M

M. Pangajam

Person 1 case

M. Pangajam appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:

ba-28pw-187-07-2023
LEE CHAN KOK v 1. ) ATLANTA TERRACE (M) SDN BHD 2. ) M. PANGAJAM
MYHC 17 July 2025

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

About M. Pangajam

M. Pangajam appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning July 2025 to July 2025. M. Pangajam appeared as respondent in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).

How many court cases involve M. Pangajam?

M. Pangajam appears in 1 published judgment from July 2025 to July 2025. Most commonly as respondent (1 cases).

Practice Areas

Termination of winding up order-contributory and former director of the company has expended RM8million to redeem charged lands to settle the purchasers’ claims- settlement agreement-liquidator not to proceed with liquidation-Liquidator breached the understanding by proceeding to sell the lands at undervalue and without the director’s consent-Director alleges forgery in the process of obtaining titles-director seeks for termination of winding up order and ancillary reliefs under section 486(2), 494 and 510 Companies Act 2016 (‘ÇA 2016’)-whether the applicant has met the threshold for terminating the winding up order-whether the alleged misconduct by the liquidator justifies judicial intervention under section 486(2)-whether the applicant has locus standi and/or procedural compliance to pursue relief against the liquidator-section 493-court may order the termination of a winding up where there is proof to the satisfaction of the court that all proceedings in relation to the winding up ought to be terminated-the legal burden lies squarely on the applicant to make a positive of sufficient case for termination-factors to be considered by court under section 493-whether debts of the company to its creditors have been satisfied-whether stakeholders agree to the termination-other facts the court considers appropriate-termination of a winding up order is not appropriate where debts are not fully settled-applicant fail to present concrete and credible evidence to show that company is viable and capable of operating as going concern-the liquidator opposed the termination-it is against public interest and against commercial morality to terminate a winding up without clarity that all creditors obligations have been met or that a legitimate and viable business continuation plan exists-applicant seeks relief under section 510 without obtaining leave from court-procedural defects-applicant’s complaints of misfeasance and forgery are inadequately supported- there is also unexplained delay in filing the application-applicant failed to demonstrate that PASB or ATSB are viable going concerns-the challenge of the Liquidator’s remuneration is misconceived-application is dismissed with costs. 1

Respondent (1)

ba-28pw-187-07-2023 MYHC
LEE CHAN KOK v 1. ) ATLANTA TERRACE (M) SDN BHD 2. ) M. PANGAJAM
17 July 2025