An account shall be taken of what is due from each party to the other in respect of the mutual dealings and the sums due from one party shall be set off against the sum sue from the other". [15] Set off under s 526 of CA 2016 is applicable for mutual dealings that was executed before the winding up. [16] Whether the Plaintiffs are allowed to set off within the meaning of s 526 of the Companies Act since the Appellant is under liquidation? Section 526 provides "...this section applies where before the commencement of the winding up there have been mutual credits, mutual debts or other mutual dealings between the company and any of the company's creditor proving or claiming to prove for a winding up of debts.". [17] Thus, the question of what does the word "mutual" mean? [18] In Sime Diamond Leasing (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. JB Precision Moulding Industries Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) [1998] 2 MLRA 82; [1998] 4 MLJ 569; [1998] 4 CLJ 557; [1998] 2 AMR 1124, the Federal Court deliberated on the issue of set off pertaining to an Equipment Lease Agreement and the issue arose was as to whether a set off could be allowed based on the Agreement under s 41 of the Bankruptcy Act. Section 41 provides "where there have been mutual credits, mutual debts, or other mutual dealings between a debtor against whom a bankruptcy order is made...". The Federal Court held that: ""[42] For the statutory set-off provisions to apply, the circumstances of a case must disclose mutual credits, mutual debits or other mutual dealings. The prerequisite of mutual dealings requires that the cross-demands must be between the same parties, and be held in the same capacity or right. (See, Ince Hall Rolling Mills Co Ltd v. The Douglas Forge Company [1882] 8 QBD 179, at p 183); Shand v. MJ Atkinson Ltd [1966] NZLR 551, at p 570; Peel v. Fitzgerald [1882] R 544, at p 547). ... [44] And, we would add, that it is settled law that where the circumstances of the creation of mutual liabilities are such as to show that they are related - where, for example, as in the present case, they arise out of a single contract between the parties - it is impossible for the parties to exclude even by private Agreement the statutory right of set-off conferred by s 41 of the Bankruptcy Act. (See, Rolls Razor Ltd v. Cox [1967] 1 QB 552, per Denning MR at pp 569-570)." [48] In the words of Sir Owen Dixon in Hiley v. People's Prudential Assurance Co Ltd [1938] 60 CLR 468 at p 497: It is enough that at the commencement of the winding up mutual dealings exist which involve rights and obligations whether absolute or contingent of such a nature that afterwards, in the event that happen, they mature or develop into pecuniary demands capable of set-off. If the end contemplated by the transaction is a claim sounding in money so that, in the phrase employed in the cases, it is commensurable with the cross-demand, no more is required than that at the commencement of the winding up liabilities shall have been contracted by the company and the other party respectively from which cross money claims accrue during the course of the winding up. [49] In our view, therefore, reciprocal obligations under a contract would, usually, be mutual. To illustrate, note the following dictum of Jessel MR in Peat v. Jones & Co [1881] 8 QBD 147 at p 149 "a contract of sale and purchase is in its nature mutual imposing reciprocal obligations on the vendor and purchaser. Any claim arising out of mutual dealing could be set off. To the same effect is the case of Jack v. Kipping [1882] 9 QBD 113 where the vendor of goods had been adjudged a bankrupt, and it was held that the purchaser could set off against the trustee's claim for the price a cross-claim for damages for fraud by the vendor, in having induced the purchaser to enter into the contract of sale and purchase. Conversely, we note the case of Tilley v. Bowman Ltd [1910] 1 KB 745, wherein a sale induced by the purchaser's fraud, it was held that the vendor, on rescinding the contract could set off his claim to damages for the fraud against the trustee's claim for repayment of the price." [Emphasis Added] [19] As such the word "mutual" in s 526 CA 2016 is to mean that where there existed contractual obligations and, in this case the SPA between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant. Thus, s 526 of CA 2016 allows set off as the word "mutual dealings/debts" in s 526 of CA 2016 to mean contractual obligations of the parties. [20] In the present case, the OS was filed before the voluntary winding up of the Defendant. The SPA is a mutual dealing which constitute mutual debts that took place before the winding up of the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have met the requirement under s 526 of CA 2016.”. [20] Accordingly, this Court is guided by the decision of Sime Diamond Leasing (M) Sdn Bhd v JB Precision Moulding Industries Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) [1998] 4 CLJ 557, where the Federal Court held that “In our view, therefore, reciprocal obligations under a contract would, usually, be mutual. To illustrate, note the following dictum of Jessel MR in Peat v. Jones & Co [1881] 8 QBD 147 at p 149 "a contract of sale and purchase is in its nature mutual imposing reciprocal obligations on the vendor and purchaser. Any claim arising out of mutual dealing could be set off.”. [21] This Suit was filed before the voluntary winding up of the Defendant. The SPA is a mutual dealing which constitutes mutual debts that took place before the winding up of the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have met the requirement under Section 526 of CA 2016. [22] Based on the above, and the cases from the Federal Court in Sime Diamond Leasing (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (supra), SEA Housing Corp Sdn Bhd (supra) and the Court of Appeal case of Sentul Raya Sdn Bhd (supra), this Court is bound by the doctrine of ‘stare decisis’. Calculation of the LAD [23] Thus, the LAD for the Unit is-Unit No. Date of SPA SPA Price 48 months from the Date of Notices purporting Days of delay from 19-09-2017 date of SPA to deliver VP & Date of CCC to 31-12- 2021 E-20-03 19-09-2017 RM534,800-00 18-09-2017 16-12-2021 1,565 [24] Clearly, the delays are 1565 days. However, due to the Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Diseases 2019 (COVID- 19) Act 2020, 167 days shall be excluded from the calculation of the LAD from 18.03.2020 to 31.08.2020. Therefore, the delay for the Unit after deduction of the number of days during COVID-19 is 1,398 days. [25] Accordingly, this Court agrees with the Plaintiff’s contention that the calculation of the LAD should be-