Chin Mee Shang (Dalam Kapasiti Sebagai Pelikuidasi Bagi True Renaissance Development Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 956365-a) (Dalam Penggulungan) Menurut Perintah Mahkamah Tinggi Bertarikh 15.05.2024) v True Renaissance Development Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) c/o Ooi Woon Chee (WA-28PW-514-08/2024)

CHIN MEE SHANG (NO. K/P.: 581226-08-5712) (Dalam kapasiti sebagai Pelikuidasi bagi True Renaissance Development Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 956365-A)( Dalam Penggulungan) Menurut perintah Mahkamah Tinggi bertarikh 15.05.2024)

DATUK OOI WOON CHEE (No. K/P.: 610705-10-6373)

TRUE RENAISSANCE DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD (DALAM LIKUIDASI) (No. Syarikat: 956365-A) … RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] Two winding-up Petitions were filed by two Petitioners against the Respondent Company (“the Company”) resulting in two Winding-Up Orders. Winding-Up Order dated 22.04.2024 (“the First Winding-Up Order”) based on Petition WA-28NCC-51-01-2024, and Winding-Up Order dated 15.05.2024 (“the Second Winding-Up Order”) based on Petition WA-28NCC-190-02/2024. This application by the Liquidator of the Second Winding-Up Order, and seeks to set aside the First Winding-Up Order. [2] Clearly there cannot be two (2) Winding-Up Orders against the same Company. [3] Therefore, both Liquidators filed two respective applications to set aside the Winding-Up Order appointing the other Liquidator. The First Liquidator filed an application to set aside the Second Winding-Up Order, vide WA-28PW-413-07/2024. I have decided to hear this application, i.e., WA-28PW-514-08/2024, as my decision in this application will also determine my decision in regard to WA-28PW-413- 07/2024. [4] In the usual circumstances, it is the Second Winding-Up Order which should be set aside, as there was already an existing Winding-Up Order against the Company. [5] However, this is not a usual, straight-forward winding-up situation, although both the Winding-Up Orders were based on a debt owing to the Petitioners by the Company. [6] In the current application, the Liquidator/Petitioner of the Second Winding-Up Order has alleged fraud and complicity by the Liquidator and Petitioner of the First Winding-Up Order in obtaining the impugned First Winding-Up Order. [7] The Liquidator and Petitioner of the First Winding-Up Order takes the position that his Winding-Up Petition has complied with the Winding-Up Rules, and that his Order, being the first in time, ought to prevail over the Second Winding-Up Order. [8] Notwithstanding the Petitioner of the First Winding-Up Order’s submission that his Petition has complied with the procedural rules, if this Court finds on a balance of probabilities that the First Winding-Up Order was obtained via fraud, collusion and/or obtained without complying with the Companies Winding-Up Rules 1972, then the First Winding-Up Order by necessity should be set aside. FINDINGS BY THIS COURT [9] On the issue of locus of the Liquidator of the Second Winding-Up Order herein to file this application, I find that until and unless the Second Winding-Up Order is set aside, it remains valid and enforceable. Thus, both Winding-Up Orders are valid until set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction. [10] With respect to the First Winding-Up Order, I find that the section 466 Notice was not served on the registered address of the Company. There is no “stamp” of the Company Secretary on the section 466 Notice. It was served on the business address and not the registered address. [11] The answers given by the Petitioner of the First Winding-Up Order that the Company Secretary refused to accept service is questionable since the Petitioner of the Second Winding-UP Order managed to serve his Petition on the registered address without problems. [12] The Petition in the First Winding-Up Order itself is defective since the Petitioner is only one of three (3) Co-Purchasers. Without all three Co-Purchasers being made Petitioner, the Petitioner of the First Winding-Up Order does not have locus to file the Petition. Even the subsequent affidavit, which was filed after the First Winding-Up Order, cannot remedy this defect in the Petition. Additionally, the section 466 Notice clearly states the solicitors were only acting for the Petitioner without mentioning the other two (2) Co-Purchasers. [13] On these substantive grounds, I find there is strong evidence that the First Winding-Up Petition was orchestrated to revive the failed scheme which was prepared by the White Knight under the provisions of