THE High Court recently struck out an application by 786 Hyper Mart Pte Ltd seeking to set aside a statutory demand issued by FMF Foods Ltd over an alleged debt of $33,819.58.
Justice Chaitanya Lakshman ruled that the application was an abuse of the court process as the company did not dispute the debt owed to FMF Foods.
FMF Foods issued the statutory demand on February 18, 2026, after 786 Hyper Mart acknowledged a debt of $43,269.58 under a Deed of Acknowledgment of Debt entered into on January 30.
The court heard that 786 Hyper Mart made two payments of $5000 each, one on January 15 and another on February 9, but failed to make further payments.
FMF Foods then issued the statutory demand seeking payment of the outstanding amount, including interest.
Justice Lakshman noted that the purpose of a statutory demand was not to recover debts but to determine whether a company was solvent.
He said 786 Hyper Mart’s application was not based on a genuine dispute about the debt, but instead sought permission to repay the amount at a lower rate than agreed under the Deed of Acknowledgement of Debt.
The judge also found that an affidavit filed in support of the application was not properly authorised, as the person who purported to give authority to the company’s general manager was neither a director nor a secretary of the company.
Justice Lakshman struck out the originating summons and ordered 786 Hyper Mart to pay FMF Foods $2000 in costs within 21 days.
