Hamid Sultan Abu Backer JC:

[1] This is my judgment in respect of the petitioner's application to wind up the company under s. 218 of the Companies Act 1965 (CA 1965).

[2] The intitulement and the prayer in the petition do not disclose under what sub-section of s. 218 of the CA 1965 the petition is grounded on. This by itself can be fatal. In the case of Cheow Chew Khoon v. Abdul Johari Abdul Rahman [1995] 4 CLJ 127, Justice Gopal Sri Ram JCA observed:

In my judgment, this matter, which is a point of practice and procedure, is to be resolved by reference to the fundamental principle that a party must not take his opponent or the court by surprise. It is my opinion that an originating process requiring an intitulement must state, with sufficient particularity, either in its heading or in its body, the statute or Rule of Court under which the court is being moved: otherwise it would be an embarrassing pleading and may be liable to be struck out, unless sooner amended.

On the facts of the case and the wider interest of justice, I am condoning the irregularity and deciding the petition on the basis that the petitioner is relying on s. 218(1)(i) of CA 1965 which deals with just