MASCON SDN BHD V KASAWA (M) SDN BHD [2000] 6 MLJ 843

MASCON SDN BHD V KASAWA (M) SDN BHD
[2000] 6 MLJ 843
COMPANY WINDING UP NO D8-28-25 OF 2000
HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
DECIDED-DATE-1: 17 JULY 2000
ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD J
CATCHWORDS:
Companies and Corporations – Winding up – Disputed debt – Sum claimed subject to adjudication – Amount claimed huge – Whether company should be wound up – Companies Act 1965 s 218

HEADNOTES:
The petitioner was employed by the respondent to build a six-storey business and entertainment centre in Melaka for a sum of RM56,900. Despite the interim certificates issued by the architects upon the progressive completion of the development, the respondent failed to pay the petitioner. Although a s 218 notice was served on the respondent at its registered address, the respondent still failed to pay. The petitioner prayed that as the respondent was unable to pay its debts, the respondent be wound up. The respondent opposed the application, alleging that the sum claimed was still subject to adjudication.

The petitioner was employed Pempetisyen telah diupah
by the respondent oleh responden
to build a six-storey business and entertainment centre in Melaka untuk membina sebuah pusat perniagaan dan hiburan enam tingkat di Melaka
for a sum of RM56,900. bagi jumlah RM56,900.
Despite the interim certificates Meskipun sijil-sijil
issued by the architects sementara telah dikeluarkan oleh akitek-akitek
upon the progressive completion of the development, pada penyempurnaan progresif pembangunan tersebut,
the respondent failed to pay the petitioner. responden gagal membayar pempetisyen.
Although a section 218 notice was served on the respondent Walaupun notis seksyen 218 telah disampaikan pada responden.
at its registered address, pada alamat berdaftarnya,
the respondent still failed to pay. responden tetap gagal membayar.
The petitioner prayed that Pempetisyen tersebut memohon agar,
as the respondent was unable to pay its debts, oleh kerana responden tidak mampu membayar hutang,
the respondent be wound up. responden patut digulungkan.
The respondent opposed the application, Responden menentang permohonan tersebut,
alleging that the sum claimed dan mendakwa bahawa jumlah yang dituntut
was still subject to adjudication. masih tertakluk kepada penghakiman
This entry was posted in Building contract and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.