S

Suraya binti Ahmad Termizi

Person 1 case

Suraya binti Ahmad Termizi appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:

ba-28ncc-556-09-2024
1. ) MOHD LASIM BIN MAHMUD 2. ) NOHAMAD FUARD BIN CHE IBRAHIM 3. ) AFIFAH HANIE AHMAD 4. ) SITI SAFIAH BINTI MOHAMED IZHAM 5. ) SURAYA BINTI AHMAD TERMIZI v ALPHACAPITAL (M) BERHAD
MYHC 3 November 2025

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

About Suraya binti Ahmad Termizi

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

How many court cases involve Suraya binti Ahmad Termizi?

Suraya binti Ahmad Termizi 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-556-09-2024 MYHC
1. ) MOHD LASIM BIN MAHMUD 2. ) NOHAMAD FUARD BIN CHE IBRAHIM 3. ) AFIFAH HANIE AHMAD 4. ) SITI SAFIAH BINTI MOHAMED IZHAM 5. ) SURAYA BINTI AHMAD TERMIZI v ALPHACAPITAL (M) BERHAD
3 November 2025