JUDGMENT

Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz J:

(Application In Enclosure 22)

(Petition To Wind Up In Enclosure 1)

A. Introduction

[1] The Petitioner had obtained a Judgment in Default of Appearance before the Sessions Court at Kuala Lumpur against the Defendant in the Civil Suit bearing number WA-B5M-659-04/2021.

[2] The Respondent did not apply to set aside the said Judgment; therefore, it remains binding on the Respondent.

[3] Messrs B.H.Gan, Nor & Kim, solicitors for the Petitioner, issued a demand for payment of the Judgment debt via its notice dated 9 January 2024 pursuant to s 465(1)(e) that is read together with s 466(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2016. The said notice was served on the Respondent at its registered address and its business address. The Respondent was given 21 days to pay the sum.

[4] The Respondent had failed to comply with the said statutory notice. This caused the Petitioner to file the Petition to Wind-Up the Respondent pursuant to ss 465(1)(e) and 466(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2016.

B. Application to Strike Out by the Respondent

(I) Grounds For Application To Strike Out The Petition By The Respondent

[5] The Respondent did file an application to strike out the Petition pursuant to O 18 r 19 of the Rules of 2012. The grounds of the said application are summarized as follows:

5.1 That parties did enter into a settlement agreement where it was agreed that the Respondent is entitled to pay the sums that are due to the Petition by way of RM500.00 monthly payments until the Judgment sums due are fully paid.

5.2 The Petitioner had given a notice to the Respondent to surrender the vehicle finance under the account bearing number 88820000137530. The car has since allegedly been returned and the sum due after considering the said car is only RM35,186.59.

5.3 The Petitioner had given a notice to the Respondent to surrender the vehicle finance under the account number 8882000221558. The car has since allegedly been returned and the sum due after considering the said car is only RM56,143.00.

5.4 Therefore, the sums claimed in the Petition are no longer due and payable by the Respondent.

5.5 Parties had entered into negotiations and agreed to a settlement concerning the facilities due to the Petitioner. The Respondent has paid the sum RM2,878.75, RM4,981.25 and RM14,063.22 to the Petitioner.

5.6 The purpose of the said Petition is to force the Respondent to agree to a global settlement of the sums due to the Petitioner for all of the facilities with the Petitioner.

(II) Decision of this Court on this Application to Strike Out

[6] After considering the Petition, the affidavits filed by the Petitioner and the Respondent, the submissions filed, as well as the oral arguments by counsel for both parties, I find that the Respondent has failed to prove that this Petition is an abuse of process.

[7] Firstly, I find that the Petitioner has shown that the Judgment in Default remains a valid and binding Judgment on the Respondent. The Petitioner has also produced copies of the Statement of Account for the said facilities where Judgment has been entered against the Respondent as of 9 January 2024 ie the date of the Default Judgment entered against the Respondent.

[8] Secondly, I find that the documents produced by the Respondent to allegedly show that there was a settlement agreement between it and the Petitioner does not support its contention. The letter dated 5 April 2024 shows that there was a proposal for settlement issued by the Petitioner and this was not accepted by the Respondent. The Respondent had failed to confirm its agreement to the proposed settlement as seen in Exhibit WMK-1. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any settlement as suggested by the Respondent. This was also denied by the Petitioner as the proposal was not agreed to by the Respondent.

[9] Thirdly, the reduction of the sums due as a result of the sale of the repossessed vehicles has not been proven by the Respondent. The only documents produced by the Respondent are t