Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL CHEOW – Appellant
Versus
ANS BUILDERS SDN BHD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. winding up petitions impact debt collection. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. joint venture agreement and obligations. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. agreement on shares affects creditor status. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. procedural steps in filing petitions. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. disputed debts hinder winding up petitions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 19) |
| 6. evidence of conflicting claims on debt. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 7. determination of share sales and debt assignment. (Para 20) |
| 8. court's approach to avoiding procedural delays. (Para 21) |
| 9. failure to pay must demonstrate bona fide debt. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 10. rebuttal of presumption of inability to pay debts. (Para 25) |
| 11. interpretation of s 218(2)(a) of the companies act. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
[1] A winding up petition may be presented against a company on ground of its inability to pay its debt. It is a powerful weapon utilised to put pressure on the company to pay what is said by the petitioner to be a debt due and owing to it. The consequences are severe as winding up commences the moment a petition for it is presented against a respondent company. Consequences range from the respondent's bank freezing its account unless sufficient security is furni
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
