Kang Hwee Gee J:

By this application the plaintiff RHB Bank Berhad (formerly United Malayan Banking Corporation Berhad) seeks an injunction to prohibit the defendant from filing a statutory notice under s. 218 of the Companies Act 1965 to wind up the plaintiff based on the judgment sum of RM803,271.46 or part thereof obtained by the defendant in default of appearance, and to file a petition under s. 217 of the Companies Act 1965 to wind up the plaintiff based on the said judgment sum or part thereof.

The grounds for seeking the injunction is set out in the supporting affidavit of its Pengurus Jabatan Tugas-Tugas Khas, Mohamed Din Dato' Seri Hamidi (encl. 3) which may be summarised as follows:

The defendant had stood as a guarantor of a loan obtained by a person called Phee Ah Ang from the plaintiff's bank. Upon the said person defaulting in the repayment of the loan, the plaintiff commenced civil action D1-23-937-87 against the defendant and after a full hearing obtained judgment for the sum of RM223,562.39 on 23 Mei 1995.

The defendant did not appeal against the judgment but some two years later on 7 July 1997 filed an application to the Court of Appeal for extention of time to file an appeal and to reopen the case with leave to adduce further evidence therein. His application was however dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

Subsequently the defendant was adjudged a bankrupt at the instance of the plaintiff on 3 July 2000 in consequence of his inability to pay the judgment sum.

Earlier on 23 February 1999 the defendant had commenced civil suit D2-22-449-1999 against the plaintiff as a co-defendant with a person called DM Suppiah, a property valuer. In the suit the defendant alleged inter aliathat they had committed fraud against him by issuing a false valuation of the land which was used as security for the loan in the civil suit D1-23-937-87 for which the plaintiff had already obtained judgment for the sum of RM223,562.39.

The plaintiff failed to enter an appearance to the defendant's suit in consequence of which the defendant obtained a judgment in default of appearance on 15 March 2001. On 20 April 2001 the defendant served on the plaintiff a copy of the judgment in default of appearance which he obtained in civil suit D2-22-449-1999.

The plaintiff has applied to set aside that judgment.

In anticipation that the defendant may attempt to enforce the judgment in default by issuing the statutory notice under s. 218(1) of the Companies Act and proceeding to petition for winding up, the plaintiff through its solicitors wrote to the defendant informing him that it would be depositing the judgment sum of RM803,271.46 into court pending its application to set aside the judgment. The letter also sought the defendant's confirmation that he would not in the meantime file the statutory notice. It read as follows:

26 April, 2001

MR. GUNASINGAM S/O RAMASINGAM URGENT

No. 31, Jalan Helang 3, BY HAND/FAX NO: 03-5756143/57566149

Bandar Puchong Jaya

47100 Puchong,

Selangor Darul Ehsan.

Dear Sir,

IN KUALA LUMPUR HIGH COURT SUIT NO. D2-22-449-99

GUNASINGAM S/O RAMASINGAM v. UNITED MALAYAN BANKING

CORPORATION BERHAD & D.M. SUPPIAH

We refer to the above matter where we act for RHB Bank Berhad.

2. We have been instructed by our clients that our clients have received a copy of the judgment in default dated 12.4.2001 entered against United Malayan Banking Corporation Berhad in respect of the above matter ("Default Judgment").

3. We have been made to understand that without prejudice to our clients' right in respect of the Default Judgment, our clients are in process of paying into Court a sum of RM803,271.46 and costs amounting to RM225.00 ("Payment into Court").

4. In view of the Payment into Court, we are hereby instructed by our clients to seek a written confirmation from you on an URGENT basis that:

(a) you refrain from commencing execution proceedings in respect of the Default Judgment; and

(b) you refrain from serving on our clients a s