Ramly Ali J:

These are applications by three applicants videencls. 80, 83 and 86 for leave of the court for oral evidence to be recorded on the petition and to cross-examine the liquidator of the petitioner on his affidavits in support of the petition.

Factual Background

On 17 August 2001, Emporium Jaya (Bentong) Sdn Bhd, (In Liquidation) ('the petitioner') presented a winding-up petition against Emporium Jaya (Jerantut) Sdn Bhd, ('the respondent') at Temerloh High Court videCompanies (Winding Up) Petition No: 28-4-2001. The said petition was signed by one Mr Koh Kheng Min, the liquidator of the petitioner. The petitioner prays that the respondent company be wound-up on the grounds that the respondent was unable to pay it's debt (s. 218(1)(e) of the Companies Act 1965) and it is just and equitable that the respondent be wound-up (s. 218(1)(i) of the same Act). The petitioner alleged that the respondent was indebted to the petition in the sum of RM18,133.68 being 'unpaid balance on goods sold and delivered and unpaid balance on services rendered and advanced.'

On 2 July 2001, all the three applicants in the present applications, who at all material times, were suppliers of goods and merchandise to the respondent, had filed their respective civil actions in the Sessions Court Temerloh against the respondent after having discovered that the respondent company had been closed down and ceased business operations since May 2001. The applicants claimed that as at 30 May 2001, the respondent was indebted to them in the sums of:

(i) RM79,932.21 - to the first applicant, Then Shak Liong;

(ii) RM40,705 - to the second applicant, Joo Huat Book Store Sdn Bhd,;

(iii) RM48,042.33 - to the third applicant, Joo Huat Stationery & Sport Trading.

On 5 July 2001, each of the three applicants obtained an ex parteorder of attachment before judgment against the property of the respondent. On 18 July 2001, Temerloh Session Court bailiff attached the movable properties and goods of the respondent company, at Jerantut, pursuant to the said order of attachment 5 July 2001. The court bailiff appointed public auctioneers and proceeded to proclaim the sale of the movable goods attached. The public auction was supposed to be held on 22 August 2001. On 17 August 2001, all the applicants obtained judgment in default of appearance against the respondent company in their respective civil actions against the respondent in Temerloh Session Court.

On the same day when the petition for winding-up was presented against the respondent by the petitioner (17 August 2001) the petitioner has also filed an ex partesummons-in-chambers (encl. 3) together with a certificate of urgency (encl. 3) praying for the following orders:

(i) that Mr Koh Kheng Min of M/s Koh & Associates, an approved liquidator, be appointed a provisional liquidator of the respondent company under s. 231 of the Act;

(ii) that the provisional liquidator is to take possession, control and protect the assets or realise the assets of the respondent company and such assets are not to be distributed or parted with until further order;

(iii) that the petitioner is to give the usual undertaking as to damages which the court may make if the court was of the opinion that the respondent company shall have sustained;

(iv) that the auction sale scheduled on 22 August 2001 or on such other date that may be fixed later against the assets of the respondent company be stayed pursuant to ss. 223 and 224 of the Act, and that the costs of the intended auction sale be paid by the provisional liquidator out of the respondent company's assets;

(v) that all further civil actions against the respondent company be stayed pursuant to s. 222 of the Act pending the hearing of the winding up petition;

(vi) that the costs of the application be taxed by the court and paid by the petitioner out of the assets of the respondent company; and

(vii) such further relief or order as the court deems fit.

The said summons-in-chambers w