Syarikat Mohd Noor Yusof Sdn Bhd v Polibina Engineering Enterprise Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) Syarikat Mohd Noor Yusof Sdn Bhd v Polibina Engineering Enterprise Sdn Bhd (in liquidation)

Syarikat Mohd Noor Yusof Sdn Bhd v Polibina Engineering Enterprise Sdn Bhd (in liquidation)
[2006] 1 MLJ 446
CIVIL APPEAL NO T–02–830 OF 1999
COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)
DECIDED-DATE-1: 27 JANUARY 2005
DENIS ONG, MOHD GHAZALI AND ARIFFIN JAKA JJCA
CATCHWORDS:
Companies and Corporations – Winding up – Disputed debt – No judgment obtained – Notice under s 218(2)(a) served – Whether debt must be proved – Whether should have exhausted all remedies under contract before proceeding to wind up – Appellant appeared to be solvent – Whether proper case to wind up appellant – Companies Act 1965 s 218(2)(a)

HEADNOTES:
The appellant was the contractor for certain works and appointed the respondent (subsequently went into liquidation) as the main sub-contractor. The respondent alleged that the appellant was indebted to it the sum of RM896,378.18 (‘the said sum’) under several certificate for progress of payments and a certificate for final payments for work done. The respondent delivered a notice of indebtedness pursuant to s 218(2)(a) of the Companies Act 1965 (‘the Act’) to the appellant at its registered office. The appellant submitted that the works were done by other contractors who have been paid and the fact that the respondent had abandoned the works and was wound up, there was no debt due to the respondent from the appellant. The respondent in liquidation then filed a petition to wind-up the appellant which was allowed by the court. The appellant appealed.

The appellant was the contractor Perayu adalah kontraktor
for certain works untuk kerja-kerja tertentu
and appointed the respondent dan telah melantik responden
as the main sub-contractor. sebagai sub kontraktor utama.
The respondent alleged that the appellant was indebted to it the sum of RM896,378.18 (‘the said sum’) Responden mendakwa bahawa perayu berhutang dengannya sebanyak RM896,378.18 (‘jumlah tersebut’)
under several certificates for progress of payments di bawah beberapa sijil bayaran berkala
certificate for progress of payments sijil bayaran berkala
and a certificate for final payments for work done. dan sijil bayaran akhir untuk kerja-kerja yang dilakukan.
certificate for final payments sijil bayaran akhir
The respondent delivered a notice of indebtedness pursuant to s 218(2)(a) of the Companies Act 1965 (‘the Act’) to the appellant Responden telah menyampaikan satu notis keberhutangan menurut s 218(2)(a) Akta Syarikat 1965 (‘Akta tersebut’) kepada perayu
at its registered office. di pejabat berdaftarnya.
The appellant submitted that Perayu berhujah bahawa
the works were done by other contractors who have been paid kerja-kerja yang dilakukan oleh kontraktor lain telah dibayar
and the fact that the respondent had abandoned the works dan pada hakikatnya responden telah meninggalkan kerja-kerja tersebut
and was wound up, dan telah digulungkan,
there was no debt due to the respondent from the appellant. tiada hutang yang perlu dibayar kepada responden dari perayu.
The respondent in liquidation then filed a petition to wind-up the appellant Responden yang dalam likuidasi kemudiannya telah memfailkan satu petisyen untuk menggulungkan perayu
which was allowed by the court. yang telah dibenarkan oleh mahkamah.
The appellant appealed. Perayu telah membuat rayuan.
This entry was posted in Building contract. Bookmark the permalink.