JUDGMENT

Noradura Hamzah JC:

Introduction

[1] This petition was presented by Gui Chai Chern ("the petitioner") seeking to wind up Mexland Sdn Bhd ("the respondent") pursuant to the Companies Act 2016 [Act 777].

[2] On 26 August, 9 September, and 23 September 2025, parties informed the Court that the settlement discussions were ongoing. On 1 October 2025, they confirmed that the attempt had failed and invited the Court to determine the petition on its merits. The Respondent did not file any affidavit in opposition.

[3] Upon hearing both parties, the Court allowed the petitioner's petition. On 14 October 2025, the respondent filed a Notice to Appeal against the entirety of this Court 's decision in allowing encl 1.

Background

[4] The Petitioner alleged that the respondent is indebted to him in the sum of RM2,000,000.00, which remains due and owing. DA Land Sdn Bhd (in Liquidation), through its liquidator Augustine a/l TK James, filed a Notice of Intention to Appear at the Hearing of this Petition (encl 8), asserting its position as a creditor of the respondent in the sum of RM8,000,000.00 as at 31 July 2023.

[5] The petition complied with all procedural requirements under the Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972, namely:

(a) service on the respondent, Assistant Official Receiver (Director- General of Insolvency) and Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM) on 4 July 2025 (affidavit of service in encl 4 and affidavit by the solicitor in Enc. 6);

(b) publication of advertisements in the New Straits Times (23 & 25 July 2025), Nanyang Siang Pau (21 & 23 July 2025), and the Government Gazette (25 July 2025) (Memorandum of Advertisement and Gazette in encl 4 and Affidavit by the solicitor in Enc. 6);

(c) payment of the statutory deposit of RM3,000.00 to the Department of Insolvency on 6 August 2025 (affidavit by the solicitor in Enc. 6);

(d) list of parties attending the hearing of the Petition (none) in Enc. 7; and

(e) issuance of the Registrar's Certificate on 11 August 2025 (Enc. 9).

Analysis

[6] The issue before this Court was whether the petitioner had established that the respondent was unable to pay its debts within the meaning of subpara 465(1)(e) read with subpara 466(1)(a) of Act 777, such an inability is deemed when a company neglects to satisfy a statutory demand for a liquidated sum.

[7] Based on the petitioner's affidavit and cause papers, the Court found that:

(a) the debt of RM2,000,000.00 was liquidated and undisputed;

(b) the respondent failed to file any affidavit, appear through counsel to contest the debt, or raise any bona fide dispute; and

(c) the petitioner had fulfilled all procedural requirements under the Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Court accepted the petitioner's assertions as unchallenged.

[8] The Court also notes that although DA Land Sdn Bhd (in Liquidation) had filed a Notice of Intention to Appear at the hearing of the petition, no representative attended any of the hearing dates. Notwithstanding their absence, the Notice indicated DA Land's position as a creditor for RM8,000,000.00 as at 31 July 2023. Accordingly recognises DA Land is a substantial supporting creditor, thereby reinforcing the inference that the respondent was commercially insolvent.

[9] In light of the undisputed indebtedness, absence of opposition, and presence of a supporting creditor, the statutory test under subpara 465(1)(e) read with s 466 of Act 777 was satisfied. There were no equitable or discretionary grounds to defer or refuse relief.

[10] The Court 's approach accords with the settled authorities in Sri Hartamas Dvpt Sdn Bhd v. Mbf Finance Bhd; [1992] 1 MLJ 313; [1992] 1 CLJ Rep 303, Gulf Business Construction (M) Sdn Bhd v. Israq Holding Sdn Bhd; [2010] 5 MLJ 34; [2010] 8 CLJ 775, and Ssm Management Sdn Bhd v. Aeon Big (M) Sdn Bhd; [2019] 4 MLJ 826; [2019] 5 CLJ 695 which affirm that once a company neglects to pay a liquidated debt after statutory demand, the presumption of