JUDGMENT

Noradura Hamzah JC:

[1] This is the petitioner's winding up petition (encl 1) seeking an order that Shine DC Technology Sdn. Bhd. ("Shine DC" or "the respondent") be wound up pursuant to s 465(1)(h) of the Companies Act 2016 on the "just and equitable" ground. The petition is not founded on insolvency or inability to pay debts.

[2] The petitioner, Shine Technology Pte. Ltd. ("Shine Tech"), is a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore. Its shareholding is held 60% by Mr Ni Ke ("Mr Ni") and 40% by Mr Chee Chern Chun ("Mr Chee"). Shine DC was incorporated on 10 July 2023 under the Companies Act 2016 as the petitioner's wholly-owned Malaysian operating vehicle. Mr Chee has been the sole director of Shine DC since incorporation.

[3] Today is fixed for the hearing of the petition. The petitioner filed its written submission (encl 93) and the respondent filed its written submission in opposition (encl 96) together with a supplementary submission (encl 115). The creditor, Elite Controls Sdn Bhd, filed a written submission in support of the respondent's opposition (encl 100) and the petitioner also filed a reply submission (encl 113). This Court has had the benefit of considering all the written submissions, the affidavit evidence and the authorities cited by all parties and this is the Court 's decision and grounds of decision.

[4] At the outset, the respondent sought an adjournment of the hearing pending the disposal of its application for an ad interim stay at the Court of Appeal, which had been refixed to 19 March 2026. This Court declined the application for the following reasons:

(a) there is no stay order in existence. A pending application at the Court of Appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of proceedings at the High Court .

(b) This Court had already dismissed the respondent's application for a stay of proceedings (encl 71) on 6 March 2026. Granting an adjournment would effectively give the respondent through the back door what it failed to obtain through a formal application.

(c) the underlying appeal (Civil Appeal No.: J-02(IM)(NCC)-129-01/2026, the "129 Appeal") is against the dismissal of a striking-out application. Section 68(1)(f) of the of Judicature Act 1964 provides that no appeal shall be brought to the Court of Appeal where a High Court dismissed any application to strike out any writ or pleading. The competency of the 129 Appeal is therefore in serious doubt.

(d) The petition has been pending since September 2025. The hearing was already postponed from October 2025. Further delay would prejudice the petitioner;

(e) All papers have been fully exchanged. If the Court of Appeal subsequently grants a stay before this Court delivers its judgment, that can be addressed at that stage.

[5] The respondent objected to the issuance of the Registrar's Certificate on the ground that the advertisement of the petition stated the original hearing date of 29 October 2025 and since the hearing had been postponed to 13 March 2026, a fresh advertisement under r 19(d) of the Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972 was required.

[6] This Court overruled this objection. In Jotun Powder Coatings (M) Sdn Bhd v. Putrajaya Bumi Sdn Bhd; [2003] 6 MLJ 213, Suriyadi J held that in a fresh case where the initial advertisement has achieved its purpose, there is no necessity for re-advertisement or dispensation of re-advertisement. The word "the hearing" in r 24 of the Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972 means the day the petition is actually disposed of, not any return date or date prior to its disposal. Where the advertisement has been complied with and the case is fresh, the responsibility falls on interested parties to keep track of hearing dates.

[7] In the present case, the petition was filed on 3 September 2025 and duly advertised. The case is fresh. The original advertisement was not wrongly or inaccurately published —