A winding-up petition cannot proceed if the petitioner lacks standing and the debt is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds.

Introduction

[1] Enclosure 1 is a Petition to wind-up the Respondent based on a Statutory Notice served on the Respondent on 10 January 2024. Service of the Statutory Notice is not disputed.

[2] The Petitioner claims for a sum of RM127,007.58 allegedly due from the Respondent based on transactions under a Sub-Distribution Agreement.

[3] It is noted that the Petitioner did not obtain any judgment against the Respondent prior to filing this Petition. The Petitioner's claim is solely based on the Purchase Orders, Delivery Orders and Invoices issued by the Petitioner (see exhibits E, F and G of Encl 1).

[4] Prior to the filing of this Petition, the Parties have filed the following civil suits both in the Sessions Court and the High Court respectively:

a) A Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court suit case number of WA-A52NCC-4316-10/2023 ("Sessions Court Suit 4316") filed by the Petitioner on 16 October 2023 against the Respondent claiming for the debt allegedly owed by the Respondent for the sum of RM127,007.50 ("Alleged Debt") being the exact sum in the Petition filed herein.

b) A Kuala Lumpur High Court suit filed by the Respondent on 27 October 2023 bearing the Suit No: WA-22NCC-785-10/2023 ("High Court Suit 785") against MK Medilance (first defendant), Petitioner (second defendant) and Chin Keh Joo (third defendant) for the losses and damages suffered, in the sum of RM2,731,453.70 ("Respondent's Claim") being the special damages and general damages. The Respondent's causes of action in the High Court Suit 785 are for (i) the breach of the Sub-Distribution Agreement by MK Medilance and (ii) the conspiracy to injure the Respondent's business and interests by the Petitioner. MK Medilance and Chin Keh Joo.

[5] Enclosures 13, 18 and the Respondent's Reply Affidavit ("AIR") filed herein equally reflects the Respondent's causes of actions in the High Court Suit 785 and its defence in the Sessions Court Suit 4316.

[6] A summary judgment application filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the Sessions Court Suit 4316 over the same claim as in this Petition, for the sum RM127,007.50 was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 9 May 2024 with costs of RM3000.00 to be paid to the Respondent. Suit 4316 is now pending trial. The Respondent maintains its position that the Alleged Debt in the Sessions Court Suit 4316 and the sum claimed herein (sum identical to the Alleged Debt) are altogether derived from the same and/or series of transactions pursuant to the Sub-Distribution Agreement.

Petitioners Averments And Submissions

[7] The Petitioner contends that the sum claimed in this Petition was never disputed because the Respondent failed to reply to the Statutory Notice issued and served upon it.

[8] The Petitioners further contends and I quote verbatim its' submission at para 18 of its' submission in reply:

18. Referring to para 29 of the Respondent's submission, the petitioner submits that Suit 785 ought not to be considered by this Honourable Court as it involves different issues at large in which the debt claimed by the Petitioner is this Petition is not being claimed in suit 785. Thus, it cannot be considered as a bona fide dispute on the debt.

[9] Again at para 19 the Petitioner submits:

19. Referring to paras 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 of the Respondent's Submission, the petitioner reiterates the above paragraph that Suit 785 do not involve the debt claimed in this Petition at all. Moreover, the Petitioner has the statutory right to initiate this proceeding against the Respondent due to the Respondent's failure to reply and/or deny the said Notice of Demand.

[10] In addressing paras 4 and 10 of Encl 2