The court will not interfere with a liquidator's decision unless it is shown that the decision was unreasonable, absurd, or made with an error of law.

Table of Content
1. overview of the applicant and respondent's financial interaction. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8)

[1] The Applicant / Perusahaan Otomobil Sdn Bhd filed a Notice of Motion dated 12 November 2018, pursuant to ss 451 and 517 of the Companies Act and the Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972 and /or the inherent jurisdiction of this Honourable Court for the followings order:

a) That leave be granted to commence action against the Respondent;

b) That the decision of Yew Fooi, the liquidator of the Respondent to reject the POD of the Applicant filed on 28 November 2014, made on 24 October 2018 pursuant to the Applicant's solicitor's letter dated 9 October 2018 be reversed;

c) That in any event, Yew Fooi does give a full account in a manner satisfactory to this Honourable Court of the affairs of the Respondent since the same has been taken into his custody, control or under his control upon his appointment.

d) That Yew Fooi cause and take necessary steps to admit and repay the sum of RM11,248,862.50 or such sum that is recoverable pari passu, in order of the Companies Act 2016 , to the Applicant within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the sealed Order on the solicitors for the Respondent or such time as this Hanourable Court shall direct.

e) Costs; and

f) Such further and or other relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit.

Brief Facts

[2] It is pertinent to set out briefly the chronology, sequence of events and facts in order to appreciate the factual matrix of the case.

[3] The Respondent Company ("TIC") was the manufacturer and supplier of automobile components or parts for the Applicant since 1990. Respondent also supply component and or/ parts for selected Proton model for the Applicant, including the Preve, Inspira, Exora, Persona and Gen 2.

[4] Respondent and the Applicant had executed six (6) agreements which provide inter alia for purchases, as well as for the supply of parts.

[5] The Respondent Company and the Applicant subsequently entered into a "set-off arrangement" in 2012 due to a change in the Respondent company's financial position. Through this arrangement, the Applicant would purchase raw materials on behalf of the Respondent Company and the cost of the same would then be set off against the price of the parts manufactured by the Respondent Company.

[6] This set-off arrangement continued from 2012 to October 2014. It also subsisted during the recevership period from 15 July 2013 to 25 October 2013.

[7] On 1 October 2014 Respondent was wound-up by this Honourable Court pursuant to a Winding - Up Petition filed by Maple Autostyling Sdn Bhd and the Official Receiver was appointed as the Liquidator.

[8] Applicant being the single largest creditor of the Respondent had filed its Proof of Debt ("POD") on 28 November 2014 totaling to a sum of RM11,248,862.50.

[9] Vide a letter dated 21 March 2016, the Official Receiver as the Liquidator of TIC had accepted and admitted the Applicant's POD in its entirety.

[10] Subsequently, on 28 June 2016 the High Court Shah Alam appointed Yew Fooi as Liquidator in place of the Official Receiver.

[11] At the meeting on 20 July 2018 at the Applicant's office, the Liquidator informed that after perusing all the documents provided, the Applicant's POD is rejected. No Notice of Rejection has been issued or written reasons given by the Liquidator to the Applicant for the rejection of the Applicant's POD.

[12] Due to this uncertainty, the Applicant thus instructed Messrs.Chooi & Company + Cheang & Ariff to follow up with the Liquidator. Pursuant to the solicitors letter dated 16 August 2018 and 9 October 2018, the Applicant requested the Liquidator to put his decision in writing in respect of the Applicant's POD within 14 days. As no information has been forthcoming from the Liquidator, on 12 November 2018 the Applicant filed encl 1 to reversed the decision of the Private Liquidator.

[13] Subsequently, the Liquidator issued a Notice of Rejection of the Applicant's POD dated 7 January

Click Here to Read the rest of this document