Farooq Ahmad Mann v Golden Mountain Textile: Extension of Judicial Management Order under IRDA
In the case of Farooq Ahmad Mann (judicial manager) v Golden Mountain Textile and Trading Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Goh Yihan J, granted the applicant's request to extend the judicial management period for the respondent. The court found that the extension would likely further the statutory purpose of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, specifically the respondent's survival as a going concern. The application was unopposed, and the decision was made on 12 January 2024, with grounds issued on 23 February 2024.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Application granted
1.3 Case Type
Insolvency
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court granted an extension of the judicial management order for Golden Mountain Textile, finding it would likely aid its survival as a going concern under the IRDA.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Farooq Ahmad Mann | Applicant | Individual | Application granted | Won | |
| Golden Mountain Textile and Trading Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Extension of judicial management order | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Goh Yihan | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The applicant is the judicial manager of the respondent.
- The respondent was placed into judicial management on 2 February 2023.
- The applicant presented a statement of proposals to creditors on 6 November 2023.
- PT Bank Negara Indonesia (BNI) holds 62.3% of the respondent's total debt.
- BNI requested an adjournment of the creditors' meeting to address concerns.
- The applicant sought an extension of the judicial management period.
- No creditor objected to the adjournment or indicative timelines.
5. Formal Citations
- Farooq Ahmad Mann (in his capacity as judicial manager)vGolden Mountain Textile and Trading Pte Ltd (in judicial management), Originating Application No 448 of 2023 (Summons No 3815 of 2023), [2024] SGHC 48
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent placed into judicial management | |
| Applicant presented statement of proposals to creditors | |
| BNI emailed applicant with concerns about statement of proposals | |
| Applicant informed creditors of BNI's request to adjourn creditors' meeting | |
| Applicant wrote to creditors setting out indicative timelines | |
| Court allowed applicant's application | |
| Judicial management period extended from this date | |
| Indicative timeline for applicant to circulate revised statement of proposals | |
| Grounds of decision issued | |
| Indicative timeline for creditors' meeting |
7. Legal Issues
- Extension of Judicial Management Order
- Outcome: The court granted the extension, finding it would likely aid the company's survival as a going concern.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2019] SGHC 78
- [2020] EWHC 1135 (Ch)
- [2018] 1 BCLC 513
- Extension of Time to Put Forward Statement of Proposals
- Outcome: The court granted the extension, considering the request from a major creditor for more time to review the proposals.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2023] SGHC 249
- [2023] 2 BCLC 666
8. Remedies Sought
- Extension of judicial management period
- Extension of appointment as judicial manager
- Extension of timeline to put forward statement of proposals
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Insolvency
- Restructuring
11. Industries
- Textile
- Trading
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Re CNA Group Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 78 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a judicial management order should only be extended if it would achieve one or more purposes of judicial management. |
| Re TPS Investments (UK) Limited (In Administration) | English High Court | Yes | [2020] EWHC 1135 (Ch) | England | Cited for the list of questions that tend to arise in applications to extend an administrator’s term of office. |
| Gillian Eleanor Bruce and others (Joint Administrators of Lehman Brothers (PTG) Ltd (In Administration) | English High Court | Yes | [2023] EWHC 3084 (Ch) | England | Cited for adopting the list of questions in Re TPS Investments (UK) Limited (In Administration). |
| Re Angelic Interiors Limited (in administration) | English High Court | Yes | [2022] EWHC 2974 (Ch) | England | Cited for adopting the list of questions in Re TPS Investments (UK) Limited (In Administration). |
| Re Burningnight Ltd (in administration) and another company; MacKenzie and another v Crowdstacker Corporate Services Ltd | English High Court | Yes | [2021] 1 BCLC 557 | England | Cited for adopting the list of questions in Re TPS Investments (UK) Limited (In Administration). |
| Re Nortel Networks UK (No 4) | English High Court | Yes | [2018] 1 BCLC 513 | England | Cited for emphasizing the importance of considering the creditors’ interests and views when a court decides whether to extend an administrator’s term of office. |
| Baker and another v Biomethane (Castle Easton) Limited | English High Court | Yes | [2019] EWHC 3298 (Ch) | England | Cited for endorsing Snowden J’s remarks in Re Nortel Networks UK (No 4). |
| Christine Mary Laverty and others v Caversham Finance Limited | English High Court | Yes | [2022] EWHC 789 (Ch) | England | Cited for endorsing Snowden J’s remarks in Re Nortel Networks UK (No 4). |
| PT Bank Negara Indonesia (Persero) TBK, Singapore Branch v Farooq Ahmad Mann (in his capacity as judicial manager) and another and other matters | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 249 | Singapore | Cited for stating that s 107 of the IRDA sets out the requirement for a judicial manager to put forward his statement of proposals within 90 days after the company’s entry into judicial management. |
| Re Bulb Energy Ltd | English High Court | Yes | [2023] 2 BCLC 666 | England | Cited for the example of when an administrator can point to events in complex inter-company and international seismic insolvencies to argue that he had good reason not to file the statement of proposals within the eight-week period. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 | Singapore |
| s 89(1)(a) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 | Singapore |
| s 111(3)(a) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 | Singapore |
| s 111(4) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 | Singapore |
| s 107(3)(a) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial management
- Statement of proposals
- Creditors' meeting
- Extension of time
- Insolvency
- Going concern
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial management
- Insolvency
- Extension
- Singapore
- IRDA
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Judicial Management | 95 |
| Insolvency Law | 95 |
| Restructuring and Dissolution | 80 |
| Company Law | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Insolvency Law
- Judicial Management
- Extension of Time