Content
BA-28JM-10-04/2025 Kand. 07/11/2025 12:54:31 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA SAMAN PEMULA NO. BA-28JM-10-04/2025 DALAM PERKARA SEKSYEN- SEKSYEN 404,405,406 & 407 AKTA SYARIKAT 2016 DALAM PERKARA KOH LEK CONSTRUCTION & RENOVATION SDN. BHD (NO. — SYARIKAT: (199401027768/313450-D) DALAM PERKARA KAEDAH 88&17 KAEDAH-KAEDAH SYARIKAT (MEKANISME PENYELAMAT KORPORAT) 2018 KOH LEK CONSTRUCTION & RENOVATION SDN.BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 199401027768/313450-D) ... PEMOHON KERAJAAN MALAYSIA ... PENCELAH YANG DICADANGKAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 5 — Application to Intervene) 4 Introduction 1. Enclosure 5 is an application by Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia (“LHDN”) to intervene in the present judicial management (“JM”) proceedings commenced by Koh Lek Construction & Renovation Sdn Bhd (“the Applicant’). 2. LHDN seeks to be heard on the Applicant’s JM application on the basis that it is a substantial creditor of the Applicant and that the JM application has been filed to delay or frustrate the collection of outstanding tax liabilities. 3. Having considered the affidavits and submissions filed by both parties, | have dismissed the application. My reasons are set out below. Background Facts 4. LHDN is a tax authority and a judgment creditor of the Applicant for income tax arrears amounting to RM9,497,433.26 for the assessment years 2012 to 2015. Despite partial payments totalling RM240,000, the outstanding sum of RM9,257,443.46 remains unpaid. On this basis, LHDN filed a winding-up petition against the Applicant. 5. TheApplicant subsequently fited the present Judicial Management application under sections 404 to 407 of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”), which by operation of section 410(c) imposes a statutory moratorium staying the winding-up petition. LHDN now seeks to intervene in these JM proceedings to oppose the JM application and to continue its winding-up petition. Submissions of the Parties LHDN’s Submissions 6. LHDN contends that it has a direct and substantial interest in the JM proceedings, being a public authority owed a large sum of unpaid taxes. It submits that the JM application is an abuse of process, filed solely to delay the winding-up proceedings. LHDN argues that the Applicant has not demonstrated a viable or bona fide plan for rehabilitation, as there is no evidence of secured funding, asset sale, or professional proposal for restructuring. 7. LHDN further submits that the Court ought to allow its intervention in order to ensure that the JM process is not used to defeat legitimate debt recovery, particularly where public revenue and interest are involved. It relies on the line of authorities where courts have struck down JM applications filed merely to postpone winding- up proceedings. Applicant’s Submissions 8. The Applicant opposes the intervention. It argues that LHDN is not a secured creditor or debenture holder within the meaning of section 409 CA 2016 and therefore has no locus standi to oppose or intervene in the JM application. The right to be heard in opposition to a JM order is restricted to those expressly identified in the said provision, while unsecured creditors may only object to the nomination of the judicial manager under section 407(3) if they represent a majority in value of creditors. 9. The Applicant further submits that Rule 13 of the Companies (Corporate Rescue Mechanism) Rules 2018 do not confer any right of intervention to unsecured creditors. As such, it was argued that the application to intervene is misconceived in law and contrary to the legislative purpose of JM, which is to allow breathing space for the company to propose a rescue plan without creditor interference. Analysis and Findings 10. The central issue before me is whether LHDN, as an unsecured creditor, has locus standi to intervene in these JM proceedings at the pre-JM order stage. 11. Section 409 CA 2016 expressly provides that only a receiver or receiver and manager, or a secured creditor may oppose the making of a JM order. LHDN is neither. The section does not confer any equivalent right on unsecured creditors, regardless of the size or public nature of their claim. 12. While Order 15 rule 6(2)(b) of the Rules of Court 2012 permits persons whose interests may be affected to intervene, that general procedural rule cannot be invoked to circumvent or expand the specific statutory scheme set out in the CA 2016. 13. | am of the view that the legislative intent is clear: Parliament has chosen to confine the category of creditors entitled to be heard at this stage. Unsecured creditors, including tax authorities, are not without remedy; they may participate later in the process, particularly at the creditors’ meeting convened by the judicial manager and during consideration of the proposed JM plan. 14. LHDN’s submission that public interest warrants exceptional treatment cannot override the express statutory limitations. The JM moratorium under section 410 applies to all creditors indiscriminately, and no special exception exists for tax debts. | would emphasise that judicial management is a corporate rescue mechanism, not a debt recovery process. 15. In my judgment, the mere existence of a pending winding-up petition or a large unpaid tax debt does not create a distinct legal interest that justifies intervention. The same reasoning has been applied in earlier decisions such as Re Biaxis (M) Sdn Bhd [2022] 7 MLJ 443 and Kumpulan Liziz Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) v Pembinaan Azam Jaya Sdn Bhd [2022] 1 MLJ 570, where unsecured creditors were held to have no right to oppose JM applications. Conclusion 16. For these reasons, ! find that LHDN has no locus standi to intervene in the judicial management proceedings. Its position as an unsecured creditor, albeit a public authority, does not entitle it to participate at this stage. Its rights are adequately protected under the statutory process once a judicial manager is appointed. 17. Accordingly, Enclosure 5 is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Dated: 774 NOVEMBER 2025 RAJA ROZELA NTI RAJA TORAN Je Commissioner uamalat and Insolvency Shah Alam COUNSEL Solicitor for the Appellant : Peguam Kanan Hasil Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia, Pahang Seksyen Undang-Undang, Tingkat 10,Menara Hasil Jalan Tanah Putih 25600 Kuantan, Pahang Phone No : 09-518300 ( Sambungan 190355/190088/190082 Email : serihanem@hasil.gov.my 1. Puan Seri Hanem Solicitor for the Respondent : . Tetuan Lim Fung Yin @ Co Suite C-3A-09, Level 3A, Block C, Plaza Mont Kiara No.2 Jalan Kiara, Mont Kiara, 50480 Kuala Lumpur Phone No : 03-2387 0230 1. Alia Alef