Aspen Glove Sdn Bhd v Jr Engineering and Medical Technologies (M) Sdn Bhd (BA-24NCC-118-12/2022)

bahawa Perintah Injunksi Ex parte yang dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini pada 20.1.2023 diketepikan.

bahawa Perintah Injunksi Ex-parte yang dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini pada 20.1.2023 digantung perlaksanaannya sehingga pendengaran dan pelupusan permohonan ini.

Kos.

Lain-lain perintah yang difikirkan suaimanfaaat oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini. [3] The Plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 1 vide an OS is for the following orders:

a declaration that the notice of demand dated 4-11-2022 issued by the Defendant for a sum of RM22,363,243.07 under section 466(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2016 is null and void;

an interim injunction order to restrain the Defendant on its own or its agent or representative or its servant or others from filing or submit any winding-up petition against the Plaintiff based on the notice of demand dated 4-11-2022 until the hearing and disposal of the Plaintiff’s OS;

an interim injunction order to restrain the Defendant on its own or its agent or representative or its servant or others from advertise any winding-up petition against the Plaintiff based on the notice of demand dated 4-11-2022 until the hearing and disposal of the Plaintiff’s OS;

cost of action bears and pay by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on solicitor-client basis;

other orders and/or relief as thinks fit and expedient by this Court. [4] The statement in pursuant to Order 7 rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 are stated as follows:

Plaintif adalah sebuah syarikat yang diperbadankan menurut Akta Syarikat 2016 dan mempunyai alamat berdaftarnya di 170-09-01, Livingston Tower, Jalan Argyll, 10050 George Town, Pulau Pinang dan alamat perniagaannya di No. 9, Lebuhraya Perdana, Kulim Hi-Tech Park (Fasa IV), 09090 Kulim, Kedah. Sifat perniagaan Plaintif antara lain adalah dalam bidang pengeluaran sarung tangan getah dan pengeluaran produk getah lain.

Defendan adalah sebuah syarikat yang diperbadankan menurut Akta Syarikat 2016 dan mempunyai alamat berdaftarnya di 15th Floor, Menara Summit, Persiaran Kewajipan, USJ 1, 47600 Subang Jaya, Selangor dan alamat perniagaannya di Lot 8 & 10, Jalan Zurah 3, Lot 1 & 3, Jalan Zurah 3A/1, Pusat Perindustrian 2, 44200 Hulu Selangor, Selangor. Sifat perniagaan Defendan antara lain adalah dalam bidang industri berasaskan lateks.

Plaintif dan Defendan telah memasuki satu Perjanjian Penjualan dan Pengedaran bertarikh 13-1-2021 (“Perjanjian tersebut”) di mana Defendan telah bersetuju seperti yang berikut:

“Recitals

AGSB hereby offers and JRMT hereby accepts to reserve ancf purchase AGSB’s entire production of Gloves for the year 2021, estimated at a capacity range of 1 billion pieces of gloves on an OEM basis, for sales and distribution to JRMT’s EU/US Customers under JRMT’s Certification and Licences or otherwise agreed.”.

(ii) “3.1 AGSB agrees that it shall, at its own costs and expenses and on a best effort basis, manufacture, supply and reserve up to 1 billion pieces of Gloves from 1 May 2021 to 31 December 2021 (“2021 Production”) on an OEM basis and JRMT hereby irrevocably undertakes and agrees to offtake the 2021 Production from AGSB. JRMT shall subsequently market, sell and distribute exclusively to its EU/US Customers by using its Certification and Licences.”.

Seterusnya, melalui surat bertarikh 15-11-2021, pihak-pihak secara bersama telah bersetuju untuk melanjutkan Perjanjian tersebut dari 31.12.2021 sehingga 30.06.2022.

Pada 1-2-2021, Defendan telah membuat bayaran deposit sebanyak RM8 juta kepada Plaintif, dan kemudiannya pada 13-3-2021 dan 17-4-2021, Defendan telah membuat 2 bayaran pendahuluan sebanyak RM11,393,000.00 dan RM11,576,600.00 masing-masing kepada Plaintif di bawah Perjanjian tersebut. Jumlah keseluruhan bayaran yang dibuat oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif berjumlah RM30,969,600.00.

Di antara 28-5-2021 sehingga 11-4-2022, selepas mengambil kira bayaran-bayaran serta nota-nota kredit, baki yang tinggal dengan Plaintif daripada jumlah RM30,969,600.00 adalah sebanyak RM22,363,243.07.

Bergantung atas terma-terma Perjanjian tersebut, perlanjutan Perjanjian tersebut dan akujanji tidak boleh batal (‘irrevocable undertaking’) Defendan untuk mengambil (‘offtake’) dan membeli keseluruhan pengeluaran sarung tangan Plaintif bagi tahun 2021, yang dianggarkan sebanyak 1 bilion keping sarung tangan, Plaintif telah mengalami dan membelanjakan sebanyak RM97,017,781.97.

Namun, Plaintif menyatakan bahawa Defendan telah memungkiri Perjanjian tersebut apabila gagal, enggan dan/atau ingkar untuk mengambil dan membeli keseluruhan pengeluaran sarung tangan Plaintif bagi tahun 2021. Akibat kemungkiran di pihak Defendan, Plaintif telah mengalami kehilangan dan kerugian, termasuk kehilangan keuntungan yang dianggarkan sebanyak RM99,325,563.00.

Oleh yang demikian, Plaintif telah menolak (set-off) RM22,363,243.07 sebagai pembayaran sebahagian daripada jumlah RM97,017,781.97 yang dialami dan dibelanjakan oleh Plaintif.

Melalui notis bertarikh 4-11-2022, Defendan melalui peguam caranya telah menuntut untuk pembayaran jumlah RM22,363,243.07 daripada Plaintif dan sekiranya Plaintif gagal untuk membuat pembayaran yang dituntut, maka Defendan akan memfailkan petisyen penggulungan terhadap Plaintif dalam 21 hari dari tarikh penerimaan notis tuntutan tersebut.

Melalui surat balasan bertarikh 2-12-2022, peguam cara Plaintif telah membalas notis tuntutan tersebut menyatakan, inter alia, seperti berikut:

Plaintif telahpun menolak RM22,363,243.07 sebagai pembayaran sebahagian daripada jumlah RM97,017,781.97 yang dialami dan dibelanjakan oleh Plaintif, dan Defendan berhutang dengan Plaintif sejumlah RM74,654,583.90;

(ii) Plaintif menuntut untuk pembayaran RM99,325,563.00 sebagai kehilangan keuntungan yang dialami oleh Plaintif akibat kemungkiran Perjanjian tersebut oleh Defendan;

(iii) Jumlah RM22,363,243.07 adalah tidak terhutang dan berbayar oleh Plaintif kepada Defendan;

(iv) Jumlah RM22,363,243.07 bukanlah satu hutang di bawah seksyen 466(1)(a) Akta Syarikat 2016;

Sebarang pemfailan petisyen penggulungan oleh Defendan terhadap Plaintif adalah satu penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah; dan

(vi) Menuntut untuk satu akujanji bertulis daripada Defendan dalam tempoh 72 jam bahawa Defendan akan menarik balik notis tuntutan bertarikh 4-11-2022 dan tidak akan memfailkan sebarang petisyen penggulungan terhadap Plaintif.

Notis tuntutan bertarikh 4-11-2022 yang dikeluarkan oleh Defendan terhadap Plaintif adalah salah dan/atau terbatal dan tidak sah kerana terdapat pertikaian bona fide jumlah RM22,363,243.07 yang dituntut oleh Defendan atas alasan substansial berdasarkan kepada perkara-perkara berikut:

Jumlah RM22,363,243.07 yang dituntut oleh Defendan daripada Plaintif di dalam notis tuntutan bertarikh 4-11- 2022 bukanlah satu jumlah penghakiman;

(ii) Berikutan kemungkiran Perjanjian tersebut oleh Defendan, Plaintif adalah berhak di bawah terma-terma Perjanjian tersebut, khususnya klausa 20 untuk menolak RM22,363,243.07 sebagai pembayaran sebahagian daripada jumlah RM97,017,781.97 yang dialami dan dibelanjakan oleh Plaintif bergantung atas representasi dan akujanji tidak boleh batal yang dibuat oleh Defendan di bawah Perjanjian tersebut;

(iii)

(iv) Tuntutan Defendan untuk RM22,363,243.07 dibuat 7 bulan selepas bayaran akhir pada bulan April 2022. Ini dengan jelasnya menunjukkan bahawa tuntutan Defendan ini adalah tidak bona fide dan bertujuan untuk menekan (pressure) Plaintif untuk membayar jumlah tersebut kepada Defendan;

Sekiranya Defendan tidak dihalang dengan satu injunksi, tindakan penggulungan Defendan terhadap Plaintif akan mengakibatkan kerosakan teruk yang tidak dapat dipulihkan kepada Plaintif dalam mana, ianya akan mengakibatkan kemungkiran dan/atau keingkaran dalam kemudahan-kemudahan pinjaman serta kontrak-kontrak Iain yang dimasuki oleh Plaintif, sekiranya kemudahan pinjaman dan/atau akaun-akaun Plaintif dibekukan, perlaburan perniagaan Plaintif dan pembangunan perniagaan Plaintif akan terkesan atau terjejas dengan teruk, kedudukan kredit, kredibiliti, nama baik serta reputasi Plaintif akan termusnah, mengalami kerosakan teruk dan/atau terjejas dan diprejudiskan, Plaintif juga akan terdedah kepada liabiliti akibat kemungkiran dan/atau keingkaran kontrak-kontrak yang dimasuki;

(vi) Notis Tuntutan bertarikh 4-11-2022 dan ugutan Defendan untuk memfailkan petisyen penggulungan terhadap Plaintif sekiranya Plaintif tidak membayar Defendan jumlah RM22,363,243.07, yang mana adalah satu jumlah yang dipertikaikan, adalah jelas satu penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah dan tujuan dominannya adalah untuk mengenakan tekanan yang tidak wajar ke atas Plaintif untuk membayar jumlah RM22,363,243.07 yang jelas dipertikaikan oleh Plaintif.

Satu petisyen penggulungan jika difailkan oleh Defendan terhadap Plaintif berdasarkan atas notis tuntutan bertarikh 4- 11-2022 akan gagal atau menemui kegagalan dan tidak akan dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah.

Sekiranya Defendan dibenarkan untuk memfailkan petisyen penggulungan terhadap Plaintif atas satu jumlah yang jelas dipertikaikan oleh Plaintif, maka Plaintif akan mengalami prejudis yang amat teruk yang mana tidak akan dapat dipampas dengan satu perintah kos. Pemfailan petisyen penggulungan juga akan memberikan kesan buruk kepada kemudahan-kemudahan kewangan Plaintif yang pada masa ini adalah masih aktif.

Plaintif adalah subsidiari kepada Aspen (Group) Holdings Limited iaitu sebuah syarikat yang disenaraikan di Singapore Exchange (‘SGX’). Oleh yang demikian, pemfailan petisyen penggulungan akan mengakibatkan kesan buruk kepada harga saham dan reputasi Plaintif yang mana juga tidak boleh dipampas dengan kos dan/atau satu award ganti rugi.

Adalah nyata dan jelas bahawa prejudis dan/atau ketidakdilan yang akan dialami oleh Plaintif sekiranya satu perintah injunksi tidak diberikan oleh Mahkamah Mulia ini, jauh lebih mengatasi sebarang prejudis yang akan dialami oleh Defendan (yang mana adalah dinafikan).

Memandangkan Plaintif mempertikaikan bahawa jumlah RM22,363,243.07 yang dituntut oleh Defendan adalah terhutang dan berbayar kepada Defendan, dan mengambil kira bahawa terdapat kemungkiran Perjanjian tersebut di pihak Defendan, maka, satu petisyen penggulungan adalah tidak sesuai untuk memutuskan isu-isu ini. Dalam keadaan sedemikian, adalah wajar dan perlu supaya satu injunksi dibenarkan untuk menghalang Defendan untuk memfailkan petisyen penggulungan terhadap Plaintif.

Berdasarkan kepada semua yang dinyatakan di atas, Plaintif pohon perintah seperti yang dipohon. Notice of Application by Plaintiff for ad-interim injunction (Enclosure 3) [5] Two days after filing the OS that is on 7-12-2022, the Plaintiff filed the notice of application for ad-interim injunction as in Enclosure 3 before this Court to restrain the Defendant from filing the petition for winding-up against the Plaintiff. [6] The Plaintiff stated that the amount claimed by the Defendant that is in the sum of RM22,363,243.07 is disputed, the notice of demand issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is an abuse of process of the Court and the Plaintiff did not owe the sum. [7] The affidavit in support of Enclosure 3 is similar to the OS. Writs Summons No.: BA-22NCvC-41-01/2023 at the Shah Alam High Court: [8] In January 2023, the Plaintiff has filed the civil action against the Defendant vide Civil Suit No.: BA-22NCvC-41-01/2023 at the Shah Alam High Court (NCvC 1) for breach of contract and claimed for the balance of RM74,654,583.90 and also for loss of profit in the sum of RM99,325,563.00 against the Defendant. [9] At the time of this grounds of judgment is written, the status of the Suit is at the stage of Case Management for the main suit and the interlocutory application by the Plaintiff to strike out the Defendant’s defence and counter claim. The next CM date for both is on 23-8-2023. The Defendant’s affidavit in support for its application for an interim injunction [10] The main purpose of filing Enclosure 15 by the Defendant is because the Defendant wants to ensure that the Plaintiff is able to pay the debt of RM22,363,243.07 to the Defendant. [11] The background facts as in Enclosure 13, the Defendant stated that –

the parties entered into a written agreement (Sales and Distributions Agreement) for the sale and purchase of gloves on 13.01.2021.

the Plaintiff agreed to supply and the Defendant agreed to purchase the gloves produced by the Plaintiff in year 2021, estimated at the range of 1,000,000,000 pieces of gloves.

the Agreement was initially agreed to expire on 31.12.2021, and it was extended to 30.06.2022.

soon after the execution of the agreement, the Defendant placed 2 purchase orders for 300,000,000 pieces of gloves (PO No. 0255/21 and No. 0256/21), and these orders were confirmed by the Plaintiff.

the Defendant then paid an upfront payment for these orders, as follows:

RM11,393,000.00 was paid for PO No. 0255/21; and

(ii) RM11,576,600.00 was paid for PO No. 0256/21.

notwithstanding so, these orders were not delivered by the Plaintiff, but the aforesaid sum were left with the Plaintiff.

subsequent transactions then took place from May 2021 until April 2022, and the Defendant allowed part of the sum be set-off for several orders.

at the end of the agreement, there was an unutilised deposit of RM22,363,243.07.

the Plaintiff also acknowledged that RM22,363,243.07 was unutilised and left with the Plaintiff. [12] In this ex-parte hearing, Defendant submits that the Defendant ought to demonstrate –

a serious question to be tried in the counterclaim.

a good arguable case.

balance of convenience lies in favour of the Defendant.

risk of dissipation of the Plaintiff’s assets.

urgency. [13] The issue in the counterclaim concerns the Defendant’s entitlement to the RM22,363,243.07. The Defendant firmly submitted that the sum is held on trust by the Plaintiff for the benefit of the Defendant. In this regard, the Plaintiff had acknowledged that the said sum was left unutilised and was still left with the Plaintiff, at the end of the agreement. [14] The Plaintiff sought to argue that the Defendant had failed to purchase 1,000,000,000 pieces of gloves and the said sum is set off against expenses spent by the Plaintiff under the agreement. [15] The Defendant denied the Plaintiff contentions and averred that the Plaintiff had not produced 1,000,000,000 pieces of gloves in year 2021. Not only that, but the Plaintiff had even failed to fulfil the first 2 purchase orders. The Defendant had already purchased all the gloves produced by the Plaintiff in year 2021. [16] As regards the costs and expenses of production, on the face of the Agreement, is the Plaintiff’s obligations, and it is therefore not entitled to set-off. The Defendant refer to Clause 3.1 of the Agreement reads − “AGSB agrees that it shall, at its own costs and expenses and on a best effort basis, manufacture, supply and reserve up to 1 billion pieces of Gloves from 1 May 2021 to 31 December 2021 (“2021 Production”) on an OEM basis and JRMT hereby irrevocably undertakes and agrees to offtake the 2021 Production from AGSB. JRMT shall subsequently market, sell and distribute exclusively to its EU/US Customers by using its Certification and Licenses.” [17] The Defendant stated the reasons for filing this application ex parte, namely are –

the Plaintiff is a Singapore subsidiary.

the Plaintiff is scaling down its operations in June 2022, including disposing off its entire business and assets.

the Plaintiff is selling off its only land and factory worth around RM200,000,000.00. Apart from these, the Plaintiff’s other assets are lesser than the sum in dispute.

the purchaser of the land and factory is a Singapore company.

there is a winding up petition filed by Multi Purpose Metal Tech Sdn Bhd (“MPMT”) pending hearing before this Court, that is before YA Dato’ Azmi bin Arifin on 9-2-2023.

there is a serious risk that any funds and/or assets and/or the proceeds of sale will be transferred out of jurisdiction to the Singapore holding company. [18] The urgency of the matter stemmed from the fact that the recent disposal of the land and factory which only happened on 15-12-2022, and the winding up petition filed by MPMT is coming up for hearing on 9-2-

As such, there is a risk that the Plaintiff will be transferring its funds and/or assets and/or the proceeds of sale to its holding company, which is out of jurisdiction, at any time. [19] Lastly, the balance of convenience in granting an injunction lies in favour of the Defendant because –

it bears repetition that the Plaintiff had itself acknowledged that RM22,363,243.07 was left unutilised and was still left with the Plaintiff.

therefore, there is no irreparable damage and prejudice to the Plaintiff in depositing the said sum into this Court or otherwise securing the said sum.

in the event the counter claim is dismissed, this Court is entitled to make the necessary consequential orders in respect of the RM22,363,243.07.

given that the Defendant is out of reach of the funds, serious prejudice will be occasioned on the Defendant if the funds were transferred out of the company or even out of jurisdiction, at any time. Based on the above, the Defendant humbly prays that Enclosure 9 be allowed to secure the RM22,363,243.07. Evaluation and Findings [20] This Court has simultaneously heard the Defendant’s application for interim injunction and the Plaintiff’s application for setting aside the Defendant’s interim injunction. [21] On 20-2-2023, this Court has allowed the Plaintiff’s OS and on 24- 2-2023 this Court dismissed the Defendant’s application for interim injunction and allowed the Plaintiff’s application to set aside the Defendant’s application for interim injunction. [22] The grounds of judgment for the decision in dismissing the Defendant’s application was written separately. Therefore, this Court will not repeat the reasons for dismissing Enclosure 15. [23] When this Court allowed the Plaintiff’s OS on 20-2-2023, it means that the sum of RM22,363,243.07 as claimed by the Defendant to be refunded to the Defendant is the main subject in the action begun by writs of summons filed by the Plaintitiff at Shah Alam High Court NCvC 1. [24] The issues raised by the Plaintiff that the Defendant has breached the Agreement and the Plaintiff is entitled to forfeit and deduct the sum of RM22,363,243.07 was in the action begun by writs of summons in SAHC NCvC1. [25] The legal action between the parties begun by the Defendant when the Defendant issued the Notice of Demand claiming for the sum of RM22,363,243.07. The statutory notice was replied the learned counsel for the Plaintiff. Failure to withdraw the statutory notice, the Plaintiff file the OS before this Court to restraint the Defendant to file, issue and advertise the winding up petition against the Plaintiff. [26] The sum of RM22,363,243.07 as claimed by the Defendant is disputed by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff contended that this amount can be forfeited as stipulated in the Agreement in the case of the Defendant’s failure to pay the 1 billion gloves produced by the Plaintiff. [27] The Defendant’s claim is purely monetory and as such damages would be an adequate remedy even if the Plaintiff was correct in its allegation (refer to the case of Malaysian International Tuna Port Sdn Bhd v. OSK Trustee Bhd & Anor [2011] 2 MLJ 689). [28] The Plaintiff has disclosed that they have filed an action vide writs summons against the Defendant for breach of the Agreement and the proceeding is before SAHC NCvC1. The interim injunction sought by the Defendant is pertaining to the sum of RM22,363,243.07 and the Defendant is worried about losing the sum due to the Plaintiff “unable to pay its debts”. [29] The Defendant contended that the Plaintiff has acknowledged an admitted that the sum of RM22,363,243.07 is owed to the Defendant. The Plaintiff submits that it is misconceived. [30] The Defendant should not only rely on paragraph 9 in the Plaintiff’s affidavit is support. The Defendant must read paragraph 9 together with paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 to have a real context stated in the Plaintiff’s affidavit. [31] The Defendant’s cause of action and its counter claim are in monetory form that is for the sum of RM22,363,243.07. The Defendant has failed to prove whether damages is adequate remedy. [32] As regards to selling of the land to SWMH for the price of RM200 millions and the risk of dissipation, the Defendant is worrying for something that is not real. The sales are subject to many factors that yet to fulfil by the parties. [33] The Defendant has raised the issue that the Plaintiff failed to produce the 1 billion gloves and therefore the Plaintiff has breached the Agreement. The Plaintiff submits that the averment made by the Defendant must based on the Agreement where the parties has agreed on the production of the gloves as stipulated in clause 4 of the Agreement. [34] In October 2022, the Plaintiff has forfeited and deducted the sum of RM22,363,243.07 and it is no longer in the Plaintiff’s hands. This fact already known by the Defendant via the Payment Voucher and

[35] The Plaintiff submits that on 20-2-2023, this Court has allowed the Plaintiff OS as follows: KEPUTUSAN: SAMAN PEMULA (Lampiran 1) [1] Mahkamah telah meneliti Lampiran 1 (Saman Pemula), afidavit dan hujahan pihak-pihak. [2] Writ Saman yang difailkan oleh Plaintif terhadap Defendan adalah sebagaimana kes No.: BA-22NCvC-41-01/2023 di hadapan MTSA NCvC1. Mahkamah mendapati wujud isu untuk dibicarakan dan isu ini hendaklah dibuktikan di hadapan Mahkamah tersebut. [3] Berdasarkan Notis Statutori menurut seksyen 466(1) Akta Syarikat 2016, tindakan Plaintif memfailkan Saman Pemula dan memohon perintah sebagaimana yang dipohon adalah dibenarkan. [4] Oleh yang demikian Mahkamah ini memutuskan bahawa Saman Pemula (Lampiran 1) dibenarkan dan dengan kos atas dasar peguam cara-anakguam. [36] Based on the facts that were adduced in the OS, affidavits and the written submission, the chronology of the “battle” between the Plaintiff and the Defendant run as follows: 4-11-2022: The Notice of Demand by the Defendant claiming the amount in the sum of RM22,363,243.07 against the Plaintiff. 5-12-2022: The OS filed by the Plaintiff in this Court pertaining to the Defendant’s Notice of Demand. 5-1-2023: The Defendant filed an Ex Parte Amended Notice of Application for the interim injunction. 25-1-2023: At SAHC NCvC1, Writs Summons filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for breach of the Sales and Distributions Agreement. 20-2-2023: This Court allowed the OS. 23-2-2023: At SAHC NCvC1, the Defendant filed its defence and counter claim against the Plaintiff). 24-2-2023: This Court dismissed the Defendant’s application for interim injunction. 24-2-2023: This Court allowed the Plaintiff’s application for setting aside the interim injunction. [37] When this Court decides the OS in favour of the Plaintiff, the decision is based on the evidences adduced by both parties and this Court catch the following points: • on 25-1-2023, the Plaintiff filed the Civil Suit at SAHC NCvC 1 against the Defendant for breach of the Sales and Distribution Agreement. The Defendant has the counter claim against the Plaintiff. In that Suit, the Plaintiff claimed for the balance of payment, loss of profit, etc. • the Plaintiff has deducted the balance of payment that is the amount as claimed by the Defendant in its Notice of Demand. • on 31-1-2023, this Court allowed the Plaintiff’s application for ad-interim injunction against the Defendant pending the disposal of the OS. • on 20-2-2023, this Court allowed the Plaintiff’s OS for the prayers −

a declaration that the notice of demand dated 4-11- 2022 issued by the Defendant for a sum of RM22,363,243.07 under section 466(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2016 is null and void.

an interim injunction order to restrain the Defendant on its own or its agent or representative or its servant or others from filing or submit any winding-up petition against the Plaintif based on the notice of demand dated 4-11-2022 until the hearing and disposal of the Plaintiff’s OS.

an interim injunction order to restrain the Defendant on its own or its agent or representative or its servant or others from advertise any winding up petition against the Plaintif based on the notice of demand dated 4-11-2022 until the hearing and disposal of the Plaintiff’s OS.

cost of action bears and pay by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on solicitor-client basis. • the application by the Defendant in Enclosure 15 for the Plaintiff to pay the sum of RM22,363,243.07 into this Court whilst pending the disposal of the counter claim as stated in the Defendant’s affidavit and counter claim dated 19-2- 2023; and the Defendant has offered few alterdatives as in paragraph (b) to (h), (ha), (i) and (j) are mainly to secure the sum of RM22,363,243.07 from being used by the Plaintiff. The Defendant believes that the sum of RM22,363,243.07 is belong to the Defendant and the Plaintiff must refund that sum to the Defendant by “deposited” the amount into this Court. [38] As both parties firmly hold that there is no breach of the Sales and Distributions Agreement against them respectively, as this Court had decided that there are issues to be tried by the Civil Suit at the SAHC NCvC1. [39] The Court has to consider the following: • whether there is a bona fide and substantial dispute as to the debt. • whether the dispute as to the debt is such that it would affect the likelihood or chances of success of the intended winding up petition. • whether the presentation of a winding up petition would cause irreparable damage to the company. • whether there is a likelihood that the petition to wind up may fail or that it is unlikely that a winding up order would be made. • whether the Plaintiff is deemed to be unable to pay its debts to the Defendant. • whether the Plaintiff is required and liable to pay the RM22,363,243.07 demanded by the Defendant. All these questions are issues lingering the “battle” between the parties. [40] The High Court in the case of Josu Engineering Construction Sdn Bhd v. TSR Bina Sdn Bhd [2013] 9 CLJ 650; [2014] 11 MLJ 916 had the opportunity to consider the effect of a cross-claim in regards to a debt where Mary Lim J (as Her Ladyship then was) held as follows: “[48] When dealing with the standard of proof applicable for determining the existence of a substantial and bona fide dispute in winding up proceedings in the following year in the case of Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v. Technology Inc, the Court of Appeal referred to Metalform Asia and reiterated its stand that the courts should not be quick to condemn viable companies which have plausible responses to claims made against them. [49] From the above cases, it can first of all be said that where a debt is undisputed, an injunction to restrain the presentation of a petition to wind up a company upon failure to pay upon the debt demanded is generally refused. The arguments challenging the issuance of the s.218 notice should also be made in the winding up court. Otherwise, the only viable option is to pay up. Secondly, where a debt is undisputed, an injunction may nevertheless be ordered where a genuine cross-claim based on substantial grounds is raised. In such a case, the courts recognise that the presentation of such a petition might produce irreparable damage to business and reputation. Thirdly, the burden of proof in both instance of disputed debt and undisputed debt is whether there is a likelihood that the petition to wind up may fail or that it is unlikely that a winding up order would be made; as opposed to a test that the petition is bound to fail. (emphasis added)”. [41] After reading and understand the statement in the OS, this Court is satisfied that the determination or direction of the Court for the relief/remedy claimed by the Plaintiff had identified the cause of action against the Defendant. The interlocutory applications by both parties are within the parameters of the main subject matter that is about the sum of RM22,363,243.07 demanded by the Defendant. [42] The debt as claimed by the Defendant in the Notice of Demand and/or the Defendant’s counter claim in the Writs of Summons is disputed by the Plaintiff. Both parties are referring to the Sales and Distributions Agreement pertaining to the buying and selling the product (gloves). [43] Clause 20 of the Agreement allows the Plaintiff to forfeit and deduct the sum of RM22,363,243.07 as the part payment for the expenses borne by the Plaintiff in producing the gloves as ordered by the Defendant. This Court cannot agree with the Defendant that the sum of RM22,363,243.07 is hold by the Plaintiff as a constructive trust and Quistclose trust therefore need to be refunded to the Defendant. [44] The Plaintiff has disclosed that the sum of RM22,363,243.07 already used by the Plaintiff and it is no longer in the Plaintiff’s hands. [45] The transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendant involved a huge of money, the Agreement had stipulated the terms of the contract specifically the obligation to pay and the process including the forfeiture of the “deposit”. The questions raised by the parties need to be determined in the action begun by writs of summons before SAHC NCvC1. Since the Defendant also has the counter claim against the Plaintiff, therefore the disposal by way of the full trial is the best way. The Plaintiff has also filed the interlocutory application to strike out the Defendant’s counter claim and this is also the decision to be made by the SAHC NCvC1. [46] The Court in allowing the OS is for the remedy that sought by the Plaintiff to declare that the statutory notice made under section 466(1)(a) is invalid and void. With this decision also, the Defendant is restraint from filing petition for winding up against the Plaintiff. [47] The interim injunction sought by the Defendant “collapsed” when this Court allows the Plaintiff’s OS. If the claim made by the Plaintiff via the writs of summons dismissed by the SAHC NCvC1, the judgment is enforceable and the Defendant is entitled to receive the sum of RM22,363,243.07. [48] The “battles” between the Plaintiff and the Defendant has been commenced in this Court vide the OS, in SAHC NCvC1 vide the writs of summons and also in the SAHC Insolvency Court. Conclusion [49] Upon a judicious consideration of all matters, I find that there are indeed serious issues to be tried in the writs summons before the SAHC NCvC1 that are already underway. [50] As such, this Court allows the Plaintiff’s application for setting aside the interim injunction. Dated: 24 April 2023. RoziBainon ( ROZI BINTI BAINON ) Judicial Commissioner High Court NCvC12 Shah Alam Counsels: For the Plaintiff: Reza Rahim & Rajivan Nambiar Tetuan Reza Rahim & Rajivan, Georgetown, Penang For the Defendant: Stephanie Chong Keh Yin Tetuan Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership, Kuala Lumpur