Starluck Construction Pte Ltd v HSS Engineering Pte Ltd
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Judge | Chan Seng Onn J |
Judgment Date | 01 April 2013 |
Neutral Citation | [2013] SGHC 72 |
Citation | [2013] SGHC 72 |
Hearing Date | 01 March 2013,08 February 2013 |
Docket Number | Companies Winding Up No 170 of 2012 |
Published date | 01 April 2013 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Beh Eng Siew (Lee Bon Leong & Co) |
Defendant Counsel | Thirumurthy Ayernaar Pambayan (Murthy & Co) |
Subject Matter | Companies,Winding Up |
This was a petition by Starluck Construction Pte Ltd (“the Plaintiff”) for a winding up order to be made against HSS Engineering Pte Ltd (“the Defendant”) on the ground that the Defendant had been unable to pay its debts under s 254(1)(e) of the Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) (“the Companies Act”). After hearing the parties, I allowed the petition.
The Defendant has appealed against my decision. I now set out my reasons.
It was undisputed that the Defendant owed the Plaintiff a sum of $2,827,504.40 as of 26 September 2012 (“the Sum”). The Sum arose out of a Judgment dated 16 August 2012 awarded in favour of the Plaintiff for money owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff pursuant to construction work done on the Defendant’s building.
It was also undisputed that the Plaintiff served a statutory demand on 26 September 2012 at the Defendant’s registered office and that the Defendant subsequently failed to pay the Sum or any part thereof within three weeks.
Therefore, the Plaintiff successfully raised the presumption of insolvency under s 254(2)(a) of the Companies Act which provides as follows:
Definition of inability to pay debts
In response, the Defendant argued that it was not insolvent because:
In my opinion, the Defendant’s arguments failed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tarkus Interiors Pte Ltd v The Working Capitol (Robinson) Pte Ltd
...Bank of India v Surya Pharmaceutical (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 258 at [14]; Starluck Construction Pte Ltd v HSS Engineering Pte Ltd [2013] SGHC 72 at [7] (“Starluck Construction”). The defendant sought to show that it was solvent. Mr Gattie referred to the defendant’s 2017 “statement ......