Vincent Ng J:

Preamble

[1] The petitioner presented a petition on 30 July 2003 (encl 1) to wind up the respondent under s 218(1)(e) for their inability to pay a debt of RM408,000 due and payable to the petitioner

[2] The petitioner issued a statutory demand pursuant to s 218(2)(a) (statutory demand) of the Companies Act (the Act) 1965 dated 10 June 2003 (Annexure C encl 1), demanding payment of the said sum within 21 days, failing which he would commence winding up proceedings. The petitioner's statutory demand was preceded by a letter of demand dated 22 May 2003. The respondent refuted the basis of the petitioner's claim and categorically denied that any monies were due to the petitioner at that point in time.

[3] At the outset, solicitors for both parties agreed that the resolution of this matter involved two issues; namely:

(i) whether there was proper service of the statutory demand and the winding up petition (petition) on the respondent (statutory demand); and

(ii) whether the sum of RM408,000 was due and payable to the petitioner by the respondent.

First Issue - The Service

[4] The particulars of the service of the statutory demand are contained in Nagian Ramoo a/l Selaperumal's (Nagian) statutory declaration dated 30 July 2003 (Annexure C encl 1) and corrective statutory declaration dated 6 November 2003 (exh OKS2 encl 6) pertaining to the typographical error on the month of service being June rather than May (which was accepted by the respondent through withdrawal of encl 13). The petitioner averred that service of the statutory demand was effected by Nagian, a clerk in the petitioner's solicitors' employ, on Wednesday 11 June 2003 at about 4.01pm, by leaving a copy of the same at the respondent's registered address at Bilik 410-A, Bangunan Loke Yew, No: 4, Jalan Mahkamah Persekutuan, 50050 Kuala Lumpur The petition was similarly served on the respondent by Nagian on Tuesday 2 September 2003 by leaving a sealed copy of same at its aforesaid registered address. The particulars of the service of the petition are contained in his affidavit of service affirmed on 4 November 2003 (encl 5).

[5] The crux of respondent's complaint is that there was no proper service of the statutory notice because there was no acknowledgement of service by any of their staff or officers. And, that the service of the petition was also defective due to non-compliance with r 25(1) of the Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972 (the Rules), as the affidavit of service pertaining to the petition did not state that he was unable to find any 'member, officer, or servant of the company' to receive them - despite the fact that it was operating at its registered office at the material time. Though nevertheless, the respondent acknowledge that they had received the copy of the statutory demand and Nagian's statutory declaration Via fax on 10 October 2003; and the fact that the statutory demand and petition was left at its registered office was also not pointedly disputed.

[6] The mode of service of the statutory demand is governed by the provisions of s 218(2)(a) of the Act which provides:

A company shall be deemed if a creditor has served on the company by leaving at the registered office a demand requiring the company to pay the sum so due.

[7] As it is not at all seriously disputed that the statutory notice was left by the process server at the registered office of the respondent I would hold that it was served in due compliance with s 218(2)(a), as restated with precisely the same wording in the global provision (which ought to be accorded due weightage) in s 350 of the Act which stages that:

A document may be served on a company by leaving it at or sending it by registered post to the registered office of the company.

[8] No acknowledgement by its officers is thus necessary and the objection as to service of the statutory demand is overruled. See Weng Wah Construction Co Sdn Bhd v. Yik Foong Development Sdn Bhd, [1994] 2 MLJ 266 wherein Abdul Malek J (as he t