Recovery Vehicle 1 Pte. Ltd. v Total Alliance Investments Ltd

Judgment Date22 July 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] HKCFI 1864
Year2020
Judgement NumberHCCW185/2019
Subject MatterCompanies Winding-up Proceedings
CourtCourt of First Instance (Hong Kong)
HCCW185/2019 RECOVERY VEHICLE 1 PTE. LTD. v. TOTAL ALLIANCE INVESTMENTS LTD

HCCW 185/2019

[2020] HKCFI 1864

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES WINDING-UP PROCEEDINGS NO 185 OF 2019

________________

IN THE MATTER OF the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, Cap 32, sections 178(1)(a), 178(1)(c), s177(1)(d) and s177(1)(f)

and

IN THE MATTER OF Total Alliance Investments Limited

________________

BETWEEN
RECOVERY VEHICLE 1 PTE. LTD. Petitioner

and

TOTAL ALLIANCE INVESTMENTS LIMITED Respondent

_______________

Before: Hon Harris J in Court

Date of Hearing: 22 July 2020

Date of Decision: 22 July 2020

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1. I have before me a petition issued on the 14 June 2019, seeking an order for the compulsory winding-up of the Company on the grounds of insolvency. The Petition was originally listed for hearing on 27 February 2020, but was adjourned because of the general adjournment period (“GAP”). The Petitioner, Recovery Vehicle 1 Pte Ltd, asserts in the petition that pursuant to a legal assignment it acquired title to a debt for US$8,853,841.82 originally owed to Affert Resources Pte Ltd (“Affert”), which is in liquidation in Singapore.

2. The debt arises from advances made by Affert to the Company primarily through Bank of India’s Hong Kong branch. The advances took place between August 2012 and July 2013. I shall proceed on the basis that the advances particularised in an exhibit to the supporting affidavit of Mr Damian John Prentice on behalf of the Petitioner detailing the advances, which (less repayments) total US$8,853,841.82 were made prior to 14 June 2013 are time barred. The total amount advanced after 14 June 2013 is US$8,375,000. Payments were made after this date to settle the advances totalling US$7,914,893. Even assuming that the Company is entitled to credit (which is doubtful) the entire US$7,914,893 against the US$8,375,000, the debt owed to the Petitioner is substantially in excess of the statutory minimum of HK$10,000 which engages the court’s insolvency jurisdiction.

3. The Company’s defence is contained in the affirmation of Mr Bharath Srinivasan Sethuraman. Mr Sethuraman notes that the transactions took place six years or more ago. If I understand his evidence correctly, he says that he has only been able to locate one ledger, which he has not exhibited, but which would suggest that something is payable in respect of the transactions contained in the ledgers exhibited by Mr Prentice, although he does not go so far as to suggest that the advances are bogus. He says this in [13] and [14] of his affirmation:

“13. The table of reconciliation produced by the Petitioner purports to portray the amounts transferred to and received from the Respondent as some kind of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT