Abdul Aziz Mohamad J:

On the very day that the petitioner filed the petition in this case, which is an oppression petition under s. 181 of the Companies Act 1965 , he also filed a winding-up petition under s. 218 of that Act in case No. D2-28-412-95. In both the petitions, the parties are the same and the factual grounds relied upon are identical. The first prayer in the oppression petition, as is naturally the principal prayer in the winding-up petition, is for the winding-up of the first respondent company. The second prayer in the oppression prayer is an alternative prayer for the purchase of the petitioner's shares by the respondents.

The respondents, by the present summons in chambers in the oppression petition, apply for an order that the oppression petition be permanently stayed or, alternatively, that the petitioner be put to election as to whether to proceed with the oppression petition or the winding-up petition.

The respondents contend that the concurrent maintenance of the two petitions, being proceedings between the same parties based on identical facts and grounds of complaint, is prima facie an abuse of the process of the Court.

In submitting that the app