SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 1841

HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
AMY SIEW PITT WEN & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
MINES WATERFRONT BUSINESS PARK SDN BHD; GRAND WELLNESS HUB SDN BHD (APPL.... – Respondent


Table of Content
1. application for leave to intervene (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. central issue: legal interest of proposed interveners (Para 6)
3. legal test for intervention in winding-up proceedings (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. consideration of creditors' rights and interests (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. granting leave to intervene (Para 17)
Raja Rozela Raja Toran JC:

(Enclosure 16)

Introduction

[1] This is my decision in respect of encl 16, which is an application by the Proposed Interveners - namely Ling How Gin, Yap Chye Cheey, Jogindar Singh Sardara Singh, and Oralix Marketing Sdn Bhd - for leave to intervene in these post-winding up proceedings pursuant to O 15 r 6 of the Rules of Court 2012 and/or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. I delivered my oral decision allowing the application on 25 March 2025. These are my written grounds.

Background

[2] The Respondent company, Mines Waterfront Business Park Sdn Bhd ("the Company"), was ordered to be wound up on 9 May 2023. On 6 September 2024, Andrew Heng and Kumarakuru of Baker Tilly Insolvency PLT were appointed as joint and several liquidators of the Company, replacing the Official Receiver.

[3] The current proceedings (BA-28PW

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top