United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Bhd v Grand Straits Garden Seafood Restaurant Sdn. Bhd (WA-28NCC-303-04/2022)

In the Winding Up Petition dated 13.4.2022 at enclosure 1 (Petition), the Petitioner has applied to wind up the Respondent pursuant to S/N KhvfEZkSYU6pydYhpvy00w section 465(1) (e) and 466 (1) of the Companies Act 2016 for the Respondent’s failure to settle the judgment sum of RM764,552.86 as at 4.5.2021 vide the Judgment dated 23.11.2021 (Judgment).

According to the Petition, the Petitioner had issued the Statutory Notice of Demand dated 27.1.2022 (Notice) for the Judgment sum but the Respondent had failed, refused and/or neglected to settle the same within the 21 days period as specified in the Notice.

The matter was called up for hearing of the Petition on 6.9.2022 wherein the Respondent’s counsel had seeked a postponement of the hearing to allow new solicitors to come on board. After hearing the respective learned counsels on the same, I had proceeded to hear the Petition and granted Order in Terms of the Petition.

The Respondent being dissatisfied with my decision has since appealed against my said Order of 6.9.2022. Courts Findings & Decision

I have noted that:-

(a) the Petition was served on the Respondent on 9.5.2022 vide registered post at its registered office as per the affidavit of Service in enclosure 6;

(b) the Registrars certificate for the Petition was issued on 30.6.2022; S/N KhvfEZkSYU6pydYhpvy00w

(c) as at the date of the hearing of the Petition on 6.9.2022, no affidavit in opposition has been filed by the Respondent.

Following from the above, I find that sufficient time has been given to the Respondent to file its Affidavit In Opposition to oppose the Petition but the Respondent has completely failed to do so and has thus not complied with the 7 day period before the hearing of the Petition for filing of the Affidavit In Opposition as per Rule 30 of the Companies (Winding Up) Rules 1972 provides:

I also find that had the Respondent wished to engage a new set of lawyers to represent them, they could have done so from the period of service of the Petition i.e 9.5.2022 to the date of the hearing of the Petition on 6.9.2022 which was a span of almost 4 months. Their failure to do so is in my opinion nothing more than a delay tactic to have the hearing of the Petition adjourned.

In the circumstances and in light of the complete absence of the Respondent’s Affidavit In Opposition, I had therefore held that the Petitioner has proven its case for a winding up of the Respondent and granted Order In Terms of paragraph 10(a), (b) a and (c) costs of RM5,000.00 to be paid from the assets of the Respondent. S/N KhvfEZkSYU6pydYhpvy00w Dated: 6th of September 2022 sgd. NADZARIN WOK NORDIN HIGH COURT JUDGE KUALA LUMPUR HIGH COURT Parties: Soon Yi – Bin for the Petitioner [Messrs Sidek Teoh Wong & Dennis] S/N KhvfEZkSYU6pydYhpvy00w