Wee Chong Jin CJ:

In November 1971 the respondent as a director of the appellant company requested inspection, accompanied by an approved company auditor, of the accounting and other records of the company which are required to be kept pursuant to s. 167 of the Companies Act (Cap. 185, 1970 Edn.) (the Act). His request being refused he applied to the High Court by way of an originating summons No. 353 of 1971 on 17 December 1971 for an order under s. 167(5) of the Act. The appellant company resisted the application but an order in terms was made on 22 December 1971.The order did not specify a time limit during which the accounting and other records should be kept open for inspection by Mr. Curran, the approved company auditor named in the order, and the order did not give liberty to the parties to apply.The appellant company did not, understandably, appeal against the order.

Mr Curran began inspection shortly after the order was made and continued his inspection until 22 June 1972 when he left Singapore on leave.While he was absent from Singapore, shareholders holding more than two-thirds of the issued shares of the appellant company by a letter dated 20 July 1972 notified the appellant company that they, exercising their right under article 5(2) of the articles of association had removed the respondent as a director and the respondent was duly notified by a letter from the secretary of the appellant company dated 2 August 1972 that he was no longer a director.On 17 August 1972 the solicitors for the appellant company wrote to the solicitors for the respondent informing them that Mr. Curran was no longer free to inspect the accounts because the order of 22 December 1971 'had lapsed' on the respondent ceasing to be a director.

Thereupon, the respondent commenced the present action in titled SuitNo. 1815 of 1972 on 18 August 1972 claiming, inter alia:

(1) an injunction to restrain the defendants or either of them or the officers, servants or agents of the first defendant, from preventing or obstructing John Bertram Curran, an approved company auditor, from inspecting the accounting and other records of the first defendant pursuant to an Order of this defendant pursuant to an Order of this Honourable Court made on 22 December 1971;

(2)a declaration that notwithstanding the purported removal of the plaintiff as a director of the first defendant company the said Order remains valid and in full force and effect;

On the same day, 18 August 1972, the respondent obtained ex parte upon the usual undertaking as to damages an interim injunction against the appellant company and its secretary restraining them until the hearing of a motion returnable on 1 September 1972 or until further order from preventing or obstructing Mr. Curran from inspecting the accounting and other records of the appellant company pursuant to the order of 22 December 1971.

The motion was eventually heard on 11, 12 and 22 September 1972 before Choor Singh J who had granted the interim injunction on 18 August 1972 and on 14 October 1972 Choor Singh J made an order continuing the interim injunction against the appellant company until 31 December 1972 but ordered that the secretary be struck out as a defendant in the action.The appellant company now appeals against the order made by Choor Singh J on 14 October 1972, the order having been stayed until the determination of the appeal.

In his judgment Choor Singh J said that the sole reason why he granted the ex parte injunction prohibiting the appellant company from interfering with the inspection by Curran of the accounting and other records of the appellant company pursuant to the order of Court made on 22 December 1971 in OS 353 of 1971 was to enforce compliance with the order which the appellant company were flouting.He held that on the true construction of s. 167 of the Companies Act an inspection order obtained by a director does not ipso facto lapse upon the director ceasing to be a director but 'remains in