Service of statutory notice via registered post is valid under the Companies Act, supporting the court's decision to maintain winding up order.

[1] This written grounds of judgment relates to the Respondent cum Company and Applicant application to terminate and/or set aside the winding up order made against the Respondent ("Application). The Applicant is the contributory of the Respondent.

Brief Facts

[2] The Respondent was wound up on 3 March 2017, pursuant to the petition filed by the Petitioner. There was no opposition from the Respondent when it was wound up.

[3] The Application was filed on 2 December 2018, more than one and a half year after the winding up.

[4] The Respondent was wound up pursuant to the statutory demand or notice given by the Petitioner under s 218 of the Companies Act 1965 (" CA "). This notice was issued demanding payment based on a judgment in default obtained by the Petitioner at the Sessions Court against the Respondent for the sum of RM 109,276.25. Since there was no response from the Respondent regarding this notice, a petition to wind up the same was filed by the Petitioner. As stated, the Respondent did not contest this petition. As such, the Court ordered the winding up of the Respondent.

[5] The Court judgment supporting the notice and petition is based on claim of non-payment of electricity bills issued by the Petitioner to the Respondent for the use of electricity at the Respondent's premises ("property").

Summary Of The Respondent And Applicants Contentions

[6] The petition should not have been allowed as there is defective service of the statutory notice pursuant to s 218 of the CA from the Petitioner to the Respondent. The service is defective as there was no demand handed or left at the registered office of the Respondent. (Stated in Paragraph 10 and 11 of the Respondent and Applicant' Affidavit). Since there is no proper service of the statutory notice, the same is null and void. Therefore the winding up order must be terminated and /or set aside.

[7] There is also no debt owed by the Respondent to the Petitioner and therefore the demand and subsequent winding up order should not have been granted.

[8] The property had been sold off at all material time and the Respondent was not occupying the same. Hence the electricity supplied if any was never utilised by the Respondent.

Summary Of The Petitioner's Contentions

[9] Even if the service of the notice pursuant to s 218 of the CA was made through registered post, it is still good service of the same.

[10] The Application has not satisfied some principles that merit the termination of the winding up order.

[11] The Respondent and Applicant failed to show justifiable reasons to allow the Application.

Court's Findings

A. Governing Provision

[12] First it is undisputed that the Application is filed pursuant to s 493 (1) and (2) (c) of the Companies Act 2016 (" CA 2016") that state as follows:

493 (1)

At any time after an order for winding up has been made, the Court may, on the application of the liquidator or of any creditor or contributory and on proof to the satisfaction of the Court that all proceedings in relation to the winding up of the company ought to be terminated, make an order terminating the winding up of the company as the Court thinks fit.

493 (2) (C)

In making an order under subsection (1), the Court may take into consideration, but not limited to, the following facts:

...

...

other facts that the Court considers appropriate.

[13] In respect of the above provisions, there is no doubt that the same are with respect of termination of the winding up order. It is not in respect of the setting aside of the same per se. Therefore these provisions cannot be use