Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Analysis and Conclusion:The winding-up petition process for companies deregistered by SSM is governed by strict statutory procedures, including proper service, publication, and grounds for winding up. Deregistration complicates the process, potentially invalidating petitions if they are filed after the statutory moratorium or without proper authority. SSM's jurisdiction to initiate winding-up against foreign companies is limited, and proceedings must adhere to specific provisions under the Companies Act 2016. Courts may dismiss or stay petitions if procedural irregularities, abuse of process, or jurisdictional limits are identified. Overall, compliance with statutory requirements is crucial, especially in deregistration scenarios, to ensure the validity and enforceability of winding-up orders.
In the complex world of Malaysian corporate law, dealing with a company that has been deregistered by the Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM) can pose significant hurdles, especially when pursuing unpaid debts. Many creditors wonder: What is the winding up petition process for companies deregistered by SSM? This question arises frequently as businesses grapple with recovering funds from entities that appear to have vanished from the corporate registry.
This article breaks down the legal framework under the Companies Act 1965 (now transitioned aspects under Companies Act 2016), procedural rules, and key case insights. We'll explore why winding-up petitions against deregistered companies are typically challenging, the critical role of proper service and locus standi, and practical steps for creditors. Note that while this provides general guidance, it is not a substitute for professional legal advice tailored to your situation.
When SSM deregisters a company, it effectively dissolves the entity, stripping it of its legal personality. A deregistered company ceases to exist as a legal entity capable of being a party to legal proceedings, including winding-up petitions [
#WindingUpMalaysia #CompanyLaw #SSMDeregistration
The Petitioner (B2B Finpal Sdn Bhd) then filed a winding up petition against the Company, in Companies (Winding Up) Petition No PA-28NCC-51-05/2023 (winding up Petition). The Company did not appear at the winding up Petition hearing. The winding up order was granted. ... up and stop the liquidation process. ... The winding up Petition was presented after the sta....
The Petitioner (B2B Finpal Sdn Bhd) then filed a winding up petition against the Company, in Companies (Winding Up) Petition No PA-28NCC-51-05/2023 (winding up Petition). The Company did not appear at the winding up Petition hearing. The winding up order was granted. ... up and stop the liquidation process. ... The winding up Petition was presented after the sta....
This is the address recorded in the official company search from the Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM). Service at the registered address constitutes proper service under r 25(1) of the Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972. ... The Petitioner accordingly filed this winding-up petition on 30 September 2024. ... This satisfies r 24 of the Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972, which requires notice of the petition to be published in a d....
This is the address recorded in the official company search from the Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM). Service at the registered address constitutes proper service under r 25(1) of the Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972. ... The Petitioner accordingly filed this winding-up petition on 30 September 2024. ... This satisfies r 24 of the Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972, which requires notice of the petition to be published in a d....
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT The winding-up petition was presented on 3 grounds under s. 218(1)(e), (f) and (i) of the Companies Act 1965 . The petition was resisted on a number of grounds. ... Rule 25 of the Companies (Winding Up) Rules 1972 prescribes that a petition must be served on the company at the registered office. In this instance service of the petition is bad in law for in breach of rule 25 . ... The principal objective and basis of service of a....
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT The winding-up petition was presented on 3 grounds under s. 218(1)(e), (f) and (i) of the Companies Act 1965 . The petition was resisted on a number of grounds. ... Nikko Products (M) Sdn Bhd; [1985] CLJ (Rep) 304; [1983] 1 CLJ 70 ; [1985] 1 MLJ 68 SC; s. 120 Companies Act 1965 ). Rule 25 of the Companies (Winding Up) Rules 1972 prescribes that a petition must be served on the company at the registered office. ... The principal o....
This case therefore lends little support for the proposition that the Registrar or SSM here can present a Winding-Up Petition against a foreign company on all of the grounds available to it under provisions governing the winding-up of companies incorporated under the Act. ... In this Winding-Up Petition, brought by the Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia, under Section 218(1) (m) and (n) of the Companies Act , the Respondent is a "foreign company" as defin....
This case therefore lends little support for the proposition that the Registrar or SSM here can present a Winding-Up Petition against a foreign company on all of the grounds available to it under provisions governing the winding-up of companies incorporated under the Act. ... JUDGMENT RULING In this Winding-Up Petition, brought by the Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia, under Section 218(1) (m) and (n) of the Companies Act , the Respondent is a "foreign c....
[13] In the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the filing of the Winding-Up Petition is an abuse of process. ... that the Respondent has failed to prove that this Petition is an abuse of process. ... of process. ... I refer to the decision of Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal JCA in SSM Management Sdn Bhd v. ... [11] Finally, with regard to the allegation that the Petition is an abuse of process as the Respondent was allege....
Section 514(1) of the Companies Act 2016 (formerly s 281(1) of the Companies Act 1965) mandates that liquidators submit Form 75 accounts to SSM every six months. ... The transitional provisions in s 619(6) of the Companies Act 2016 preserve the winding up process under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act 1965, but this does not extend to new applications against liquidators which must be brought under the current statutory regime. ... Kao Che Jen, "it would a....
(e) if the Tribunal is of the opinion that it is just and equitable that the company should be wound up.' Petition for winding up.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a petition to the Tribunal for the winding up of a company shall be presented by-- As per Section 272 of the Companies Act, 2013, the petition for winding up can be presented by persons detailed therein:-
1. This petition is filed for winding up under section 433(e) and 434(1)(a) & (c) of The Companies Act, 1956 seeking winding up of the respondent company. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent company placed various Purchase Orders with the petitioner company for the purchase of Pressure Transmitters, Flow Transmitters etc. which were duly received by them to their satisfaction on different occasions. Petitioner also points out to three invoices dated 16.08.2012, 10.09.2012 and 11.09.2012 respectively totalling Rs.3,10,467/- payment of which has not been made by....
Learned counsel further contended that the Civil Suit in C.S.No.998 of 1999 for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,28,23,501/- is pending and the Respondent has made a counter claim claiming a sum of Rs.6,57,839.88 against the Petitioner and the Respondent has specifically pleaded that they are not liable to pay the amount to M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and under such circumstances, question of permitting the Petitioner to withdraw the amount deposited by the Respondent does not arise. Learned counsel further submitted that filing of winding up Petition under Section 433(e) of Compa....
That was a case relating to the transmission of shares of the company more particularly, with regard to the illegal operation of the bank accounts etc. The Apex Court posed two questions of law for consideration. The issue as to the maintainability of the petition by the persons who are not members of the company, as their names were not recorded in the register of members, ultimately came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the said judgment. A petition was filed under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act and in the alternative for winding up of the company by the r....
This petition under S.433 (e) of the Companies Act is filed by the petitioner for winding up of the respondent-company.
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
