SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 MarsdenLR 941

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SITI NUR AISHAH ISHAK – Appellant
Versus
GOLDEN PLUS HOLDINGS BERHAD – Respondent


Table of Content
1. jurisdiction of high court to hear winding-up petitions. (Para 1 , 2)
2. facts supporting the winding-up petition. (Para 3 , 4 , 9)
3. arguments on the appropriate court for jurisdiction. (Para 5 , 6 , 12 , 13 , 19)
4. jurisdictional basis for appeal regarding winding-up. (Para 10)
5. court's analysis on jurisdictional factors. (Para 14 , 15 , 17 , 21)
6. court's authority based on geographic jurisdiction. (Para 16)
7. affirmation of high court jurisdiction framework. (Para 18 , 32)
Mary Lim Thiam Suan JCA:

[1] At the High Court, the respondent's application to strike out the above winding-up Petition made pursuant to s 23(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Act 91) and/or O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and/or (d) of the Rules of 2012 and/or inherent jurisdiction of the Court, was allowed with no order as to costs. The appellant/Petitioner appealed. Upon hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, we allowed the appeal with costs of RM10,000.00 subject to payment of allocatur.

[2] The appeal turns on the narrow issue of the jurisdiction of the High Court of Malaya to hear the present winding-up Petition; it being contended by the respondent that the Petition fel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top