Ramly Ali J:

[1] This grounds of JUDGMENT are in respect of the liquidators' application (Vide encl 49) dated 10 August 2004 for the following orders:

(a) that the liquidators' remuneration from 1 May 202 to 15 August 2003 be fixed on time cost basis in the amount of RM441,416.03;

(b) that the liquidators' remuneration from 16 August 203 to 31 May 2004 be fixed on time cost basis in the amount of RM110,284.12;

(c) that all costs and expenses incurred by the liquidators from 1 May 202 to 31 May 2004 be approved;

(d) that the retention by the liquidators of the sum of RM139,838.82 out of the assets of the respondent towards payment of their remuneration be approved;

(e) that the costs of this application on solicitor-client basis be paid out of the assets of the respondent; and

(f) further or other relief as this court thinks fair and expedient.

Chronology Of Events

[2] The respondent was wound up on 7 February 2001. The winding up order appointed the official receiver as the provisional liquidator.

[3] On 10 March 2001, the respondent by its directors, applied by a summons in chambers for an order to stay execution of winding up pending:

(a) the outcome of Civil Suit No: S7-22-667-2000 filed by the respondent against the petitioner; and/or

(b) pending the disposal of the respondent's appeal against the winding up order

[4] On 29 April 2002, on the application of the official receiver, this court appointed Ler Cheng Chye and Lum Tuck Cheong as the liquidators of the respondent.

[5] On 10 October 2002, the Civil Suit No: S7-22-667-2000 was struck out.

[6] On 14 August 2003, this court made an order in terms of the respondent's summon in chambers staying execution of the winding up order pending the appeal against the winding up order Several consequential orders were also made.

[7] On 11 September 2003, the petitioner filed a notice of appeal against the order of 14 August 2003.

[8] On 1 October 2003, the respondent by its directors applied for the reinstatement of Civil Suit No: S7-22-667-2000.

[9] On 13 November 2003, the liquidators applied for a stay of execution of the order made on 14 August 2003 (encl 38).

[10] The appeal against the winding up order was heard by the court of Appeal on 25 February 2004 and was dismissed.

[11] On 11 March 2004, the Civil Suit No: S7-22-667-2000 was reinstated.

[12] On 16 June 2004 an order in terms of encl 38 was made whereby leave was granted for the liquidators remuneration to be fixed by the court.

Liquidators' Entitlement To Remuneration And Powers Of The courts To Determine Liquidators' Remuneration

232(3) A Liquidator other than the Official Receiver shall be entitled to receive such salary or remuneration by way of percentage or otherwise as is determined;

(a) by agreement between the liquidator and the committee of inspection (if any);

(b) failing such agreement or where there is committee of inspection by a resolution passed at a meeting of creditors by a majority of not less than three-fourths in value and one-half in number of the creditors present in person or by proxy and voting at the meeting and whose debts have been admitted to vote, which meeting shall be convened by the liquidator by a notice to each creditor to which notice shall be attached a statement of all receipts and expenditure by the liquidator, and the amount of remuneration sought by him; or

(c) failing a determination in a manner referred to in para (a) or (b), by the court.

[14]Rule 142(3