Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
TRILLION OSCAR SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
TIMUR ENTERPRISE SDN BHD – Respondent
[Winding Up Petition No: WA-28NCC-1029-11/2024]
Key Points: - Court dismissed application by Su Ming Jiun (shareholder of Petitioner) to intervene in winding-up of Respondent, finding no locus standi as he lacked legal interest in the subject matter (!) (!) (!) - Court applied test from Pegang Mining Company Ltd v. Choong Sam & Ors, requiring legal interest directly affected by orders, not mere financial interest (!) (!) (!) - Proposed intervener entitled to appear and oppose petition per Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972 (rr 28-30) but not to intervene or seek stay (!) (!) (!) (!) - Court refused stay of proceedings pending Shah Alam suit, finding no special circumstances or prejudice, as issues unrelated to debt owed by Respondent (!) (!) (!) - Winding-up petition granted as Respondent insolvent: failed to comply with statutory demand under Companies Act 2016 ss 465(1)(e), 466(1)(a) and pay summary judgment debt (!) (!) (!) (!) - Summary judgment against Respondent (RM3,000,000) not stayed, merits considered, no affidavit in opposition showing solvency (!) (!) - Injunctions against Petitioner's director Lim Aik Gee did not prevent winding-up petition or affidavit affirmation (!) (!) - Su Ming Jiun not a contributory of Respondent, so no standing under s 470 Companies Act 2016 to seek stay (!) - Court appointed Mr Onn Kien Hoe as liquidator and awarded costs of RM10,000 to Petitioner from Respondent's assets (!) (!)
A. Introduction
[1] This Court decided to hear the following enclosures on the 27 March 2025 :-
(i) Enclosure 15 - The application by Su Ming Jiun to be added as an intervener in this application. He also seeks to stay these proceedings pending the claim filed by him in the Writ Summons No: BA-22NCC-153-12/2022.
(ii) Enclosure 1 - Petition to Wind-Up the Respondent based on the Winding Up Notice issued and the Judgment in the Civil Suit No: WA-22NCC-681-09/2023 dated 10 July 2024.
B. Decision Of This Court
[2] This Court found that the Applicant / Proposed Intervener did not have any locus standi to appear in these proceedings to object to the application to wind-up the Respondent. Therefore, the application was dismissed with costs.
[3] This Court also found that as the Petitioner has shown that the Respondent is insolvent based on the failure to comply with the demand issued in the statutory notice as well as the failure to pay the judgment sums claimed, the said Respondent should be wound up.
C. Reasoning For Dismissing Enclosure 15 - Intervention And Stay Of Proceedings
Application To Intervene
Facts Raised To Justify Right To Intervene
[4] Su Ming Jiun is a contributor or shareholder of the Petitioner. He is not a contributor or shareholder of the Respondent.
[5] The said Su Ming Jiun had obtained leave from the High Court in Shah Alam to institute a derivative action against Lim Aik Gee (a shareholder and a deponent of the affidavit in these proceedings for the Petitioner).
[6] Thereafter, Su Ming Jiun had instituted proceedings on behalf of Trillion Oscar (the Petitioner) against Lim Aik Gee in the Civil Suit No: BA-22NCC-153-12/2022.
[7] The claim against Lim Aik Gee is summarized as follows:-
(i) That allegedly Lim Aik Gee had siphoned out from the coffers of Trillion Oscar the sum of RM 2,555,000.00.
(ii) He had breached his fiduciary duties to the company by siphoning out these monies.
(iii) Had wrongly issued shares to the sum of 47,349 in the company for himself and increased his control to 96.4% of the shares in the company.
[8] The reliefs sought in the suit against Lim Aik Gee are as follows:-
(i) A declaration that the said Lim Aik Gee had breached his duties to the company.
(ii) A declaration that the sums or the proceeds of the said sums of RM 2.555 million are traced
(iii) That the said Lim Aik Gee be made responsible and pay to Trillion Oscar the sum of RM 2.555 million.
(iv) General Damages and Exemplary Damages.
[9] On 11 January 2024, Dr Choong Yeow Choy JC, gave the following interlocutory injunction against the said Lim Aik Gee:-
(a) Suatu injuksi interim bahawa Defendan sama ada dengan sendirinya, ejen-ejen, pekhidmat-pekhidmat, pekerja-pekerja, atau sebaliknya bagaimanapun dihalang daripada berurusan dengan atau selainnya melupuskan aset, stok, inventori dan wang dalam akaun Plaintif (termasuk bank akaun CIMB Plaintif) melainkan dan kecuali untuk tujuan pembayaran yang dibuat dalam perjalanan biasa perniagaan (in the ordinary course of business) Plaintif sementara menunggu tindakan ini diselesaikan dibenarkan;
(b) Suatu injuksi interim bahawa Defendan sama ada dengan sendirinya, ejen-ejen, pekhidmat-pekhidmat, pekerja-pekerja, atau sebaliknya bagaimanapun dihalang daripada mengalih keluar atau memusnahkan mana-mana buku, rekod kewangan Plaintif sementara menunggu pelupusan tindakan ini dibenarkan;
(c) Suatu injuksi interim bahawa Defendan sama ada dengan sendirinya, ejen-ejen, pekhidmat-pekhidmat, pekerja-pekerja atau sebaliknya bagaimanapun dihalang daripada dipecat atau menyebabkan pemecatan Su Ming Jiun (No. K/P: 781026-10-5527) daripada pengurusan Plaintif dibenarkan;
(d) Satu perintah injuksi interim bahawa Defendan sama ada dengan sendirinya, ejen-ejen, pekhidmat-pekhidmat, pekerja-pekerja atau sebaliknya untuk memberikan maklumat pembayaran ke akaun Plaintif terhadap penerbitan 47,349.00 saham-saham Baharu Plaintif atas nama Defendan dan anak Defendan, Lim Wai Keong dibenarkan.
[10] Th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
