Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] This morning, we have a motion before us for an interim injunction pending appeal. It was sought under s. 44 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. By consent of the parties, we directed the motion to be treated as the appeal proper as this would dispose of the substantive dispute without further delay. We have ample power to do so. See Syarikat Bunga Raya Timor Jauh Sdn Bhd v. Tractors Malaysia Bhd; [1980] 2 MLJ 127; Sabil Mulia (M) Sdn Bhd v. Pengarah Hospital Tengku Ampuan Rahimah & Ors [2005] 2 CLJ 122.

[2] This case has a history. It arises out of an assertion by the instant appellant that the respondent broke its contract to deliver the total amount of Direct Reduced Iron within the agreed time. The appellant gave notice to the respondent that it intended to recover damages for breach of contract. The appellant filed its suit claiming for, inter alia, RM36,079,860.33 for breach of contract. Before it could serve its writ, the respondent purporting to exercise its right under s. 218(2)(a) of the Companies Act 1965, served on the appellant a statutory notice of demand for a sum of RM3,390,509.03 which it claimed was owed to it ("the statutory noti