Pre & Tec Sdn. Bhd. v Shapadu Energy and Engineering Sdn. Bhd. (WA-28NCC-12-01/2022)

read with Section 466(1) of the Companies Act 2016 And In the matter of the Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972 And In the matter of Shapadu Energy and Engineering Sdn Bhd [Registration No.: 197801005479 (42495-W) BETWEEN PRE TEC SDN BHD (Registration No.: 20051028384) (710519-X) …PETITIONER AND SHAPADU ENERGY RESOURCES AND ENGINEERING SDN BHD (Registration No.: 197801005479 (42495-W) ...RESPONDENT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 1 & 27)

In the Winding Up Petition dated 4.1.2022 in enclosure 1 (Petition), the Petitioner has applied pursuant to section 465(1) (e), (h) and 466(1) of the Companies Act 2016 to wind up the Respondent.

The Petition has stated amongst others that:- i. The Respondent is indebted to the Petitioner for the judgment sum granted in Shah Alam Sessions Court Suit No.: BA-B52NCC-115-09/2021 (“Suit 115”) being (“Judgment”):- a) The sum of RM486,824.32 (“Sum”); b) RM5,268.37 being the 5& interest per annum on the Sum from the date of the filing of Suit 115 (22/9/2021) until 9/12/2021; and c) The costs of RM1,291.00. ii. On 9/12/2021, the Petitioner has served on the Respondent, a notice pursuant to s.465(1)(e) read with s.466(1) of the Companies Act 2016 dated 9.12.2021 (“Statutory Demand”) demanding payment of the Judgment Sum to the Petitioners within 21 days from the date of service of the Statutory Demand at the Respondent’s address a Suite 901, 9th Floor, Campbell Complex, 98 Jalan Dang Wangi, 50100 Kuala Lumpur. iii. Service of the Statutory Demand was made to the Campbell Complex Address as the Registered & Business Address was S/N RdACnb/8v0e0bGhmssXrGw discovered to be no longer occupied by the Respondent. On the other hand, Campbell Complex Address is the address of the Shapadu group of companies as set out on the website – www.shapadu.com.my and www.shapadu.com.my/contact/. iv. Over 21 days have now lapsed since the Statutory Demand was served on the Respondent but the Respondent has failed, refused and/or neglected to pay the Judgment Sum to the Petitioner or to secure or compound for it to the reasonable satisfaction of the Petitioner.

The Registrars Certificate in accordance with Rule 32 of the Companies (Winding Up) Rules 1972 was issued on 15.3.2022 to certify that the Petitioner has complied with all the requirements under the said Rules.

The Petition was heard on 26.4.2022 virtually before me in the absence of the Respondent or its solicitors and in which I had confirmed with the Petitioner’s solicitors that they had informed the Respondent of the said hearing date and the zoom link which was done via the Petitioner’s solicitors letter dated 18.4.2022.

As there was no Affidavit in Opposition filed by the Respondent, and after having perused the Petition, I had proceeded to grant order in terms of the Petition on 26.4.2022.

The Respondent has since appealed against my said decision. S/N RdACnb/8v0e0bGhmssXrGw

I find that:-

7.1 a Judgment dated 3.12.2021 was obtained by the Petitioner against the Respondent in Suit 115 as seen in exhibit A-2 of the Petition 7.2 there was nothing before the Court to show that the Judgment has been stayed and/or set aside 7.3 the Judgment was valid and binding on the Respondent 7.4 the Petitioner had served the Statutory Demand on the Respondent at its business address at Suite 901, 9th floor, Campbell Complex, 98 Jalan Dang Wangi, 50100 Kuala Lumpur and that the said Statutory Demand was acknowledged by the Respondent on 9.12.2021 at 2p.m by affixing its rubber stamp thereto as shown in exhibit A-3 of the Petition 7.5 a Statutory Declaration was signed by the process server, one Md Zamri bin Abd Hamid wherein he had sworn under oath that he had personally served the Statutory Demand on the Respondent at the above mentioned address 7.6 21 days had since elapsed after service of the said Statutory Demand 7.7 the Petition was served on the Respondent on 3.3.2022 at 2.45p.m at the said Suite 901, 9th floor, Campbell Complex, 98 Jalan Dang Wangi, 50100 Kuala Lumpur by the said Md Zamri bin Abd Hamid as evidenced by the Affidavit of Service found at exhibit MZ-4 of enclosure 6 S/N RdACnb/8v0e0bGhmssXrGw

In the circumstances, I had found that the Petition and the procedures were all adhered to and that the said debt under the Petition had yet to be settled by the Respondent and that there was no disputed debt. Accordingly, I had granted order in terms of paragraph 12 i, ii and iii costs of RM5,000 from the assets of the Respondent of the Petition at Enclosure

Dated: 6th day of July 2022 sgd. NADZARIN WOK NORDIN HIGH COURT JUDGE KUALA LUMPUR HIGH COURT Parties: Shee Yee Sheng for the Petitioner [Messrs Cheng, Lee & Goh] In the absence of the Respondent [Messrs Shahabudin & Rozima] S/N RdACnb/8v0e0bGhmssXrGw