Ni Property Management Sdn. Bhd. v Perbadanan Pengurusan Palm Spring @ Damansara (BA-24NCvC-2969-12/2025)

Enclosure 1 is the Originating Summons dated 30.12.2025 by the Plaintiff for an order that the Defendant is restrained from filing a winding-up petition against the Plaintiff.

After perusal of the cause papers and upon hearing submissions by the counsels, I have dismissed Enclosure 1 based on the reasons which I shall explain hereafter.

The Plaintiff is a company that provides property management services. The Defendant is the management corporation of Palm Spring Damansara Condominium (“the Condominium”).

In 2023, the Plaintiff and the Defendant signed a service agreement (“the Service Agreement”), whereby the Defendant appointed the Plaintiff as the property manager for the Condominium. Pursuant to the Service Agreement, the Defendant agrees to pay the Plaintiff a management fee of RM12,650.00 per month. The Defendant shall also reimburse the Plaintiff the sum of RM36,790.00 for the engagement of management staffs.

A dispute later arose between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Following the dispute, the Defendant issued a notice of termination to terminate the Plaintiff’s appointment with effect from 16.6.2023. On 19.10.2023, the Plaintiff issued a demand against the Defendant for the sum of RM250,592.73 being the outstanding arears for the management fee and reimbursement (“the Outstanding Arrears”).

The Defendant failed to pay the Outstanding Arrears. The Plaintiff commenced legal action against the Defendant in the Sessions Court Suit No. BB-A52NCvC-229-11/2023 (“Suit 229”). On 15.3.2024, the Plaintiff applied for summary judgment in Suit 229. On 28.11.2024, the Sessions Court allowed the Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment. The Defendant, dissatisfied with the decision on the summary judgment, appealed to the High Court.

The Plaintiff, on the other hand, based on the order for summary judgment, proceeded with garnishee proceedings and obtained 4 an order for garnishee on 4.3.2025 (“the Garnishee Order”). The Plaintiff subsequently garnished the sum of RM253,592.73 (“the Garnished Amount”) from United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Bhd.

On 14.5.2025, the High Court allowed the Defendant’s appeal against the decision the Sessions Court in respect of the summary judgment. With the appeal being allowed, the Defendant proceeded to obtain an order from the Sessions Court on 4.8.2025 to set aside the Garnishee Order and for the return the Garnished Amount.

However, despite Sessions Court ordering to set aside the Garnishee Order and to return the Garnished Amount to the Defendant, the Plaintiff failed to do so. Due to the Plaintiff’s failure, the Defendant commenced committal proceedings against the Plaintiff (“the Committal Proceedings”). In addition, on 12.12.2025, the Defendant issued a statutory notice pursuant to section 466(1) (a) of the Companies Act 2016 to the Plaintiff (“s.466 Notice”).

The Plaintiff is now praying for an order that the Defendant is restrained from filing a winding-up petition against the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff says that they have already filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the High Court to 5 disallow the summary judgment in Suit 229. As there is an ongoing appeal in the Court of Appeal, the Plaintiff argues that the Garnished Amount is still subject to an ongoing dispute and no final decision has been made yet.

The Plaintiff also points out that the Defendant has already commence the Committal Proceedings. In addition to the ongoing Committal Proceedings, the Defendant has also issued s.466 Notice. The Plaintiff submits that the Defendant is misusing the s.466 Notice in order to pressure the Plaintiff to pay the Garnished Amount despite the ongoing appeal in the Court of Appeal. The Plaintiff submits that there is a need to maintain the status quo pending the appeal being heard and decided.

The Plaintiff also argues that there is no valid judgment debt for the Defendant to rely on to issue the s.466 Notice. The Plaintiff also states that the Garnished Amount was validly garnished at the material point of time and the Garnished Amount is still being disputed at this juncture.

The Defendant states that the s.466 Notice was issued due to the Plaintiff’s failure to abide with the Sessions Court’s order on 4.8.2025. The issuance of the s.466 Notice is lawful and justified due to the Plaintiff’s failure to return the Garnished Amount. The Defendant also argues that the debt is not disputed as it is 6 demanding for the return of the Garnished Amount in accordance with the Sessions Court order.

The Defendant has successfully obtained a court order to set aside the Garnishee Order and for the Plaintiff to return the Garnished Amount to the Defendant. Curiously, the Plaintiff chooses not to abide with the court order. Instead, the Plaintiff proceeded to file this originating summons to restrain the Defendant from filing a winding-up petition against the Plaintiff, stemming from the fact that the Defendant had issued the s.466 Notice in relation to the failure to return the Garnished Amount.

The Plaintiff had put forth the argument that they have appealed to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the High Court in respect of the summary judgment; and hence the Garnished Amount is still subject to the ongoing dispute.

However, I find it hard to understand the Plaintiff’s argument. The Plaintiff appears to be suggesting that as long as there is an ongoing appeal, there would be no justification to return the Garnished Amount.

I am not able to agree to the Plaintiff’s suggestion. A litigation process can be a long and arduous journey. Litigants may be expected to be riddled with interlocutory applications and appeals. Even whilst the suit is being case-managed, directions 7 and rulings may be issued by the court. Though generally not-appealable, parties are expected to abide by the court’s directions and rulings. When interlocutory applications are heard and decided, parties are to adhere to the decisions made. Litigants are at liberty to appeal. Litigants are also free to apply for a stay. All of these mechanisms have been put in place to ensure a uniformed process, so as to ensure litigation do not descend into chaos.

In this particular case, the Plaintiff is at liberty to commence summary judgment against the Defendant. The Plaintiff has also succeeded in doing so. Of course, it is also the Defendant’s right to appeal against that decision. With a valid summary judgment order (and with no stay being granted), the Plaintiff is also free to commence garnishee proceeding.

However, as there is a subsequent Sessions Court’s order on 4.8.2025 to set aside the Garnishee Order and to order for the return the Garnished Amount, the Plaintiff would be required to abide by this Sessions Court’s order. The Plaintiff did not file an appeal against this Sessions Court’s order. Neither did the Plaintiff apply for a stay.

On the one hand, the Plaintiff expects the Defendant and United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Berhad to comply with the Garnishee Order and to hand over the Garnished Amount. On the other hand, when there is a court order setting aside the Garnishee Order, the Plaintiff wishes to be exempted from 8 complying with the said court order which was clearly not in their favour. The Plaintiff has argued that there is a need to maintain the status quo. I do not agree. The Plaintiff does not get to choose which status quo it wishes to maintain at its own preferred position and advantage.

As such, I am of the opinion that the Plaintiff cannot restrain the Defendant from exercising its lawful statutory right if the Plaintiff themselves chooses not to return a lawful debt. The fact that the Defendant had initiated contempt proceedings is also within their lawful rights and does not operate as an estoppel to issue the s.466 Notice.

Accordingly, for the reasons above, Enclosure 1 is dismissed with costs at RM3,000.00. Dated the 8th of June 2026. (SEOW HOCK PENG) JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR Counsel: For the Plaintiff : Tiew Way Keng (Messrs Tiew & Associates) For the Defendant : Khor Boon How (Messrs Vijay)