Abdul Wahab Said J:

[1] This winding up petition was filed by the petitioner against the respondent for the amount of RM227,156.15, being rental due under a tenancy agreement. The petitioner has complied with the provisions of r. 32 of the Companies (Winding-up) Rules and a registrar's certificate was duly issued.

[2] The respondent filed an affidavit-in-opposition and both parties had submitted on issues raised in the said affidavit on the day of hearing of the petition. The respondent raised three issues. The first issue was that the petition was invalid as it was not filed in Bahasa Malaysia. The second issue was that the affidavit verifying petition is invalid because it is not clear whether it was affirmed or given under oath. The respondent's learned counsel said that para. (1) of the affidavit verifying petition refers to "made oath" whereas the last paragraph says "affidavit". The third issue is that the s. 218 notice is irregular as it does not give the option to the respondent to compound or secure the said amount in the notice.

[3] In reply to the affidavit-in-opposition the petitioner said that firstly, the petition may be filed in English. Secondly, the affidavit verifying is valid because the deponent had affirmed in English before a Commissioner for Oaths. Thirdly, there is no provision in the Companies Act that requires the petitioner to give any of the options as envisaged, in the s. 218 notice. Fourthly, a consent judgment had been entered in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court on 17 June 2004 for RM162,633.34. The respondent had only paid one instalment of RM31,316.67 and thereafter defaulted in payment.

[4] As to whether the petition must be filed in Bahasa Malaysia, counsel for respondent submitted that the petition must be filed in Bahasa Malaysia in compliance with O. 92 r. 1 RHC and s. 8 of the National Language Act 1963/67.

[5] Order 92 r. 1 RHC provides:

Any document required for use in pursuance of these rules shall be in the national language and may be accompanied by a translation thereof in the English Language;

Provided that any document in the English Language may be used as an exhibit with or without a translation thereof in the national language.

[6] Section 8 National Language Act 1963/67 provides:

All proceedings (other than the giving of evidence by a witness) in the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court or any Subordinate Court shall be in the national language. Provided that the court may either of its own motion or on the application of any party to any proceedings and after considering the interests of justice in those proceedings, order that the proceedings (other than the giving of evidence by a witness) shall be partly in the national language and partly in the English Language.

[7] The Companies (Winding-up) Rules 1972 had been made by the Rules Committee in exercise of the powers conferred under s. 372 of the Companies Act and s. 16 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.

[8] It must be noted to date there is no authoritative Bahasa Malaysia text of this Winding-up Rules including the forms in relation thereto. It must also be noted that a Registrar's Circular No. 5/1990 dated 28 July 1990 permitted the use of English in winding up proceedings. The circular reads as follows:

Tarikh: 28 hb Julai 1990

Semua Penolong Kanan Pendaftar,

Semua Pendaftar Mahkamah Rendah,

Semenanjung Malaysia.

Pekeliling Pendaftar No. 5 Tahun 1990

Sebagaimana yang telah dimaklumkan bahawa Pelaksanaan Penggunaan Bahasa Malaysia di Mahkamah telah berkuatkuasa mulai dari 1hb Jun 1990. Sehubungan dengan itu satu Arahan Amalan Hakim besar Malaya No. 2 Tahun 1990 telah dikeluarkan.

2. Sebagai garis panduan lanjut, YAA Hakim Besar Malaya telah mengarahkan bahawa mana-mana petisyen berkaitan dengan Perceraian dan Prosiding Hal-Ehwal Suami Isteri, Kebankrapan dan Penggulungan Syarikat, dibenar difailkan dalam Bahasa Inggeris sehingga kaedah-kaedah berkenaan dengannya selesai diterjemah dan diwartakan