Hamid Sultan J:

This is my judgment in respect of the notice of motion (encl 63) by Bina Puri Sdn Bhd to remove the liquidator. The prayers, inter alia, read as follows:

(a)The private liquidator, Mr Jambulingam Sethuraman Raki C/o Rimbun Corporate Advisory Sdn Bhd to be replaced by Mr Wong Weng Foo C/o Messrs Wong Weng Foo & Co;

(b)Costs in cause; and

(c)Any orders or reliefs which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in this motion.

The parties have relied on the following cases: Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v Kawal Teliti Sdn Bhd Chee Pok Choy & Ors v Scotch Leasing Sdn Bhd re Builded Ltd Quickson (South and West) Ltd v Katz and another Ng Yok Gee & Anor v CTI Leather Sdn Bhd; (Metro Brilliant Sdn Bhd & Ors Interveners) Ajit Kumar Nag v GM (PJ) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Haldia & Ors [2005] RD-Standing Committee 491; Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor TR Hamzah & Yeang Sdn Bhd v City Centre Sdn Bhd SBF Builders Sdn Bhd v Bennes Engineering Sdn Bhd Procam (Pte) Ltd v Charles Jocelyn Tichborne Nangle & Anor Safuan Group Bhd v Jambulingam Sethuraman Raki c/o of Rimbun Corporate Advisory Sdn Bhd Hew Kiang Hoe & May De Selva John De Silva v Shencourt Properties Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) Abric Project Management Sdn Bhd v Palmshine Plaza Sdn Bhd & Anor Volvo Malaysia Sdn Bhd v EFK Composite Technology Ricky Thong Yew Fook v OCBC Bank (M) Bhd & Ors Hartecon JV Sdn bhd & Anor v Hartela Contractors Ltd Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v Kawal Teliti Sdn Bhd Oriental Finance Bhd v Syarikat Geri Paroi Sdn Bhd Wong Sin fan & Ors v Ng Peak Yam @ Ng Peak Yeow & Anor (Civil Appeal No Witness-02-(IM)-2880 of 2010); Chua Boon Chin v JM McCormack & Ors Kong Long Huat Chemicals Sdn Bhd v Raylee Industries Sdn Bhd Torita Rubber Works Sdn Bhd v Chew Choy Eu Phileo Promenade Sdn Bhd & Anor v Premier Model (M) Sdn Bhd

BRIEF FACTS

Safuan Plaza Sdn Bhd was wound up by the applicant sometime in 2004. Official receiver was appointed as receiver and subsequently Mr Jambulingam Sethuraman Raki was appointed to replace the official receiver. Sometime in the year 2010 Safuan Group Bhd has applied to remove the liquidator but it was not successful and the court gave some directions. The decision is reported as Safuan Group Bhd. The matter is on appeal. The primary complaint in the previous application by Safuan Group Bhd which was supported by the present applicant was that the liquidator has failed to call a creditors’ meeting from the date of his appointment. The court only dealt with that issue and found that the liquidator ought to call for the meeting and so directed.

Subsequent to the order of court the liquidator did call the meeting and was not able to satisfy the creditors that he has taken all just, reasonable and expeditious steps for the just, expeditious and economical disposal of the liquidation process. In fact it was the liquidator’s position that there were no funds to act expeditiously and there were many complaints in the manner the creditors were treated in the said meeting. The creditors in the said meeting unanimously voted for the no confidence motion in the liquidator. There is also letter of support of other creditors including Tenaga.

The principle complaint by the applicant is that the liquidator has failed to take reasonable steps to bring the liquidation process to an early conclusion. The complaints by the parties have been summarised by the learned counsel for Safuan Group Bhd as follows:

(a)the creditors has lost confidence towards the liquidator’s ability to recover the outstanding debt due and owing to all the creditors;

(b)the liquidator on each occassion has informed the creditors that there is no funds in the account in order to settle the debt. Hence the creditors are fed up with the same old excuses given by the liquidator in recovering the debt of the creditors. Instead of finding alternative and more pro active solutions to increase the cash flow in Safuan Plaza account, the liquidators constant execuse tha