JUDGMENT

Saheran Suhendran JC:

Introduction

[1] These Grounds concern leave I granted under s 486(2) of the Companies Act 2016 ("CA 2016") to the First Respondent to proceed in the name of the Second Respondent, with arbitration proceedings ("the Arbitration") and/or with the enforcement of a final award in the Arbitration.

[2] All references to sections are, unless the context provides otherwise, with reference to CA 2016.

Background Facts

[3] The First Respondent ("R1") is the sole contributory of the Second Respondent ("R2"). On 13 October 2021, R2 was wound up.

[4] Konsesi ("Konsesi") is embroiled in a dispute with R2. The dispute went to Arbitration, which was commenced on 6 June 2020. On 27 August 2024, the Final Award was handed down in the Arbitration in favour of R2.

[5] The chronology of events set out below is adopted from Konsesi's truncated submissions filed herein:

1. Exhibit NAF-1, Applicant's AIS, Encl 2, pp 18-207

2. Exhibit NAF-2, Applicant's AIS, Encl 3, pp 209-213

3. Exhibit NAF-4, Applicant's AIS, Encl 3, pp 223-228

4. Exhibit NAF-4, Applicant's AIS, Encl 3, pp 223-228

5. Exhibit NAF-6, Applicant's AIS, Encl 3, pp 265-293

6. Exhibit NAF-7, Applicant's AIS, Encl 3, pp 295-297

7. Exhibit NAF-8, Applicant's AIS, Encl 3, pp 299-322

8. [Exhibit ZBM-8, 1st Respondent's AIR, Encl 13, pp 10-12 ] & [Exhibit NAF-16, Applicant's AA, Encl 21, pp 79-82, 98, 113-124]

9. Exhibit NAF-11, Applicant's AIS, Encl 4, pp 484-644

[6] On 5 March 2025, I granted R1's ex-parte application (in WA-28PW-8-01/2025 ("PW8") for leave nunc pro tunc to commence or continue with the following (collectively, "the Arbitration Proceedings"):

(a) "continue with the Arbitration" (which had already concluded when the final award was handed down); and

(b) to "commence and/or continue with action to enforce the Final Arbitration Award dated 27 August 2024" ("the Arbitration Award") and to "oppose the application to set aside the Arbitration Award" (the "NPT Order").

[7] PW8 was an application for an omnibus order for conduct of the Arbitration. I found nothing wrong in this type of application even though the Arbitration had been concluded.

[8] By a fresh suit in PW186, Konsesi applied to set aside the NPT Order. I dismissed the application and Konsesi appealed; and thus, these grounds.

The Main Challenge

[9] On 24 March 2025, Konsesi filed an application within PW8 to set aside the NPT Order. On 17 April 2025, pursuant to the Senior Assistant Registrar's directions, Konsesi filed a motion under a fresh case number (WA-28PW-186-04/2025 ("PW186"), without prejudice to its rights to challenge the NPT Order on all available grounds.

[10] In summary, Konsesi's stated core arguments are:

(a) R1 failed to satisfy the statutory requirements to obtain the NPT Order;

(b) nunc pro tunc leave under s 466(2) depends on the statutory scope of the liquidator's powers.

[11] Before dealing with these complaints, a brief summary of the role of the Winding Up Court upon liquidation would be useful.

The Role Of The Winding Up Court

[12] In a broad sense, the Winding Up Court will act to recover and protect the assets of the company for distribution to the stakeholders, more often than not, the creditors.

[13] It is for this reason that so far as is practicable, claims against the company should be adjudicated within the proof of debt process to prevent expending substantial funds in defending expensive claims in the liquidation. To guard the assets against such costly litigation, leave of the winding up Court under s 471(1) is necessary before the claim may be adjudicated in the ordinary Court process. I have touched on this in Tan Aik Ling v. CT World Construction Sdn Bhd at paras 48 and 49.

[14] Conversely, valuable choses-in-action vested in the company which may result in a substantial recovery for the creditors, should be pursued. They are under the control of the liquidator.

[15] If for whatever reason, the liquidator is unwilling or unable to pursue the claim, the Court may exerci