Abdul Aziz Mohamad J:

As I have said earlier, this is a D4 case that is before me in my capacity as a vacation judge. The last day of the current court vacation is 19 September.

After hearing counsel on several occasions, particularly on the question posed by me as to whether, in view of the restraining order sought, this application ought to be served on the creditors that will be affected by the restraining order, I make the following decisions and orders.

I postpone this application to 21 September for mention before the learned D4 judge.

I am of opinion that only further proceedings in a pending action or proceeding may be restrained under s. 176(10) of the Companies Act 1965.

I am also of opinion that this application ought to be served on the creditors whose actions or proceedings are sought to be restrained, so that they may have an opportunity to oppose the application for the restraining order.

Learned counsel for the applicants has indicated that further proceedings in the pending actions listed in exh. 8 to encl. (2) need not, at least for the time being, be restrained because the creditors in those actions will not be included among the scheme creditors.