Lee Chan Kok v 1. ) Popular Acres Sdn Bhd (BA-28PW-186-07/2023)

Content

BA-28PW-186-07/2023 Kand. 20/08/2025 15:08:25 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DiI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN NOMBOR GUAMAN.: BA-28PW-186-07/2023 Dalam perkara mengenai penggulungan syarikat Popular Acres Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 501792-P) melalui Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Penggulungan Syarikat No.: 28-295-06/2013 dan penggulungan syarikat Atlanta Terrace (M) Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 433944-D) melalui Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Penggulungan Syarikat No.: 28NCC-173-05/2015; Dan Dalam perkara mengenai tindakan guaman melaiui Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Nombor Guaman: BA-28PW-223-09/2022 untuk mengganitungkan penggulungan syarikat Popular Acres Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 501792-P) dan tindakan guaman melalui Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Nombor Guaman: BA-28PW-224-09/2022 untuk menggantungkan penggulungan syarikat Atlanta Terrace (M) Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 433944-D); Dan Dalam perkara mengenai permohonan untuk menamatkan penggulungan syarikat Popular Acres Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 501792-P) dan permohonan — untuk menamatkan penggulungan syarikat Atlanta Terrace (M) Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 433944- D); Dan Dalam perkara mengenai penentuan gaji ataupun ganjaran pelikuidasi; Dan Dalam perkara mengenai Seksyen-seksyen 479, 486(2), 492, 493, 494 dan 510, Akta Syarikat-syarikat 2016. ANTARA LEE CHAN KOK (NO. KP: 640831-08-6323) ... PEMOHON DAN 1. POPULAR ACRES SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT: 501792-P) 2. ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT: 88103-W) .. RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN Heard together DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGG! MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN NOMBOR GUAMAN.: BA-28PW-187-07/2023 Dalam perkara mengenai penggulungan syarikat Popular Acres Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 501792-P) melalui Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Penggulungan Syarikat No.: 28-295-06/2013 dan penggulungan syarikat Atlanta Terrace (M) Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 433944-D) melalui Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Penggulungan Syarikat No.: 28NCC-173-05/2015; Dan Dalam perkara mengenai tindakan guaman melaiui Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Nombor Guaman: BA-28PW-223-09/2022 untuk menggantungkan penggulungan syarikat Popular Acres Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 501792-P) dan tindakan guaman melalui Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Nombor Guaman: BA-28PW-224-09/2022 untuk menggantungkan penggulungan syarikat Atlanta Terrace (M) Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 433944-D); Dan Dalam perkara mengenai permohonan untuk menamatkan penggulungan syarikat Popular Acres Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 501792-P) dan permohonan — untuk menamatkan penggulungan syarikat Atlanta Terrace (M) Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 433944- D); Dan Dalam perkara mengenai penentuan gaji ataupun ganjaran pelikuidasi; Dan Dalam perkara mengenai Seksyen-seksyen 479, 486(2), 492, 493, 494 dan 510, Akta Syarikat-syarikat 2016. ANTARA LEE CHAN KOK (NO. KP: 640831-08-6323) .. PEMOHON DAN 1. ATLANTA TERRACE (M) SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 433944-D) 2. M.PANGAJAM (NO. KP : 601218-10-5782) ... RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT A. INTRODUCTION 1. These are the Applicant's applications in Enclosures 1 of BA-28PW- 186-07/2023 and BA-28PW-187-07/2023, seeking to terminate the winding-up of Popular Acres Sdn Bhd [“PASB”] and Atlanta Terrace (M) Sdn Bhd [“ATSB”] respectively, pursuant to section 493(1) of the Companies Act 2016. The applications were heard together given the substantial identity in factual background, legal issues, and the parties concerned. 2. For ease of reference, | will refer principally to the submissions and evidence in BA-28PW-186-07/2023 (Popular Acres), with the understanding that my findings apply mutatis mutandis to Atlanta Terrace. 3. After full consideration of the affidavits, written submissions, and oral arguments, | am not satisfied that a sufficient case has been made out for termination of the winding up of either PASB or ATSB. The applications are therefore dismissed for the reasons set out below. B. BACKGROUND FACTS 4. PASB was wound up by order of this Court on 11.03.2014 upon the petition of Alliance Bank Malaysia Berhad. ATSB was similarly wound up on 21.06.2016. The current liquidator, Dato’ Adam Primus Varghese Abdullah [“Dato’ Adam/the Liquidator’], was appointed on 27.11.2015 for PASB and 21.06.2016 for ATSB. 5. The Applicant, Lee Chan Kok, is a contributory and former director of both companies. He claims to have expended over RM8 million to redeem the charged lands and to settle purchasers’ claims. He contends that pursuant to a settlement agreement with Alliance Bank, the previous liquidator was to be replaced and entrusted with reviving the housing project undertaken by PASB and ATSB, and not to proceed with liquidation. 6. TheApplicant alleges that Dato’ Adam breached this understanding by proceeding to sell the lands at undervalue and without his consent. He further alleges forgery in the process of obtaining replacement titles. Based on these matters, he now seeks the termination of the winding-up proceedings, and ancillary reliefs including orders under sections 486(2), 494 and 510 CA 2016. C. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION 7. The key issues for determination are as follows: a) Whether the Applicant has met the threshold for terminating the winding-up under section 493(1) CA 2016; b) Whether the alleged misconduct by the liquidator justifies judicial intervention under section 486(2) or 510; and c) Whether the Applicant has locus standi and/or procedural compliance to pursue relief against the liquidator. D. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Burden and Requirements under Section 493(1) CA 2016 8. Section 493(1) provides that the Court may order the termination of a winding-up where there is “proof to the satisfaction of the Court that all proceedings in relation to the winding up ought to be terminated.” The legal burden lies squarely on the Applicant to make a positive or sufficient case for termination ( Viiayalakshmi Devi v Dr Mahadevan [1995] 3 CLJ 493). 9. Section 493(2) outlines three factors the Court may consider: a. Whether debts of the company to its creditors have been satisfied; b. Whether stakeholders agree to the termination; c. Other facts the Court considers appropriate. 10. The Liquidator has affirmed that PASB’s outstanding liabilities, as proven through the proof of debt process, amounting to RM3,844,487.81, which remains unsatisfied. This is confirmed in the Liquidator’s Report (see Enclosure 23), which also records that 24 PODs filed. The Applicant however, did not submit any proof of debt despite his assertions of being the biggest creditor. The case of Titan Ritz Sdn Bhd v Zhuoyuan Iskandar Sdn Bhd [2021] MLJU 2234 confirms that termination of winding-up is not appropriate where debts are not fully settled. 11. There is also no evidence that PASB or ATSB could continue as going concerns. In Vijayalakshmi Devi, the Federal Court made clear that the applicant must present concrete and credible evidence to show that the company is viable and capable of operating as a going concern. Here, none has been advanced. 12. The Liquidator’s view is strongly opposed to termination, which the court may properly consider (Vijayalakshmi Devi). 13. Further, it is against public interest and commercial morality to terminate a winding up without clarity that all creditor obligations have been met or that a legitimate and viable business continuation plan exists. These principles were emphasized in Vijayalakshmi Devi and highlight that winding-up proceedings are not just private disputes, but matters that also involve public interest and the integrity of commercial practices. Allegations Against the Liquidator 14. TheApplicant accuses the Liquidator of acting in breach of trust and selling assets at undervalue. These allegations are unsupported by contemporaneous evidence, are inconsistent with the Liquidator’s conduct in executing the land sale, and are contradicted by the delay in raising objections. The Federal Court in Bank Negara Malaysia v Mohd Ismail [1992] 1 MLJ 400 held that assertions lacking precision or credibility may be disregarded. 15. The Liquidator has denied any mandate to revive the company. His duties, as clarified by the Federal Court in Ooi Woon Chee v Dato’ See Teow Chuan [2012] 2 MLJ 713 and Tan Kim Chuan v Tan Kim Tian [2022] 6 MLJ 888, are to realise assets and distribute proceeds according to law. That has been done. °16. The complaint of forgery led to a police report and caveat. Investigations resulted in the caveat being removed. No prosecution or further action followed. 17. Wong Sin Fan v Ng Peak Yam [2013] 2 MLJ 629 affirms that judicial interference with a liquidators decisions is warranted only where such conduct is so unreasonable or irrational that no reasonable person in the liquidator’s position would have acted in that manner. That threshold is not met in this case. Procedural Irregularities and Delay 18. The Applicant seeks relief under section 510 CA 2016 without first obtaining leave of court as required by N Chanthiran. This omission is fatal. 19. The application is also brought after inordinate delay. Although the liquidation began in 2014, and the lands were sold in 2021 via public tender, the applications were only filed much later in July 2023. In Ga-Seng Paper Marketing [2015] 9 CLJ 640, the court warned that termination applications brought late without explanation should not succeed. 20. The Applicant also seeks to challenge the Liquidators remuneration. However, section 479 of the CA 2016 requires that a member may apply to vary such remuneration after it has been approved by creditors or a committee of inspection. In the present case, the remuneration has yet to be submitted for approval by either the creditors or a committee of inspection. As such, the Applicant has no standing to question the liquidator's entitlement to remuneration, especially since substantive work has been performed. E. CONCLUSION 21. Having reviewed the full spectrum of the evidence and legal arguments advanced, | am not persuaded that the statutory criteria or equitable considerations favour the grant of the reliefs sought. The debts of PASB and ATSB amounting to approximately RM3.84 million have not been shown to be satisfied. The Liquidator’s sworn 9 evidence affirms that this amount remains unpaid, and no contrary evidence has been provided by the Applicant. 22. The Applicant's complaints of misfeasance and forgery are inadequately supported, speculative, and contradicted by the Liquidators contemporaneous conduct. 23. Further, the applications suffer from serious procedural defects. Notably, no leave was obtained under section 510 of the Companies Act 2016 to mount a challenge against the Liquidator. This is a mandatory requirement as emphasised in N Chanthiran v Kao Che Jen. 24. There is also unexplained delay: the winding up occurred nearly a decade ago, and the impugned land sale was concluded in 2021. No plausible reason is given why these applications were only filed in 2023. In the meantime, the Liquidator has fulfilled his statutory obligations, i.e., realising assets, safeguarding proceeds, and dealing with creditors’ proofs of debt. 25. Crucially, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that PASB or ATSB are viable going concerns. There is no business plan, projected accounts, or third-party commitment to fund or revive operations. As laid down in Vijayalakshmi Devi, the burden rests on the Applicant to show that the companies are capable of commercial resurrection. This has not been done. Termination in these circumstances would offend public interest and commercial morality. 10 26. Lastly, the challenge on the Liquidator’s remuneration is misconceived given the fact that the remuneration has yet to be submitted by the Liquidator for approval by creditors/committee of inspection to trigger section 479. 27. Accordingly, both applications, i.e., BA-28PW-186-07/2023 and BA- 28PW-187-07/2023 are dismissed with costs. Dated: 18" JULY RAJA ROZELA BINTI RAJA TORAN Judicial Cdm\nissioner Muamalat and {nsolvency Shah Alat 11 COUNSEL Solicitor for the Appellant : Tetuan Chan Leong & Co. Peguamcara No .3-4B, Jalan Anggerik Vanilla N 31/N, Kota Kemuning Seksyen 31 40460 Shah Alam Selangor Solicitor for the Respondent : Tetuan Azman Davidson & Co Peguambela & Peguamcara Suite 13.03, 13! Floor, Menara Tan & Tan 207 Jalan Tun Razak 50400 Kuala Lumpur Tetuan Sugu K.& Partners Peguambela & Peguamcara 5" Floor, Wisma MCIS, Jalan Barat 46200 Petaling Jaya Selangor Tetuan Shaik David Raj Peguambela dan Peguamcara M-2-19, Plaza Damas 60 Jalan Sri Hartamas 1 Sri Hartamas 50480 Kuala Lumpur 12