JUDGMENT

Zakaria M. Yatim J:

On 3 August 1993, the petitioner filed a winding-up petition (Encl. 1) against the respondent (the company) on the ground that the company was unable to pay its debts.The hearing date of the petition was 12 November 1993.

On 8 December 1993, the company filed a notice of motion seeking the order of the Court to strike out the petition. (Encl. 6). The application was made under a certificate of urgency and the Senior Assistant Registrar fixed the hearing date, 12 November 1993.

On 8 December 1993, the company filed a second notice of motion asking the Court for an order that "the petition be stayed and/or dismissed upon the respondent providing such security in the sum of RM62,284.60 ..." (Encl. 9). the hearing date of the notice of motion was 17 December 1993.

On 21 December 1993, the company filed a third notice of motion (Encl. 17). In that notice of motion the company asked for an order to validate certain acts and deeds as contained in the prayers, which acts and deeds would be null and void under s.223 of the Companies Act 1965. The application was made under a certificate of urgency and the hearing date given by the Deputy Registrar was 7 January 1994.

On 4 March 1994, on the application of the petitioner, the petition was amended by an order made by the Deputy Registrar.The amended petition was filed on 17 March 1994. (Encl. 36).

On 12 November 1993, when the petition and the company's application to strike out the petition (Encl. 6) came for hearing, Counsel for the petitioner appeared in Court and informed the Court that his papers were not in order.The company was absent although it knew that the hearing of Encl. 6 was on 12 November, 1993.The Court then adjourned the hearing of the petition and Encl. 6 to 22 April 1994.The company had the opportunity to have its application heard and assuming that Encl. 6 had not been served on the petitioner, it still could ask the Court to strike out the petition on the ground that the papers were not in order.

Instead of attending Court on that day, the company instructed its solicitors to write a letter to the Deputy Registrar.The letter, dated 12 November 1993 is reproduced below.

12th November, 1993

Deputy Registrar,

High Court 4,

Commercial Division,

Kuala Lumpur.

Dear sir,

Re: K.L. High Ct. Companies (Winding-Up)

No: D4-28-249-93

C.H. Construction & amp; Trading

- vs - Langkah Cergas Sdn. Bhd.

We refer to the above matter wherein our Motion to strike off the petition and the Petition Enclosure No. 1 came up for hearing this morning.

Both are now adjourned for hearing on 22 April 1994.

We would be grateful if our motion to strike off the petition could be heard early as the outcome, if favourable would dispose of Enclosure No: 1.

We would be most grateful if you could kindly place our respectful request before his Lordship for his consideration.

Yours faithfully,

Signed.

Having absent itself on 12 November 1993, it had the audacity to write the above letter asking for a date earlier than the date given by the Court.

Enclosure 17 came for hearing on 7 January 1994 but the hearing was adjourned to 21 January 1994.On that date, Mr. Amiruddin, Counsel for the company withdraw the company's application in Encl. 6. On the application of Mr. Kingston Tan, Counsel for the petitioner, I struck off the said application with costs to the petitioner. I then asked both parties to argue on Encl. 17. Mr. Amiruddin then began his submission.In the course of his submission, he informed the Court that both parties had agreed on certain terms in respect of Encl. 17. He also told the Court that Encl. 9 was to be withdrawn with no order as to costs.Both parties then submitted to me the terms, which they had agreed upon by consent.The Consent Order (Encl. 33) is reproduced below: BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DATO' DR. ZAKARIA BIN MOHD. YATIM

THIS 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 1994IN OPEN Court ORDER

UPON THE APPLICATION of the respondent abovenamed and UPON READING the