Back
HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK KUCHING
SANYAN SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
SANYAN LUMBER SDN BHD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. winding up order and applications for stay. (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 5) |
| 2. grounds for application regarding winding up. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. parties present and their positions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. authority to appeal post winding up. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. legal standards for granting stays. (Para 12 , 14 , 19) |
| 6. conditions under s 243(1) for stay. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. evaluation of arguments and dismissal rationale (Para 20) |
[1] There are two applications before me. The applications relate to a winding up order that this court made against the respondent company on 11 October 2011. The first application is for stay of execution under O 45 r 11 Rules of High 1980 by an advocate purporting to act on behalf of the respondent company. The second application is under s 243(1) of the Companies Act 1965 . This application is made by Dato Ting Check Sii as a contributory of the respondent company.
Brief Facts
[2] The respondent company was wound up on 11 October 2011. It was, in a manner of speaking, a "default" winding up order as suggested in these proceedings. This is because no one appeared for the respondent to oppose the winding up petition. There was no affidavit opposing th
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
