSOLVENSI MALAYSIA appeared?
KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN INSOLVENSI MALAYSIA has appeared across High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (6 cases) and Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) (1 cases), totaling 7 judgments.
Practice Areas
Application to remove a liquidator- winding up Order- directors of company- Director General of Insolvency- Pre action Discovery- Companies Act 2016- dissolution within the reasonable time- general duties of liquidator- list of the contributors- liquidator’s licence- Whether the removal of the liquidator on the ground that he had no valid license is justified or warranted- sole shareholder- Whether the application to remove the liquidator must be supported by all the contributories and creditors- Whether all the creditors were served with the notice of the application- discharge of duties with sufficient promptitude- liquidator must act fairly and impartially in administering the liquidation-"condition" of obtaining support -cause shown 1 Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 (1)(a), (b) dan atau (d) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, Bukit Pedoman Sdn Bhd. Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur & Anor 2016 3 CLJ 1, perjanjian jual beli, balasan kerja sub kontraktor, 40 unit bangunan, Boustead Trading (1985) Sdn Bhd v Arab Malaysian Merchant Bank Berhad 1995 4 CLJ 283,Seksyen 25 (2) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 1 Seksyen 8 (1)(b) Akta Insolvensi 1967 Seksyen 60 Akta Insolvensi 1967 Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council 1996 AC 669 di mana House of Lords di muka 708 Ng Hoo Kui v Wendy Tan Lee Peng, Administrator of the Estates of Tan Ewe Kwang, Deceased & Ors 2020 10 CLJ 3/10 daripada ½ bahagian hartanah tersebut dipegang D1 atas dasar amanah kepada P P dan D1 tinggal bersama di atas hartanah tersebut Resulting Trust atau Constructing trust 1 ORIGINATING SUMMON Issues: Whether the Plaintiff could institute the present action without first obtaining sanction from the DGI? 1 (b) Whether sanction is required in an action where the DGI is sued for failure in the discharge of his duties and responsibilities while acting as Official Assignee of Hosba Valley Resort? 1 (c) Whether the present action against the Liquidator is caught by the doctrine of res judicata for one of sanction as the issue has been raised and decided previously in Originating Summons No. KA-24NCvC-341-08/2021 (OS 341) and Originating Summons No. KA-24NCvC-543-11/2024 (OS 543)? 1 Application for a declaration that the Plaintiff be able to enforce its lien-holder's caveat over a property belonging to a bankrupt. The lien was created before the bankruptcy and the Defendant had given a letter of undertaking to transfer the property. The Court agreed that th property outside the purview of the Defendant’s administration. The letter of undertaking was superseded by a consent judgment. The terms of the consent judgment was amended to exclude the property. Plaintiff had no cause to ask for the transfer of the property. Plaintiff did not pray for the order for sale of the property in satisfaction of the judgment debt in his application. Application dismissed. 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
Respondent (4)
ka-24ncvc-217-07-2025 MYHC
THIYAGARAJAN A/L MPL YEGAPPAN v 1. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN INSOLVENSI MALAYSIA 2. ) DATO ROBERT TEO KHENG TUAN 3. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD
12 November 2025
kb-24ncvc-30-01-2025 MYHC
LPC Investment Holdings Sdn.Bhd v KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN INSOLVENSI MALAYSIA
28 July 2025
j-01a-408-07-2023 MYCOA
1. ) MAJIDEE PARK AUTO SPARES & SERVICES SDN BHD 2. ) JAYAPALASINGAM A/L KANDIAH v 1. ) N THANAVATHY A/P RAJAH 2. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN INSOLVENSI MALAYSIA
28 April 2025
ja-24ncvc-1317-11-2023 MYHC
CHONG MEI LING v 1. ) CHONG SIN WEI 2. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN INSOLVENSI MALAYSIA
17 April 2025
Defendant (2)
ja-22ncvc-58-05-2023 MYHC
1. ) WONG CHAM MEW sebagai Likuidator bagi Bukit Pedoman Sdn Bhd 2. ) ONG KONG LAI sebagai Likuidator bagi Bukit Pedoman Sdn Bhd v 1. ) TAN ENG PUN 2. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN INSOLVENSI MALAYSIA PENCELAH KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN INSOLVENSI MALAYSIA
12 August 2025
wa-21ncvc-102-09-2022 MYHC
ONG LAI @ ONG KONG LAI v 1. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN INSOLVENSI MALAYSIA 2. ) Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia
23 January 2025