JUDGMENT

Arifin Jaka J:

[1] This is a petition presented on 15 October 1993 by P.T. Anekapangan Dwitama, a company incorporated in Indonesia having its registered office at J1. Mangga Dua Raya Blok E 1/2 Jakarta Utara, Indonesia ('the petitioner') for the winding-up by the court under the provisions of the Companies Act 1965 ('the Act') of Far East Industries Sdn. Bhd. ('the company') on the ground that the company was unable to pay its debts and that in the circumstances it is just and equitable that the company be wound up. The petitioner also seeks an order that the official receiver may be appointed as the provisional liquidator and that the costs of this petition be paid out of the assets of the company.

[2] One of the objects for which the company was established is to carry on the business of manufacturers of all kinds of instant noodles, rice noodles, vermicelli and other edible products; and to carry on the business of canners, dealers, importers and exporters of preserved and canned foods of all descriptions malted food and milk products, tropical fruit preserves, jams marmalade, jellies, juices and syrups, confectionary, biscuits, toffees, chocolate and such like boiled sweets, margarines, vegetable fats, butter, tea, coffee, cocoa and such like beverages, vinigers, sauces, food seasonings and such like table condiments

[3] The company has an issued and paid up capital of 1,005,006 ordinary shares of RM1 each made up of RM335,002 in cash and 670,004 other wise than cash.

[4] The company produces instant noodles under the trade name of "Indomie". An essential ingredient in the manufacture of indomie is a seasoning material. The petitioner was the sole supplier of the seasoning material to the company. The petitioner claims a sum of US$705,714 being the amount outstanding which was due and owing to the petitioner. On 19 August 1993, through its solicitors M/s Suhaimi Khor Zulkifli & Chang the petitioner issued a notice of demand in pursuance of s 218 (2)(a) of the Act ('the statutory notice') demanding payment from the company of the sum of US$705,714 within 21 days from date thereof.

[5] The petition was filed on 15 October 1993. In the petition it is alleged that the company was served with the statutory notice on 24 August 1993. The company has for three weeks after the service of the statutory notice failed or neglected to pay or satisfy the said sum or any part thereof or secure or compound for it to the reasonable satisfaction of the petitioner. It is also alleged that the company is therefore unable to pay its debts and in the circumstances it is just and equitable that the company should be wound up.

[6] The petition came up for hearing on 19 October 1995 after I had dismissed the company's application to strike out the petition by way of a notice of motion (encl. 12) earlier on the same day. The learned counsel then appearing on behalf of the company, Mr. R.R. Sethu requested for an adjournment for a month to advise his client to settle the debt. The petition was adjourned to 19 December 1995 for hearing. It was again adjourned pending the disposal of an application (encl. 172) by P.T. Jakarama Tama, a creditor of the company for a declaration that the petitioner has ceased to exist as a corporate entity since 1 March 1994 and an order that P.T. Jakarama Tama be substituted in place of the petitioner to prosecute the petition. The application was dismissed. An appeal against the dismissal to the court of Appeal was also dismissed. The petition was finally fixed for hearing on 22 July 1997. At the hearing En. Ahmad Moosdeen and En. Chee Beng Hwa appeared for the company whilst En. Matthias Chang represented the petitioner. The learned counsels for the company raised the issues (a) whether the statutory notice of demand under s 218 (2)(a) of the Act is invalid; (b) Whether the petition is defective in that it does not state the amount due and owing by the company to the petitioner.

[7] Section 218 Notice

[8] s 218(2) (a