The court affirms that a creditor must submit proof of debt timely and comply with statutory requirements for validation of claims against a liquidator’s decision.

JUDGMENT

Shamsulbahri Ibrahim JC:

Brief Background

[1] On 8 October 1990, the Applicant, Overseas Industries Sdn Bhd granted a loan of RM129,935.80 to Pipemakers Malaysia Sdn Bhd ("Pipemakers").

[2] On 17 May 2012 Pipemakers was wound-up by the Johor Bahru High Court and Mr V Venkatachalam a/l Venkatachalam Chettiar was appointed as the Liquidator ("Liquidator").

[3] The assets of Pipemakers were sold on October 2012 and the proceeds from the sale were received on November 2012.

[4] The Applicant averred that since appointed, the Liquidator has not collected any debt owing to Pipemakers and not paid any debts of Pipemakers nor paid any dividends to any creditor or shareholder.

[5] On 17 February 2021 the Liquidator sent a letter to the Applicant mentioning that the amount of Pipemakers debt owing to the Applicant was RM68,985.80.

[6] In the letter, the Liquidator also stated that he was unable to accept the Applicant's claim as it did not submit any proof of debt during the period advertised in the Sun Newspaper and the Federal Gazette, both published on 28 March 2013

[7] On 6 March 2021, the Applicant filed this application in encl 1, for an order to set aside the decision of the Liquidator rejecting the Applicant's claim of RM129,935.80.

Objection By The Liquidator

[8] In objecting this Applicant's application, the Liquidator raised the following reasons:

(a) the Liquidator does not fall under the category of an aggrieved person under s 517 of the Companies Act 2016 [Act 777];

(b) the Liquidator should be named as the respondent or defendant; and

(c) there was no mistake by the Liquidator in rejecting the Applicant's proof of debt as it was:

(i) made out of the time required in the gazette and advertisement; and

(ii) not supported by any documentation.

Does The Liquidator Fall Under The Category Of Aggrieved Person?

[9] It is my considered view that the Applicant being a creditor is an aggrieved person when its application was rejected by the Liquidator.

[10] Section 517 of Act 777 says:

"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."

[11] It is clear from the above provision that any person aggrieved by any act or decision of a 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.

[12 As this section does not specify or define the term "any aggrieved person", it is wide enough to cover any person in whatever form as long as he is affected by the decision of a liquidator.

[13] This is amplified by r 93 of the Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972 which allows a creditor who is not satisfied with the decision of a liquidator to apply to the Court for the revision of the same.

[14] The rule reads:

"Appeal by creditor

93. 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.".

[15] Even though the Liquidator denied that the Applicant is a creditor, the Report of the Liquidator, Report No 1 at paragraph B(1) states that the Applicant is one of the creditors. By this report which was prepared by the Liquidator, it is no doubt that the Applicant is a creditor.

Whether The Liquidator Should Be Named As The Respondent Or Defendant?

[16] It is nowhere mentioned in the law that a liquidator must be named as respondent or defendant when it comes to the issue of reviewing his decision.

[17] Section 471 of Act 777 says:

"Action or proceeding st