Su Geok Yiam JC:

This is an application by the plaintiff videa summons in chambers (encl. 7) filed on 4 October 2001 for an inter partesinterlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant until the disposal of the plaintiff's appeal to the judge in chambers in Ipoh High Court Civil Suit GS. No. 22-97-2000, from presenting a winding-up petition against the plaintiff in connection with the defendant's statutory notice dated 3 September 2001 which was served on the plaintiff pursuant to s. 218(2)(a) of the Companies Act 1965 requiring the plaintiff to make payment within 21 days from the date of receipt of the notice of the sum of RM12,099,825.17 together with interest thereon and a further sum of S$166,439.89 on the ground of abuse of the process of the court as the plaintiff's appeal to the judge in chambers has not been disposed of yet.

Facts And Background

The facts and background have already been set out in detail in my earlier grounds of judgment in respect of an application by the defendant for a Mareva injunction in respect of Ipoh High Court Civil Suit GS. No. 22-97-2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the said suit"). (See Dynasty Rangers (M) Sdn Bhd v. S.B.S.K. Plantations Sdn Bhd[2001] 7 CLJ 171).

Briefly, the plaintiff is the parent company of two subsidiary companies, namely, Perak Meat Industries Sdn Bhd (PMI) and Export-Link Pte Ltd (EPL). The plaintiff holds 64% of the issued and paid up share capital of PMI and approximately 52% of the issued and paid up capital of EPL. On 14 February 1997, Perak Freight Services Sdn Bhd (PFS) entered into a Time Charter with PMI and EPL for a period of five years. Subsequently, PFS assigned the rights under the Time Charter to the defendant. The plaintiff had given to the defendant, a corporate guarantee guaranteeing the "fulfillment of all responsibilities and obligations of PMI and EPL" under the Time Charter of a Vessel belonging to the defendant. Upon the default by PMI and EPL on the hire payments, the defendant terminated the Time Charter and withdrew the Vessel. The disputes between PMI and EPL and the defendant were referred to arbitration. The defendant instituted the said suit to recover from the plaintiff, as guarantor, arrears of hire payable, interest and damages for breach of contract by PMI and EPL. The defendant also filed an application videa summons in chambers dated 29 August 2000 under O. 14 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the RHC") for summary judgment for a sum of RM12,099,825.17 which was the amount handed down by the arbitrators in their award in favour of the defendant against PMI and EPL comprising arrears of hire, damages for breach of contract and interest and also a sum of S$166,439.89 being the costs of the arbitration proceedings. The plaintiff was not a party to the arbitration proceedings.

In the interim, the defendant applied, unsuccessfully, for a Mareva injunction to freeze the plaintiff's assets up to a value of RM12.1 million. This court decided that although the defendant was able to show a good arguable case it had failed to satisfy the court that there was a real risk that the plaintiff would dissipate its assets.

Subsequent to that decision, the learned deputy registrar has, on 3 September 2001, given summary judgment to the defendant in the sum of RM12,099,825.17 and the sum of S$166,439.89 as prayed for.

The plaintiff, being dissatisfied with the order of the learned deputy registrar, filed a notice of appeal to the judge in chambers on a certificate of urgency. The appeal was fixed for hearing on 23 October 2001. The plaintiff did not apply immediately for a stay of execution of the summary judgment pending the appeal.

On the same date that the summary judgment was granted by the learned deputy registrar, the defendant issued against the plaintiff a statutory notice premised on the summary judgment debt pursuant to s. 218(2)(a) of the Companies Act 1965.

Plaintiff's Application For An Ex parteIn