RHB BANK BERHAD vs MALAYSIA PACIFIC CORPORATION BERHAD & ANOTHER APPEAL

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 MarsdenLR 2694

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
RHB BANK BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
MALAYSIA PACIFIC CORPORATION BERHAD & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Chan Kean Li,Lim Poh Leong ,Respondent Advocate: T Gunaseelan,Keshvinjeet Singh

Table of Content
1. two appeals regarding the validity of a winding-up petition based on a judgment debt. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. respondent's arguments regarding the oppressive nature of the s 218 notice. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. appellant's assertion of rights under contractual arrangements. (Para 11 , 12)

[1] These two appeals by the same appellant are in relation to two applications made by the respondent in the court below for what is in essence, a Fortuna injunction [see Fortuna Holdings Pty Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [1978] VR 83]. The respondent was seeking to restrain the appellant from presenting a winding-up petition after the appellant's notice issued pursuant to s 218 of the Companies Act 1965 failed to elicit payment by the respondent of monies ordered under a judgment dated 11 April 2016. Not only was the restraining order granted, the notice was also declared as invalid.

[2] Upon proper consideration of the submissions, records of appeal and the applicable principles of law, we were unanimous in our decision to allow both appeals. We found merit in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant and these are our reasons in full.

Undisputed Facts

[3] On

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 MarsdenLR 2694

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYARHB BANK BERHAD – AppellantVersusMALAYSIA PACIFIC CORPORATION BERHAD & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent

Cases Referred (3)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
RHB BANK BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
MALAYSIA PACIFIC CORPORATION BERHAD & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent