A

Ahmad Taufiq Hidayat bin Ahmad Hassanudin

Person 1 case

Ahmad Taufiq Hidayat bin Ahmad Hassanudin appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:

ba-28ncc-557-09-2024
1. ) NORINAH BINTI MOHAMED 2. ) MOHD JAMEL BIN ABDUL RAHMAN 3. ) SAFIAH BINTI SAMAT 4. ) FATIRAH BINTI SABIL 5. ) SA'ADAH BINTI MOHD AMIN 6. ) ZAWIAH BINTI A.RAHMAN 7. ) IZAHAM SHAH BIN MUSA 8. ) NORHAZRIN BINTI AZALI 9. ) MAS AYU BINTI ADNAN 10. ) AHMAD TAUFIQ HIDAYAT BIN AHMAD HASSANUDIN 11. ) FATIMAH ALIAA BINTI AZLAN 12. ) NOR ALIZA BINTI JAAFAR 13. ) 13)MOHAMED IZHAM BIN ISMAIL 14. ) SITI AYUNI BINTI HASSANUDIN 15. ) HANA HANURYANA BINTI MD JANI 16. ) PREIMA DEVI A/P APPUKUTTEN 17. ) SAR...
MYHC 3 November 2025

See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.

About Ahmad Taufiq Hidayat bin Ahmad Hassanudin

Ahmad Taufiq Hidayat bin Ahmad Hassanudin appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning November 2025 to November 2025. Ahmad Taufiq Hidayat bin Ahmad Hassanudin appeared as petitioner in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).

How many court cases involve Ahmad Taufiq Hidayat bin Ahmad Hassanudin?

Ahmad Taufiq Hidayat bin Ahmad Hassanudin appears in 1 published judgment from November 2025 to November 2025. Most commonly as petitioner (1 cases).

Practice Areas

Sections 346(2)(e), 465(1)(f) and 465(1)(h) of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”)- Petitioners are investors who subscribed to Redeemable Preference Shares Islamic (“RPS-i”) issued by the Respondent pursuant to Subscription Agreements and an Information Memorandum- Respondent has failed to pay monthly returns and to redeem the RPS-i upon maturity- Respondent opposes the petition- petition constitutes an abuse of process to exert pressure for repayment- no debt presently exists-the alleged obligations are conditional upon distributable profits and unfulfilled contractual preconditions- three Petitioners were ineligible to participate as “Sophisticated Investors” within the meaning of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (“CMSA”)- Whether there exists an undisputed, presently due debt entitling the Petitioners to invoke section 465(1)(f)-Whether the Petitioners’ alleged rights to returns and redemption have crystallised-Whether there is oppression or other conduct rendering it just and equitable to wind up the Company-Whether the petition amounts to an abuse of process- Petitioners have produced no contrary financial evidence- no debt has arisen. The alleged “monthly returns” are expectations, not debts due-Section 465(1)(h) is generally invoked where there is a deadlock, loss of substratum, or exclusion of shareholders with a legitimate expectation of participation in management- Petitioners are holders of non-voting RPS-i shares-they are passive investors with no managerial or governance rights- No evidence has been adduced of deadlock, exclusion, or misconduct by directors-The loss of confidence in management, however genuine, does not of itself justify a winding-up order under section 465(1)(h)- this petition is not a bona fide invocation of insolvency jurisdiction but a device to exert commercial pressure- no clear, presently due, and undisputed debt has been established- No oppression, mismanagement, or breakdown of substratum has been proven-the petition amounts to an abuse of the winding-up process- the petition is dismissed. 1

Petitioner (1)

ba-28ncc-557-09-2024 MYHC
1. ) NORINAH BINTI MOHAMED 2. ) MOHD JAMEL BIN ABDUL RAHMAN 3. ) SAFIAH BINTI SAMAT 4. ) FATIRAH BINTI SABIL 5. ) SA'ADAH BINTI MOHD AMIN 6. ) ZAWIAH BINTI A.RAHMAN 7. ) IZAHAM SHAH BIN MUSA 8. ) NORHAZRIN BINTI AZALI 9. ) MAS AYU BINTI ADNAN 10. ) AHMAD TAUFIQ HIDAYAT BIN AHMAD HASSANUDIN 11. ) FATIMAH ALIAA BINTI AZLAN 12. ) NOR ALIZA BINTI JAAFAR 13. ) 13)MOHAMED IZHAM BIN ISMAIL 14. ) SITI AYUNI BINTI HASSANUDIN 15. ) HANA HANURYANA BINTI MD JANI 16. ) PREIMA DEVI A/P APPUKUTTEN 17. ) SAR...
3 November 2025