Nik Hashim JCA:

[1] This judgment is delivered pursuant to s. 42 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Act 91) as Denis Ong Jiew Fook, JCA, who presided at the hearing of the appeal, has since retired.

[2] The undisputed facts are that the petition for winding-up was presented against the appellant after the service of a statutory notice under s. 218 of the Companies Act 1965 (the Act) on the appellant requiring payment of RM1,117,179.68 based on a judgment obtained by the respondent dated 11 June 2003 which had been converted from an arbitral award pursuant to s. 27 of the Arbitration Act 1950.

[3] The appellant had, after service of the statutory notice but before the filing of the petition, filed a cross-claim against the respondent in High Court Pulau Pinang Civil Suit No. 22-597-2003 (MT4) for RM2,107,171.67 special damages and general damages.

[4] An application to set aside that arbitral award for misconduct under s. 24 of the Arbitration Act 1950 was then the subject of civil appeal P-02-905-2002 in the Court of Appeal. On 22 June 2004 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

[5] Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had before the filing of the cross-claim dismissed the appellant's applications for a stay of execution proceedings on the judgment pending the hearing and disposal of the appeal against the judgment.

[6] The appellant's cross-claim against the respondent in the High Court Pulau Pinang has not been disposed of.

[7] On 27 December 2003 the appellant filed the notice of motion (encl. 6) ie, after the winding-up petition was filed and served on the appellant on 8 December 2003. The motion prayed for an order that the respondent be restrained by injunction from taking any further proceeding upon the petition by advertising the same and that the petition be removed from the file of proceedings.

[8] On 24 March 2004 the learned judge of the High Court Kuala Lumpur dismissed the motion with costs on the following grounds:

(1) Permohonan responden (appellant) adalah suatu penyalahgunaan proses undang-undang kerana responden (appellant) tidak boleh menghalang pempetisyen dari mengiklankan dan mewartakan petisyen penggulungan yang difailkan.

Ini adalah kerana di bawah kaedah 24 Kaedah-Kaedah Penggulungan Syarikat 1972, sesuatu petisyen penggulungan itu mesti diiklankan dan diwartakan. Ini adalah suatu peruntukan mandatory.

(2) Selain dari itu, permohonan responden (appellant) untuk menangguhkan perlaksanaan penghakiman yang diperoleh oleh pempetisyen (respondent) terhadap responden (appellant) juga telah ditolak oleh Mahkamah Rayuan pada 19-8-2003.

Ini menunjukkan Mahkamah Rayuan berpendapat tiada sebarang keadaan khas yang wujud untuk menjadi alasan kenapa penghakiman tersebut tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan.

(3) Petisyen penggulungan ini adalah berdasarkan satu penghakiman Mahkamah yang sempurna dan boleh dikuatkuasakan.

(4) Walaupun responden (appellant) dikatakan mempunyai satu tuntutan balas terhadap pempetisyen (respondent) yang mana dinafikan oleh pempetisyen (respondent) ianya masih boleh diteruskan walaupun syarikat responden (appellant) digulungkan. Ini adalah kerana tuntutan balas tersebut adalah tersendiri dan berasingan daripada tindakan ini.

(5) Notis di bawah seksyen 218 Akta Syarikat 1965 telah diserahkan kepada responden (appellant) di alamat berdaftarnya pada 15-9-2003 dan alamat perniagaannya pada 23-9-2003.

Walaubagaimanapun responden (appellant) tidak berbuat apa-apa sehinggalah petisyen penggulungan difailkan pada 4-11-2003 dan tarikh perdengaran petisyen ini telah ditetapkan pada 11-2-2004.

(6) Tiada keadaan khas yang ditunjukkan oleh responden (appellant) bagi membenarkan permohonan responden (appellant) ini.

[9] Before us, learned counsel for the appellant contended that:

(a) the respondent had no standing to file the winding up petition against the appellant because the appellant has a valid cross claim which exceeds the amount in the judgment obtained by the respondent and in su