An appeal against a liquidator's decision must be filed within 21 days as stipulated; failure to do so renders the decision final unless an extension is sought.

JUDGMENT

Azmi Ariffin J:

Introduction

[1] The Applicant filed a Notice of Motion vide encl 1 dated 12 May 2020 pursuant to s 517 of the Companies Act 2016 and / or r 93 of the Companies (Winding- Up) Rules 1972 for the followings order:

1.1 that the Decision or Act of the liquidator (Chong Chuan Long) of the Respondent (Oilfab Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) to partially reject the proof of debt filed by the Applicant Ng Huat Tian to the extent of Ringgit Malaysia Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Nine and Sen Thirty Five (RM30,679.35) be reversed;

1.2 that pursuant to (1) above stated, the said claim of RM30,679.35 be admitted and be paid to the Applicant together with interest at the rate of five per centum (5% pa) per annum from 9 November 2012 till realization;

1.3 that the Decision or Act of the said liquidator to partially admit they said proof of debt to the extent of Ringgit Malaysia Three Hundred Eight Three Thousand and Eighteen and Sen Ninety Five (RM383,018.95) be varied or modified to include interest;

1.4 that pursuant to (3) above stated, the said claim of RM383.018.95 be paid to the Applicant together with interest at the rate of five per centum (5% pa) per annum from 9 November 2012 till realization;

1.5 costs;

1.6 such further or other relief as this Court deems fit and fair.

Brief Facts

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

[3] The Respondent was wound up by this Honourable Court on 9 February 2012 and one Chong Chuan Long was appointed as the Liquidator of the Respondent.

[4] On or about 8 November 2012, the Applicant filed its Proof of Debt with the Liquidator for the total debt for the sum of RM413, 698.30.

[5] Sometime after 4 March 2020, the Applicant received a Notice of Rejection ("Form 59") whereby the Liquidator has admitted his proof of debt in the sum of RM383,018.95 and rejected his proof of debt in the sum of RM30,678.35 on the ground that:

"insufficient supporting documents to substantiate the amount of claim".

[6] On 12 May 2020, the Applicant filed an appeal against the partially rejection of the proof of debt in the sum of RM30,678.35.

So much for the brief factual background.

The Relevant Section

[7] I shall now consider the pertinent provision of the law which read as follows:

7.1 Section 517 of the Companies Act 2016 ; and

"Appeal against decision of liquidator

517. Any person aggrieved by any act or decision of the liquidator may apply to the Court which may confirm, reverse or modify the act or decision complained of and make such order as it thinks just."

7.2 Rule 93 of the Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972:

"93. Appeal by creditor

If a creditor or contributory is dissatisfied with the decision of the liquidator in respect of a proof, the Court may, on the application of the creditor or contributory, reverse or vary the decision; but subject to the power of the Court to extend the time, no application to reverse or vary the decision of the liquidator in a winding-up by the Court shall be entertained, unless notice of the application is given before the expiration of twenty-one days from the date of service of the notice of rejection."

Findings Of This Court

[8] With regards to the written submission filed by both parties, with deepest respect, it comes as a surprise to me that both the learned counsel did not touch / discuss on the issue of whether the Applicant was late in filing his application to reverse or vary the decision of the Liquidator in rejecting the Applicant proof of debt.

[9] As said, I am fully conscious that this particular issue was never address, raised, argued or ventilated by parties before me. Be that as it may, I take the view that this pertinent issue has not escaped my attention and it cannot be simply washed off. It calls for determination.

[10] Having consider the facts and chronology of event in the case at hand, suffice to say that based upon s 517 Companies Act 2016 read together with r 93 of the Comp