Ramly Ali JC:

On 17 August 2001, the petitioner, (Emporium Jaya (Bentong) Sdn. Bhd., (in liquidation)) presented a winding-up petition against the respondent, Emporium Jaya (Jerantut) Sdn. Bhd., at the Temerloh High Court videCompanies (Winding-Up) Petition No: 28-4-2001. The said petition was signed by one Mr. Koh Kheng Mm, the liquidator of the petitioner. The petitioner alleged that the respondent was indebted to the petitioner in the sum of RM18,133.68. The petitioner also alleged that on or about 14 August 2001, the petitioner was informed that an attachment-before-proceedings were taken against the respondent, of which the Bailiff of the Temerloh Session Court had taken possession and attached the business premises of the respondent at Wisma Emporium Jaya, Jalan Kuantan, Jerantut, Pahang. The date of auction has been fixed on 22 August 2001. So, in the petition, the petitioner verily believed that the respondent is insolvent and is unable to pay its debt. The petitioner prays that the respondent be wound up on the grounds that the respondent is unable to pay its debt (s. 218(1)(e) of the Companies Act 1965) and it is just and equitable that respondent be wound-up (s. 218(1)(i) of the same Act).

On the same day when the petition was presented (17 August 2001), the petitioner has also filed the following documents, namely:

(i) Ex partesummons in chambers (encl. 3);

(ii)Supporting affidavit of Koh Kheng Min (encl. 4); and

(iii) Certificate of urgency (encl. 2).

The said ex partesummons in chambers (encl. 3) prayed for the following orders:

(i)that Mr. Koh Kheng Min of Messrs Koh & Associates, an approved liquidator be appointed a provisional liquidator of the respondent company under s 231 of the Companies Act 1965;

(ii)that the provisional liquidator to take possession, control and protect the assets or realise the assets of the respondent company and such assets are not to be distributed or parted with until further order;

(iii)that the petitioner to give the usual undertaking as to damages which the Court may make if the Court was of the opinion that the respondent company shall have sustained;

(iv)that the auction sale scheduled on 22 August 2001 or on such other date that may be fixed later against the assets of the respondent company be stayed pursuant to ss. 223 and 224 of the Companies Act 1965, and that the costs of the intended auction sale be paid by the provisional liquidator out of the respondent company's assets;

(v)that all further civil actions against the respondent company be stayed pursuant to s 222 of the Companies Act 1965 pending the hearing of the winding-up petition;

(vi)that the costs of this application be taxed by the Court and paid by the petitioner out of the assets of the respondent company; and

(vii)such further relief or order as the Court deems fit.

In the affidavit in support of the application (encl. 4) the said Koh Kheng Min avers that "in carrying out his duties as the liquidator for the petitioner, he discovered from the account records that the respondent is indebted to the petitioner for the sum of RM18,133.68 being the "unpaid balance on goods sold and delivered and unpaid balance on services rendered and advanced". The said ex partesummons in chambers (encl. 3) was fixed for hearing ex parteon 20 August 2001. On that day (20 August 2001) an order interm of the ex partesummons in chambers was granted by the Court. On 21 August 2001 the said ex parteorder was served on the Court bailiff. The said bailiff then cancelled the public auction of the movable goods of the respondent company scheduled to be held on 22 August 2001.

All the applicants (in the present proceedings) are judgment creditors against the respondent company, who at all material times, have been suppliers of goods and merchandise to the respondent company. They alleged that as at 30 May 2001 the respondent was indebted to the applicants in the sum of:

(i) RM79,932.21to the first applicant, Then Shak Liong;

(ii) RM40,705 to the s