FUJIFILM Business Innovation Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. (dahulunya dikenali sebagai Fuji Xerox Asia Pacific Pte Ltd) v Mohd Khelmy Bin Mukhtaruddin (BA-29NCC-2565-10/2022)

High Court of Malaysia19 Sept 2025

The written judgment as the court issued it, with the coram, case number, and source links. Every paragraph has its own anchor.

Open official source PDF Report an issue

Content

BA-29NCC-2565-10/2022 Kand. 03/11/2025 15:22:23 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA DALAM KES KEBANKRAPAN NO.: BA-29NCC-2565-10/2022 Per: Mohd Khelmy bin Mukhtaruddin (No. K/P Lama: A1947751) (No. K/P Baru: 710923-02-5449) [dahulu berniaga sebagai Pro Niaga Services & Supplies (No. Pendaftaran Perniagaan: SA0153269-M)] ... Penghutang Penghakiman Ex-parte: FUJIFILM Business Innovation Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. [dahulunya dikenali sebagai Fuji Xerox Asia Pacific Pte Ltd (No. Pendaftaran: 199202000004(993478-A)] ... Pemiutang Penghakiman GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 32) Introduction 1. This is the Judgment Debtor's (“JD”) appeal against the decision of the learned Senior Assistant Registrar (“SAR”) delivered on 23 June 2023, dismissing the JD’s Summons in Chambers (Encl. 18) to set aside the Judgment Creditor’s (“JC”) Bankruptcy Notice (“BN”) dated 13 October 2022. The appeal is brought vide Notice of Appeal (Encl. 32). 2. The JC opposes the appeal on the grounds that the BN is proper in form and substance, that the JD has failed to demonstrate any bona fide basis for setting it aside, and that the appeal is nothing more 1 than an attempt to delay satisfaction of a valid and binding judgment debt. Facts 3. The JC, Fujifilm Business Innovation Asia Pacific Pte Ltd (formerly known as Fuji Xerox Asia Pacific Pte Ltd), obtained a judgment against the JD in Sessions Court Suit No. BI-A52NCvC-34-09/2019. 4. The JD’s appeai to the High Court (Civil Appeal No. BA-12A-37- 07/2020) was dismissed on 25 March 2021, and his further appeal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. B-04(IM)-209-04/2021) was dismissed on 3 March 2022. 5. As of 13 October 2022, the outstanding judgment debt stood at RM811,847.10, far exceeding the bankruptcy threshold of RM100,000. 6. The JC issued the BN on 13 October 2022. The JD subsequently filed Encl. 18 to set aside the BN. On 23 June 2023, the SAR dismissed Encl. 18. 7. Dissatisfied, the JD filed the present appeal (Encl. 32). Arguments of the Parties Judgment Debtor 8. The JD contends that the BN ought to be set aside on the following grounds: (i) The JC lacked locus standi to enforce the judgment because the judgment was obtained in the former name “Fuji Xerox Asia Pacific Pte Ltd”, while the BN was issued in the new name “Fujifilm Business Innovation Asia Pacific Pte Ltd’. The BN was defective in service and was not properly served. The BN was defective because the judgment was against both the JD and one Mohd Nizar bin Suib; leave should have been obtained. The BN was mala fide, oppressive, and amounted to unjust enrichment, as. the JC had delayed filing it. The JC should first have exhausted other modes of execution before resorting to bankruptcy. Judgment Creditor 9. The JC disputes all grounds relied upon by the JD and submits, in summary, that: (i) The change of name is immaterial pursuant to sections 28(5) and (6) of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”) and section 131 of the Insolvency Act 1967 (“IA 1967”). Case law (Re Ghapar Shah Mohamed v Fujifilm Business Innovation Asia Pacific Pte Ltd

2022

1 LNS 1044; Re Amran Ahmad, ex-parte MBF Finance Berhad [2005] 7 CLJ 172) establishes that a mere change of name does not affect proceedings. (ii) | The BN was duly served on the JD at his solicitors’ office, and this is confirmed by an affidavit of service. (iii) The JD is a principal debtor and jointly and severally liable with Mohd Nizar; separate BN proceedings have been commenced against Mohd Nizar. No Jeave is required. (iv) The BN was filed within 12 years of the judgment pursuant to section 6(3) of the Limitation Act 1953. The allegation of mala fide is misconceived; the delay lies in the JD’s failure to pay. (v) The JC is not required to exhaust other execution methods. Bankruptcy is a proper and lawful avenue of enforcement. Analysis and Findings Change of Name / Locus Standi 10. The JD's principal contention is that the JC lacked standing due to the change of name from “Fuji Xerox’ to “Fujifilm Business Innovation’. This argument is untenable. 11. Sections 28(5) and (6) CA 2016 expressly provide that a change of name shall not affect the rights or obligations of the company, nor render defective any legal proceedings by or against it. Section 131 IA 1967 further provides that no bankruptcy proceeding shall be invalidated by any formal defect or irregularity unless substantial injustice is shown. 12. In Re Ghapar Shah Mohamed, involving the very same JC, the High Court held that the company’s identity remained unaffected by the change of name and that the debtor could not have been misled where the registration number remained the same. Similarly, in Re Amran Ahmad [2005], it was held that a change of name does not affect the legal existence or proceedings of the company. 13. | find no prejudice occasioned to the JD. The company number is identical and the intitulement of the cause papers clearly discloses the former and present names. This ground is therefore without merit. Service of the Bankruptcy Notice 14. The BN was served personally on the JD at his solicitors’ office on 7 February 2023, and an affidavit of service was filed confirming this. The JD's denial is a bare allegation unsupported by evidence. On the contrary, his acknowledgment of service is on record. | find service was valid and proper. Joint and Several Liability 15. The JD contends that because the judgment was entered against him and Mohd Nizar, leave was required to proceed. This argument is misconceived. 16. The JD was sued as a principal debtor and is jointly and severally liable with Mohd Nizar. A creditor is entitled to proceed against one or all debtors for the full amount. Furthermore, the JC has in fact filed a separate BN against Mohd Nizar. This issue has been conclusively determined in the main suit and is caught by res judicata. No leave is required. Exhaustion of Other Execution Methods 17. The JD’s argument that bankruptcy is a remedy of last resort and other execution methods must be exhausted first is misconceived. There is no such requirement in law. The JD is not a guarantor but a principal debtor. The JC is entitled to pursue bankruptcy as a legitimate mode of execution once the statutory threshold is met. Conclusion 18. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the authorities cited, and the record, | find that none of the JD’s grounds have merit. The BN is valid in law, properly served, and founded on a subsisting judgment debt which the JD has failed to discharge. The appeal is a clear attempt to delay and obstruct enforcement of a valid judgment. 19. Accordingly, the appeal (Encl. 32) is dismissed with costs. Dated: 19" SERTEMBER 2025 LL RAJA ROZELA Bi I RAIA TORAN Judicial Comntissioner COUNSEL Solicitor for the Appellant Solicitor for the Respondent Tetuan Adnan Sharida & Associates No.3-1-1A,3-1-1B, 3-2-2A & 2B Jalan Medan PB 2A, Seksyen 9 43650 Bandar Baru Bangi Selangor Email : litigation@adnansharida.com Phone No : 03-8925 5875 1. Encik Nasrul Hadi bin Mat Saad Tetuan Skrine Unit No.50-8-1, Tingkat 8, Wisma UOA Damansara, 50, Jalan Dungun, Damansara Heights, 50490 Kuala Lumpur Phone No : 03-2081 3999 1. Encik Cedric Chan Yew

Something wrong on this page?

Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.

Report an issue Request removal

Malaysian judgment

Case metadata

Court: High Court of Malaysia
Decision date: 19 Sept 2025
Case number: BA-29NCC-2565-10/2022
Coram: YA Dato' Raja Rozela binti Raja Toran
Practice area: Bankruptcy – Appeal to Judge in Chambers – Appeal against decision of Senior Assistant Registrar for Application to set aside Bankruptcy Notice – Final Judgement - Absence of bona fide basis for appeal – Attempt to delay satisfaction of a valid and binding judgement debt – Attempt to delay and obstruct enforcement of valid judgement - Outstanding judgement exceed bankruptcy threshold – Locus standi – Change of name of Judgement Creditor - Defective service – Leave should be obtained prior – Mala fide – Oppressive – Unjust Enrichment – Other modes of execution has not be exhausted – Jointly and severally liable - Section 28(5) and (6) Companies Act 2016 – Section 131 Insolvency Act 1967
Version: Alasan Penghakiman 1
Published: 3 Nov 2025
Source ID: 350bb272-e441-4ef9-8b59-f932ae78d1c4

Catchwords

Bankruptcy – Appeal to Judge in Chambers – Appeal against decision of Senior Assistant Registrar for Application to set aside Bankruptcy Notice – Final Judgement - Absence of bona fide basis for appeal – Attempt to delay satisfaction of a valid and binding judgement debt – Attempt to delay and obstruct enforcement of valid judgement - Outstanding judgement exceed bankruptcy threshold – Locus standi – Change of name of Judgement Creditor - Defective service – Leave should be obtained prior – Mala fide – Oppressive – Unjust Enrichment – Other modes of execution has not be exhausted – Jointly and severally liable - Section 28(5) and (6) Companies Act 2016 – Section 131 Insolvency Act 1967

Parties

FUJIFILM Business Innovation Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. (dahulunya dikenali sebagai Fuji Xerox Asia Pacific Pte Ltd) - pemiutang-penghakiman - ejudgment_parties
Mohd Khelmy Bin Mukhtaruddin - penghutang-penghakiman - ejudgment_parties

Primary source

Compare this reader text against the official judgment source.

Open source PDF

2022

Catchwords

FUJIFILM Business Innovation Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. (dahulunya dikenali sebagai Fuji Xerox Asia Pacific Pte Ltd) v Mohd Khelmy Bin Mukhtaruddin (BA-29NCC-2565-10/2022)

How this case connects

Cited by

Authorities cited

Something wrong on this page?

FUJIFILM Business Innovation Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. (dahulunya dikenali sebagai Fuji Xerox Asia Pacific Pte Ltd) v Mohd Khelmy Bin Mukhtaruddin (BA-29NCC-2565-10/2022)

How this case connects

Cited by

Authorities cited

Something wrong on this page?