JUDGMENT

Ahmad Murad Abdul Aziz J:

Introduction

[1] The Applicant (referred to as "Cekap" or Applicant where appropriate) applied for a Fortuna Injunction in encl 1 to restrain the Respondent from filing a Winding-Up Petition after the expiry of the Statutory Notice under s 466(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2016 (" CA 2016") issued by the Respondent.

[2] It is not disputed that the Statutory Notice is not based on any judgment obtained by the Respondent against the Applicant.

[3] The Respondent contends that the basis for its issuance of the Statutory Notice are as follows:

3.1 the documentary evidence shows that the Applicant was/is at all material times aware of the debt owed to the Respondent;

3.2 the Applicant had never disputed the debt until the filing of this Originating Summons;

3.3 the Applicant has agreed and/or admitted that the Respondent was/is entitled to backcharge the sum of RM44,028,654.20; and

3.4 the Applicant has even made part payment of the debt.

[4] The Applicant, however, disputes the Respondent's claim in regard to the debt amount allegedly owing by it to the Respondent. The Applicant avers as follows:

(a) The Respondent initially issued a letter of demand to the App