JUDGMENT

Noor Hisham Ismail J:

Introduction

[1] This is a winding up petition brought pursuant to ss 465(1)(e) and 466 of the Companies Act 2016 ("CA 2016").

[2] The Petitioner seeks a winding up order against the Respondent on the basis that the Respondent has failed to satisfy or secure the outstanding debt of RM625,832.00 as demanded in the statutory notice issued by the Petitioner and duly served on the Respondent.

[3] The Respondent opposes the petition on a single ground — that the alleged outstanding debt is genuinely disputed.

[4] Having carefully considered the cause papers, the affidavits filed by both parties, and the written and oral submissions of learned counsel, this Court finds in favour of the Petitioner. Enclosure 1 is allowed with costs.

[5] The grounds for this Court 's decision are set out below.

Salient Facts

[6] The Respondent was appointed by HRSB Power Control Sdn Bhd ("HRSB") as a sub-contractor for a project known as "Civil Works (Scope 1) For Effluent Treatment System (ETS) Melaka" ("the Project").

[7] In connection with the Project, the Respondent requested the supply of labour from the Petitioner. The Petitioner issued its quotation dated 3 January 2022, and the Respondent accepted the same by issuing its Purchase Order dated 8 January 2022.

[8] The Petitioner avers that as of 14 November 2023, the Respondent had accumulated an outstanding debt of RM625,832.00 in respect of labour supplied by the Petitioner to the Respondent for the period from 6 January 2023 to 4 August 2023.

[9] The Petitioner further avers that the Respondent had expressly acknowledged owing the said sum by way of its letters dated 5 March 2024 and 2 April 2024.

[10] The Petitioner, through its solicitors Messrs Kheng Hoe & Lee Yuen, formally issued a statutory notice of demand pursuant to s 466(1)(a) of the CA 2016, dated 11 March 2025, upon the Respondent.

[11] The Respondent failed to satisfy the said demand within twenty-one (21) days as required under the said notice. This gave rise to a statutory presumption of insolvency, again under s 466(1)(a) of CA 2016.

[12] The Petitioner accordingly filed the present winding up petition.

[13] In opposing the petition, the Respondent contends that the sum claimed is not a correct sum as it is subject to deductions imposed by HRSB towards the Respondent in connection with the late supply and unsatisfactory quality of the labour provided by the Petitioner.

[14] The Respondent further contends that there exists an addendum to the sub-contract agreement between the parties, under which the Petitioner agreed to direct its claims for outstanding payment to HRSB directly, subject to HRSB's deductions for any delay or variation in the specifications of the Project.

[15] Finally, the Respondent contends that as there are numerous disputed facts relating to the claimed sum, the Petitioner ought to have commenced a writ action instead of pursuing the present petition. On that basis, the Respondent urges this Court to dismiss the petition.

Analysis And Findings

[16] The sole question before this Court is whether the debt of RM625,832.00 claimed by the Petitioner is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds, such as to warrant the dismissal of this petition.

[17] The test applicable in winding up proceedings where a debt is disputed is well-established. A Court will not make a winding up order if the debt underlying the petition is the subject of a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds [see Nkm Development Sdn. Bhd. v. Irex Sdn. Bhd; [1988] 2 CLJ 56].

[18] The burden therefore lies on the respondent to demonstrate that the dispute is genuine and not merely a crafty device to frustrate a creditor's legitimate claim. In Lafarge Concrete (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Gold Trend Builders Sdn Bhd; [2012] 6 MLJ 817 at p 823; [2012] 5 AMR 104 the Court of Appeal observed as follows:

"... in order to oppose a winding up petition, the respondent must raise a bona fide dispute in both a subjective and objective sense. It