GROUNDSOF JUDGMENT

The hearing of this petition for the winding-up of the respondent company was fixed for the 28th August 1998.

On that day counsel for the respondent company applied for an adjournmentstating that he had filed two affidavits opposing the petition on the 25th August 1998 and an application on the 27th August 1998 for an extension of time to file and serve the affidavits opposing the petition. He stated that the application for theextension of time had not yet been issued out of the registry but that the reasons for the late application were in the supporting affidavit.

Counsel for the petitioner, who also mentioned the matter for counsel for four other supportingcreditors, opposed the adjournment because of the last-minute application for the extension of time, bearing in mind that the petition was in order and the application had not even been fixed for hearing.

I decided against granting the adjournmentupon objection being taken by counsel for the petitioner. Rule 30(1) of the Companies (Winding-up) Rules 1972 stipulates that affidavits in opposition to a petition that a company may be wound up shall be filed and a copy thereof served on the petitioner orhis solicitor at least seven days before the time appointed for the hearing of the petition. This was obviously not done.

For the purposes of this judgment, a reference hereinafter to a rule by itself shall mean that rule in the Companies(Winding-up) Rules 1972; and a reference to a section by itself shall mean that section in the Companies Act 1965.

The affidavits of service of the petition in enclosures (4) and (5) showed that the petition and the affidavit verifyingthe petition were personally served by the contracts manager of the petitioner on a named lady employee of the respondent company at its registered office on the 19th June 1998. The memorandum of advertisement and gazetting at enclosure (6) and the affidavitof service at enclosure (4) showed that the petition was advertised in The Star and The New Straits Times newspapers on the 29th June 1998 and gazetted in the GovernmentGazette on the 16th July 1998.

The file also showed that service on the registrar of companies and the official receiver as required by law had also been effected, and the registrar’s certificate of due compliance with therequirements of rule 32(1) had been issued.

At the time of writing this judgment, the two affidavits in opposition of the petition and the affidavit in support of the application to extend time are on file but I am uncertain whether theyhad found their way into the file from the registry on the 28th August 1998. I can, however, state from experience that where last-minute filing is done, as here, it is only in rare cases that the documents are put into the file immediately because ofthe logistics involved. However, the application for extension of time, though dated the 27th August 1998, has an endorsement at its foot showing that it was put into the respondent company’s solicitors’BC Box No 355 on the 3rd September 1998 whichindicates that that was the date on which the application was issued out of the registry after being signed by the registrar.

Be that as it may, the affidavit in support of the application for the extension of time was not filed in good timeto obtain the relief sought therein. Whatever the reasons the respondent company may have had for not filing the affidavits in opposition in time, it behoved it to make its application for the extension of time early and not wait until about 2.30 pm on the daypreceding the hearing of the petiition to make such an application, particularly when the two affidavits in opposition could be filed by the 25th August 1998.

The notice to the respondent company from the petitioner under section 218 demandingpayment of a sum of RM3,470,280.73 was issued on the 4th May 1998. Notices of intention to appear on the hearing of the petition issued under rule 28(1) by four supporting creditors showed further claims against the