The court emphasized appointing a liquidator based on the total debts owed to creditors and their qualifications under the Companies Act 2016.

JUDGMENT

Nadzarin Wok Nordin JC:

Introduction

[1] In the Winding Up Petition in encl 1 (Petition), the Petitioner has applied pursuant to s 465(1)(e) read with s 466(1) of the Companies Act 2016 to wind up the Respondent company.

[2] Under the Notice of Motion in encl 19 (Enclosure 19), First Foresight Sdn Bhd, Matrix Treasure Sdn Bhd and Ruby Straits Sdn Bhd (Applicants) abovementioned had applied inter alia to appoint Ralph Ravin Rantnasamy to be appointed the liquidator of the Respondent.

[3] The Petition was premised on a statutory notice dated 28 May 2021 (Notice) issued pursuant to s 465(1)(e) read with s 466(1) of the Companies Act 2016 for an Adjudication Decision dated 6 May 2021 under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 for inter alia the sum of RM1,791,231.39 plus interest and costs.

[4] An affidavit in Opposition to the Petition affirmed on 14 December 2021 in encl 22 (encl 22) was filed by the Respondent, just a day before the hearing of the Petition on the alleged reason as submitted orally to this Court that the solicitors for the Respondent had just been appointed at the eleventh hour.

[5] At the date of the hearing of the Petition on 15 December 2021, the learned counsel for Petitioner had objected to encl 22 on the ground that the same was filed late. There were also 3 other supporting creditors present at the hearing of the Petition.

[6] After hearing the respective parties counsel submit at the date of the hearing, this Court granted order in terms for both the Petition and encl 19.

[7] As the Petitioner has appealed against my said decision in encl 19, herewith are my written grounds.

Findings And Decision Of This Court

[8] In deciding on encl 19, I had considered the said encl 19 itself and the Affidavit in Support therein at encl 21 and found as follows:

8.1 the 1st Applicant is owed the sum of RM29,704,490.45

8.2 the 2nd Applicant is owed the sum of RM1,831,923.00; and

8.3 the 3rd Applicant is owed the sum of RM15,215,217.00

as can be seen in exhibits KCF-1 to KCF-3

[9] I have also viewed and taken into consideration the curriculum vitae of Ralph Ravin Rantnasamy as seen in exhibit KCF-5 of the Affidavit in Support therein at encl 21 and find that he is a duly qualified and experience liquidator in the areas of corporate liquidation. There was however no curriculum vitae of Sundarasan a/l Arumugam in the Petition for this Court to view or compare the same.

[10] In the circumstances, the determining factor in making my decision for encl 19 was that 3 of the various supporting creditors i.e the Applicants, had filed encl 19 for the proposed appointment of a private liquidator with their total combined debts of RM46.75 million owed to them as compared to the debt of the Petitioner which is only in the region of approximately RM2 million. Accordingly, this Court after hearing parties submit on the same, granted an order for encl 19 and exercised its discretion under the Companies Act 2016 to appoint Ralph Ravin Rantnasamy as the liquidator of the Respondent company.

[11] Wherefore, in the circumstances, this Court granted an order in terms for paras 1-5 of encl 19 with no order as to costs.