M
Mohd Jamel bin Abdul Rahman
Person 2 cases
About Mohd Jamel bin Abdul Rahman
Mohd Jamel bin Abdul Rahman appears as a party in 2 judgments in the MY Case Law database, spanning July 2025 to November 2025. Mohd Jamel bin Abdul Rahman appeared as petitioner in 1 case, plaintiff in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (2).
How many court cases involve Mohd Jamel bin Abdul Rahman?
Mohd Jamel bin Abdul Rahman appears in 2 published judgments from July 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 Striking-out application 1