|
HCCW000707/2000
HCCW 707/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
COMPANIES WINDING-UP NO. 707 OF 2000
____________
|
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ORDINANCE (CAP. 32)
RE: CHINA TREASURE ENTERPRISE LIMITED
|
_______________
Coram: Hon Yuen J in Court
Date of Hearing: 6 November 2000
Date of Judgment: 6 November 2000
_______________
J U D G M E N T
_______________
1. This is an application for a winding-up order based on a judgment debt in relation to a certain amount, together with interest and costs.
2. On the last occasion when this matter came before the court, the company indicated that it had entered into an agreement for the sale of a cross-border vehicle together with its licence, from which sale it appeared that there would be enough funds to pay off the debt to the petitioner. There are no opposing or supporting creditors. Accordingly, on the last occasion the judge then in charge of the winding-up list adjourned the matter for hearing today.
3. On the Saturday before the hearing, an affirmation was put in by the company exhibiting two documents, the first being a letter from the Vehicle Division of Huiyang Municipal Foreign Economic and Trade Bureau, setting out a timetable of time required for the approval of the transfer of the cross-border vehicle and licence.
4. It would appear from this document, which was made on 30 October 2000, that approval is required from no less than five different authorities, namely, the Huanggang Customs, secondly the Vehicle Division of the Huiyang Municipal Foreign Economic and Trade Bureau, thirdly the Vehicle Division of the Provincial Public Security Bureau, fourthly, the Huanggang Customs and Huanggang Vehicle Division, and fifthly the Huiyang Municipal Foreign Economic and Trade Bureau.
5. Accordingly it is quite clear from this document that approval from authorities other than the issuer of the letter would be required. Now, those approvals may or may not be forthcoming. It is in my view for the company to show that those approvals would be granted. It might be different if there were any evidence to show that approvals had been given and that time is only required for the issue of relevant documentation. But that is not the case.
6. In all the circumstances, in my view, there is no reason why this company should not be wound up and I would make the usual winding-up order.
|
(MARIA YUEN) |
|
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court |
Representation:
Mr Jimmy Kwong, instructed by Messrs William Sin & Co., for the Petitioner
Mr Thomas Au, instructed by Messrs Richards Butler, for the Company
Mr A Chan, from the Official Receiver's Office
|