JUDGMENT

Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] This appeal raises a short but important point of practice and procedure in the sphere of company law. The relevant facts fall within a narrow compass. On 30 January 2007, the High Court made an order winding up the respondent company on a petition presented by the appellant. On 16 February 2007 the respondent gave notice of appeal to this Court. That appeal - I will refer to it as the "merits appeal" - is presently pending. In the meantime the respondent took out a summons returnable before the judge in chambers seeking a stay of the winding up. The summons says that the application is made under s. 243(1) of the Companies Act 1965 ("the Act") and/or the inherent jurisdiction. The summons was supported by the affidavit of Cheah Theam Kheng, a director of the respondent. In it he says that he is authorised to make the affidavit on the respondent's behalf. The learned judge who heard the summons made an order staying the effects of the winding up order until the outcome of the merits appeal. The petitioner was unhappy with this order. It appealed to us. It is this instant appeal. I will refer to it as "the stay appeal". We heard it on 1 August 2007 and