Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL ASSURANCE BHD – Appellant
Versus
COORDINATED SERVICES L DESIGN SDN BHD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's application context and basis (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. company's activities post-winding up (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments against stay order (Para 7) |
| 4. reasons for dismissal of application (Para 8) |
| 5. order and costs issued (Para 9) |
[1] This is my JUDGMENT in respect of the plaintiff's application in essence to set aside an order of the High Court in a different suit where the Court ordered a stay of the winding up proceedings pursuant to section 243 of Companies Act 1965 (CA 1965) . The prayers inter alia reads as follows:
1. A declaration that the Order dated 27.4.2009 obtained at Kuala Lumpur High Court Companies Winding-Up No: D1-28-86-2001 was obtained in breach of and/or ultra vires section 243(1) of the Companies Act 1965 and is therefore void and of no effect.
2. A declaration that the Order dated 27.4.2009 obtained at Kuala Lumpur High Court Companies Winding-Up No: D1-28-86-2001 was obtained in excess of and/or without the jurisdiction of the winding-up Court and is therefore void and of no effect.
3. A declaration that the Order dated 27.4.2009 obtained at Kuala Lumpur High Court Companies Winding-Up No: D1-28-86-2001 was obtained in breach of
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
