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) |
(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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.