Re Vitelic (Hong Kong) Ltd

Read the full judgment text of HCCW 130/2006 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 24 July 2006.

1. This is a petition presented against Vitelic (Hong Kong) Limited (“the Company”) by Advanced EPI Technology Corporation.  The petitioning debt is in the sum of US$266,000, being the price of goods sold or provided during July 2005 to October 2005.  A demand for this debt was served on the Company on 29 December 2005.

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCCW 130/2006
Court
High Court CFI
Date24 Jul 2006
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCCW 130/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) NO. 130 OF 2006

____________

  IN THE MATTER of VITELIC (HONG KONG) LIMITED (華智(香港)有限公司) (formerly known as VITELIC  (HONG KONG) LIMITED AND ELCAP ELECTRONICS LIMITED (愛卡電器有限公司)(the “Company”)
  and
  IN THE MATTER of the Companies Ordinance, Chapter 32 of the Laws of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

_______________

Before: Hon. Kwan J in Court

Date of Hearing: 24 July 2006

Date of Judgment: 24 July 2006

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.This is a petition presented against Vitelic (Hong Kong) Limited (“the Company”) by Advanced EPI Technology Corporation.  The petitioning debt is in the sum of US$266,000, being the price of goods sold or provided during July 2005 to October 2005.  A demand for this debt was served on the Company on 29 December 2005.

2.This petition was adjourned from May 2006 to accommodate the Company to complete a proposed assignment of an agreement for a lease, being a property occupied by the Company in the Science Park in Tai Po.

3.A validation order for the proposed transaction was made on 12 May 2006.  For the Company to complete this transaction, it is necessary to obtain the consent of the Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation.

4.I understand from counsel for the petitioner that the Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation has refused consent and that the proposed transaction to be entered into by the Company has fallen through.

5.The Company has not appeared today and it has not filed any evidence to dispute the petitioning debt.  That being the situation, I make a winding-up order against the Company.  The petitioner’s costs are to be paid out of the Company’s assets.

  (S Kwan)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Mr Kenneth Chik, instructed by Messrs Liao, Ho & Chan, for the Petitioner

The Company, represented by Messrs Cordells, absent

Miss Vivian Yeung, for the Official Receiver

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under HCCW 130/2006