Winding up
9 cases · September 2022 to February 2026
Case Volume by Year
1 22
6 25
2 26
2022–2026
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Stay of winding-up proceedings — Application for stay pending hearing of petition — Failure to satisfy judgment debt — Non-compliance with statutory demand under s 466 Companies Act 2016 — Presumption of inability to pay debts — Whether temporary cash-flow constraints amount to special circumstances — Whether continued operation and existence of assets negate commercial insolvency — Reliance on anticipated recovery from third party — Whether speculative future recovery constitutes special circumstances — Late filing of stay application — Abuse of process — Discretion of court 1 Petition — Whether the debt relied upon by the Petitioner was bona fide disputed on substantial grounds — Whether the absence of a judgment debt precluded the presentation of the winding-up petition — Whether the Respondent was deemed unable to pay its debts under section 466(1)(a) CA 2016 — Settlement Agreement — Written admitted liability — unequivocal acknowledgment of indebtedness — Default and failure to comply with the statutory notice — Alleged duress and dispute of debt — Allegations of economic duress and coercion — Absence of judgment debt — Insolvency under section 466(1)(a) Companies Act 2016 — Section 465(1)(e) and Section 466(1)(a) Companies Act 2016 1 the scope of liquidators’ powers and liabilities under the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016) — whether one joint liquidator may act alone if the other is conflicted — the extent to which creditors’ wishes must guide the court in appointing liquidators. 1 Companies Act 2016, Section 465(1)(e) and 466 (1) (a) — The Respondent failed to abide with the Consent Judgment entered between parties in the earlier suit — The Respondents filed application to wound up the Respondent — Whether the Respondent is unable to pay its debts — Whether it was just and equitable for the Company be wound up — The Consent Judgment remains valid and binding — The Respondent fails to comply with the Statutory Notice, the law will presume that the Respondent is insolvent and unable to pay its debts — a lender is entitled to pursue all remedies available against a borrower — Petitioner’s application is allowed with costs. 1 Companies Act 2016, Section 465(1)(h) — Whether it was just and equitable for the Companies be wound up for the loss of the company’s substratum, management breakdown and deadlock between the shareholders / directors — Allegations over unaudited Financial Statement for years — less company’s profits — Company has deteriorated. Failure to prove that the main purpose of the Company for which it was formed is gone — a mere change of auditors not give rise to a management breakdown or deadlock — Petitioner’s application is dismissed with costs. 1 Opposition to Petition — Debt due and owing — Companies Act 2016, Section 465(1)(h) — Application to wound up company based on just and equitable provision — Whether the company ought to be wound up for the loss of the company’s substratum and that the relationship between the shareholders has broken down irretrievably — Whether directors had given explanation for their actions — Allegations over amounts claimed is exaggerated — loss of trust and confidence in the directorship — removal of director — legal action against the shareholder — failure to prove that main objective of the company still exist — no active trade since the Termination Notice as reseller of Petitioner’s products was issued — It was just and equitable for the Companies be wound up. Petitioner’s application is allowed. 1 Whether the Petition is defective due to the Affidavit Verifying Petition being filed after the prescribed time — Whether there exists a bona fide dispute on substantial grpunds in respect of the judgement debt — Whether the Petition constitutess an abuse of court process in light of pending foreclosure proceedings and the Respondent's alleged solvency — Section 466(1)(a) Companies Act 2016 — Rule 26 Companies (Winding Up) Rules 1972 — Rule 194 Companies (Winding Up) Rules 1972 1 Breakdown in mutual trust and confidence — Whether the subsratum of the company has failed following the termination of Licensing Agreement — Whether the disputes between the parties amount to a irretrievable deadlock that justifies winding up — Whether quasi-partenership is establised and whether mutual trust and confidence were essential to its operation — Whether actions done amount to unfiar exclusion and oppression — Section 465(1)(f) and (h) Companies Act 2016 - 1 Disposal of property — Joint liquidators agreed to dispose of properties by way of right of first refusal to a director of company — Right of first refusal was offered and accepted based on valuation report — Liquidator obtained a proposal for properties priced at correct market value — Contributory not agreeable to offer made — Whether the decision of the Court under Section 487 (3) Act 777 (Section 237 (3) CA) is appealable — Whether court was entitled to order properties to be disposed of using a new method for disposal other than what was proposed by liquidators — Whether an objection by a contributory could halt decision of liquidator 1
Stay of winding-up proceedings — Application for stay pending hearing of petition — Failure to satisfy judgment debt — Non-compliance with statutory demand under s 466 Companies Act 2016 — Presumption of inability to pay debts — Whether temporary cash-flow constraints amount to special circumstances — Whether continued operation and existence of assets negate commercial insolvency — Reliance on anticipated recovery from third party — Whether speculative future recovery constitutes special circumstances — Late filing of stay application — Abuse of process — Discretion of court 1 case
Petition — Whether the debt relied upon by the Petitioner was bona fide disputed on substantial grounds — Whether the absence of a judgment debt precluded the presentation of the winding-up petition — Whether the Respondent was deemed unable to pay its debts under section 466(1)(a) CA 2016 — Settlement Agreement — Written admitted liability — unequivocal acknowledgment of indebtedness — Default and failure to comply with the statutory notice — Alleged duress and dispute of debt — Allegations of economic duress and coercion — Absence of judgment debt — Insolvency under section 466(1)(a) Companies Act 2016 — Section 465(1)(e) and Section 466(1)(a) Companies Act 2016 1 case
the scope of liquidators’ powers and liabilities under the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016) — whether one joint liquidator may act alone if the other is conflicted — the extent to which creditors’ wishes must guide the court in appointing liquidators. 1 case
Companies Act 2016, Section 465(1)(e) and 466 (1) (a) — The Respondent failed to abide with the Consent Judgment entered between parties in the earlier suit — The Respondents filed application to wound up the Respondent — Whether the Respondent is unable to pay its debts — Whether it was just and equitable for the Company be wound up — The Consent Judgment remains valid and binding — The Respondent fails to comply with the Statutory Notice, the law will presume that the Respondent is insolvent and unable to pay its debts — a lender is entitled to pursue all remedies available against a borrower — Petitioner’s application is allowed with costs. 1 case
Whether the Petition is defective due to the Affidavit Verifying Petition being filed after the prescribed time — Whether there exists a bona fide dispute on substantial grpunds in respect of the judgement debt — Whether the Petition constitutess an abuse of court process in light of pending foreclosure proceedings and the Respondent's alleged solvency — Section 466(1)(a) Companies Act 2016 — Rule 26 Companies (Winding Up) Rules 1972 — Rule 194 Companies (Winding Up) Rules 1972 1 case
Breakdown in mutual trust and confidence — Whether the subsratum of the company has failed following the termination of Licensing Agreement — Whether the disputes between the parties amount to a irretrievable deadlock that justifies winding up — Whether quasi-partenership is establised and whether mutual trust and confidence were essential to its operation — Whether actions done amount to unfiar exclusion and oppression — Section 465(1)(f) and (h) Companies Act 2016 - 1 case
Disposal of property — Joint liquidators agreed to dispose of properties by way of right of first refusal to a director of company — Right of first refusal was offered and accepted based on valuation report — Liquidator obtained a proposal for properties priced at correct market value — Contributory not agreeable to offer made — Whether the decision of the Court under Section 487 (3) Act 777 (Section 237 (3) CA) is appealable — Whether court was entitled to order properties to be disposed of using a new method for disposal other than what was proposed by liquidators — Whether an objection by a contributory could halt decision of liquidator 1 case
Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Cases
da-28ncc-52-09-2025
Kelpile Sdn Bhd v Blocklink (M) Sdn Bhd
10 February 2026
MYHC
ba-28ncc-652-09-2025
JUPITER ENTERPRISE SDN BHD v BINA JAGUH PERKASA SDN BHD
12 January 2026
MYHC
02f-61-12-2024w
VICTOR SAW SENG KEE v 1. ) WONG WENG FOO & CO 2. ) LONDON BISCUITS BERHAD (IN LIQUIDATION) PIHAK TERKILAN GABRIEL TEO CHUN
11 November 2025
MYFC
wa-28ncc-480-05-2025
MAR'S PARAGON RESOURCES SDN BHD v LMS TECHNOLOGY DISTRIBUTIONS SDN BHD
28 October 2025
MYHC
wa-28ncc-985-10-2023
JAMES JOSEPH DILLON v 1. ) FORENSIC SERVICES (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD 2. ) Paul Leong Kong Wai
26 October 2025
MYHC
wa-28ncc-847-09-2024
DRAWBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES (M) SDN BHD v 1. ) AD&M GLOBAL SDN BHD 2. ) JRSYS SDN BHD (IN LIQUIDATION 3. ) MAN SKETCH TECHNOLOGIES SDN BHD 4. ) WONG WING SOON
25 May 2025
MYHC
ba-28ncc-659-10-2024
Affin Bank Berhad v Brunsfield Corporation Sdn Bhd
19 March 2025
MYHC
ba-28ncc-354-06-2024
TBH WELLNESS SDN BHD v 1. ) ELIN HONG PEI SHANG 2. ) TBH WELLNESS (ECO SANCTUARY) SDN BHD
6 February 2025
MYHC
02i-16-03-2021w
TAN KIM CHUAN v 1. ) TAN KIM TIAN 2. ) TAN BAN SENG (M) SDN BHD 3. ) PROPERLAND REALTY SDN BHD
21 September 2022
MYFC