SHINE DC TECHNOLOGY Sdn Bhd

On the court record

A company litigating the procedural mechanics of withdrawal, a just-and-equitable winding-up petition and an interlocutory injunction within a corporate-control dispute.

Shine DC Technology Sdn Bhd appears in the corpus in a connected group of commercial disputes spanning the withdrawal of an action, a winding-up petition, and an interlocutory injunction, several turning on affidavit procedure.

In one matter the company was a defendant to a plaintiff's application to withdraw the suit with liberty to file afresh under Order 21 rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012. The court held that the proceedings had not reached an advanced stage, that the defendants' arguments about procedural advantage were merely technical, that a locus standi issue was a curable procedural defect rather than a substantive bar, and that refusing liberty would cause disproportionate prejudice; the application was allowed.

A second matter arose in company law, where the company was respondent to a winding-up petition presented on the just and equitable ground under section 465(1)(h) of the Companies Act 2016, with allegations of improper share issuance and dilution, exclusion from management and a breakdown of mutual trust and confidence. The court noted that striking out under Order 18 rule 19 is exercised sparingly, that disputed facts are unsuitable for summary disposal, and that the petition was not plainly unsustainable; a strike-out application and an expungement application were each dismissed with costs.

The third matter, in which the company was plaintiff, concerned interlocutory applications where alleged defects in the jurat of affidavits were said to render them inadmissible, engaging Order 41 rule 4 and Order 2 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012, together with an interlocutory injunction assessed on the American Cyanamid principles in a commercial dispute over corporate control.

The proceedings show a company litigating the procedural mechanics of withdrawal, winding-up and injunctions in a broader corporate-control contest. Outcomes are stated only as recorded. The recurrence of affidavit-jurat objections across the matters shows how procedural challenges to evidence can become a persistent feature of a hard-fought corporate-control dispute.