Re Hua Han Health Industry Holdings Ltd

Read the full judgment text of HCCW 110/2019 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 2 December 2019.

1. I have before me the re-re-amended petition which is presented by a substituted petitioner for the winding-up of the Company. Provisional Liquidators were appointed over the Company on the 18 July 2019. I have received correspondence from the Provisional Liquidators and a report. The Provisional Liquidators have not appeared before me today and the Company has not been represented.

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCCW 110/2019[2020] HKCFI 430
Court
High Court CFI
Date02 Dec 2019
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCCW 110/2019

[2020] HKCFI 430

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES WINDING-UP PROCEEDINGS NO 110 OF 2019

________________

 

IN THE MATTER of s 327(3) of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32)

  and
 

IN THE MATTER of Hua Han Health Industry Holdings Limited

________________

Before:  Hon Harris J in Court

Date of Hearing: 2 December 2019

Date of Decision:  2 December 2019

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1.I have before me the re-re-amended petition which is presented by a substituted petitioner for the winding-up of the Company. Provisional Liquidators were appointed over the Company on the 18 July 2019. I have received correspondence from the Provisional Liquidators and a report. The Provisional Liquidators have not appeared before me today and the Company has not been represented.

2.I agree with Mr Melwani who appeared on behalf of the Petitioner that given the contents of the Provisional Liquidators’ report there appears to be little reason for agreeing to their proposal apparently supported by some creditors who have not appeared before me to adjourn the petition until the end of April 2020.  There does not appear to be any restructuring proposal and the information contained in the report seems to suggest the formulated one would be problematic.

3.The Petitioner seeks a winding-up order today. I will, therefore, make the normal winding-up order.

(Jonathan Harris)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Mr Vishal Melwani, solicitor advocate of Lipman Karas, for the petitioner

The company was not represented and did not appear

Attendance of K T Lo & Co, for the contributory, was excused

Attendance of Simmons & Simmons, for the supporting creditor, did not appear

Mr Raymond Kong, instructed by Official Receiver’s Office, for the Official Receiver