JUDGMENT

Ahmad Murad Abdul Aziz J:

Introduction

[1] Enclosure 1 is a Petition to wind-up the Respondent pursuant to s 465(1)(e) read with 466(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2016 ("CA 2016"). The basis of the Petition is the failure by the Respondent to settle a judgment sum after the expiry of 21 days from the service of a statutory notice on the Respondent.

Background Facts

[2] The Petitioner obtained a judgment in the High Court under suit WA-27NCC-26-06/2022 ("Suit 26") against the Respondent for a sum of RM2,125,266.41 together with interest and costs.

[3] The Petitioner issued and served a statutory notice under s 466(1)(a) of the CA 2016 on the Respondents (the Staturory Notice). Upon failure by the Respondent to settle the judgment sum stated in the Statutory Notice, the Petitioner filed this Petition to wind-up the Respondent.

The Respondent's Grounds To Challenge The Petition

[4] The grounds by the Respondent to challenge the Petition are as follows:

(a) There is an ongoing appeal against the decision in Suit 26 via Civil Appeal No: W-02(ADM)(W)-1306-07/2024.

(b) There is a fresh suit against the Petitioner, filed by the Respondent, that alleges fraud perpetuated by the Petitioner against the Respondent vide Civil Suit No: WA22NCvC-711-11/2024 (Suit 711).

[5] The Respondent extensively submitted on the alleged fraud by the Petitioner and referred to the notes of evidence from the trial in Suit 26, which are too lengthy to reproduce herein. Suffice it to say, the Respondent, in its submission, disputes the findings of the trial judge in Suit 26.

Findings By This Court

[6] It is trite law that an appeal against the judgment on which the Statutory Notice is based, is not valid grounds to challenge the Petition. I am persuaded by the decision of the Court in Geopancar Sdn Bhd v. Visage Engineering Sdn Bhd; [2013] 3 CLJ 355; [2013] 1 AMR 582, where Justice Mary Lim Thiam Suan held:

18. In short, the debt specified in the Notice issued by the Petitioner is disputed either because the judgment upon which the debt is founded is pending appeal before the Court of Appeal; or there is a pending application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court . The immediate concern is whether judgment debt is or becomes a disputed debt when the related judgment is under appeal.

19. With respect, I believe the answer is quite obvious. It is not. Otherwise, all judgments are of or will have no effect until either the appeals are disposed of; or where there are no appeals, until the period for lodging an appeal has passed. This is regardless of whether the judgment involves an award for monetary compensation or not. This is entirely different from where there is an order for a stay of the execution of the judgment pending appeal. Where there is none, the effect of the order of Court is upon pronouncement.

[7] Since, in the present case, there is no stay of execution against the judgment of the High Court , the appeal cannot be said to raise any bona fide dispute regarding the amount claimed in the Petition.

[8] The second issue raised by the Respondent is the alleged fraud by the Petitioner against the Respondent. Those allegations were fully ventilated in the proceedings in Suit 26, and the judgment was rendered after a full trial.

[9] it is trite law that this Court in exercising its jurisdiction as winding up Court cannot go behind a valid judgment pronounced by the trial Court , which in the present case, is the Judgment in Suit 26. This very principle has been expressed clearly by the Court of Appeal in the case of Gulf Business Construction (M) Sdn Bhd v. Israq Holding Sdn Bhd; [2010] 5 MLJ 34; [2010] 8 CLJ 775 where a Petitioner premised its winding up notice on a Court order, the Court instructively held as follows:

"it is legally impossible for the respondent to challenge the validity of the Court order dated 3 June 2005 in the winding up proceedings. If high authority is required for this simple proposition, the case of Sovereign G