JUDGMENT

Zulkefli ahmad Makinudin J:

This is an application by the petitioners to seek leave of this court to reaamend the petition pursuant to s. 221(2)(e) of the Companies act 1965 (& quot;the act& quot;) and/or under O. 20 r. 5 of the Rules of High Court 1980 (& quot;RHC 1980& quot;) and/or under the inherent jurisdiction of the court. (encl. 93).

The following are some relevant background facts of the case:

(1) The petition was filed in court on 21 May 2001 as Companies Windingaup Petition No. D2-28-507-2001 and the first hearing date was fixed on 16 august 2001.

(2) On 18 July 2001, upon the application of the petitioners, the court granted leave for the petitioners to make minor amendments to the petition. The two amendments made were to insert s. 218(1)(i) of the act and to substitute the name of the liquidator.

(3) On 9 October 2001 upon the application of the respondents, Her Ladyship Madam Justice Zainun bte ali struck out this petition.

(4) The petitioners subsequently appealed to the Court of appeal. On 29 January 2003, the Court of appeal allowed the petitioners' appeal and set aside the High Court striking out order. The Court of appeal further ordered that this petition be remitted to the High Court for trial before another judge. Hence, the hearing of this petition before this court as Companies Windingaup Petition No. D3(D2)a28a507a2001.

(5) The respondents then sought leave to appeal to the Federal Court on 25 February 2003. The Federal Court subsequently dismissed the respondents' leave application on 29 October 2003 vide Federal Court application No. 08a13a2003 (W).

Petitioners' Contention and The Proposed amendments

The petitioners contended that there have been significant events that have occurred between the parties subsequent to the filing of the petition, which could not be included in the initial petition. Hence this notice of motion was filed by the petitioners on 19 January 2004 before this court to reaamend the petition. The proposed amendments are contained in annexure a of the notice of motion and the precise details are set out in para. 166 to paras. 234. The significant amendments can be categorized as follows:

(i) The marginalization and exclusion of the petitioners from management and participation in the Tan Chong Groups of Companies (annexure a a paras. 168a176 at pp. 46a48);

(ii) Disregarding or endangering the distributorship (franchise) of Nissan Motor Ltd and Shiseido Ltd (annexure a a paras. 177a190 at pp. 49a53); and

(iii) The ouster of the petitioners from key positions in Tan Chong Consolidated Sdn. Bhd. (& quot;TCC& quot;) and in the Tan Chong Groups of Companies (annexure a a paras. 191a200 at pp. 53a57).

The Respondents' Objections

The respondents' objections basically are as follows:

(i) The amendments are substantially the same as the 'new events' contended by the petitioners in the second petition filed by the petitioners which was struck out on 20 May 2003 by this court.

(ii) The 'new events' are irrelevant to a winding up petition against TCC and in any event the allegations do not give rise to any right of a shareholder of TCC to assert a breach of any legitimate expectation; and

(iii) The principle of & quot;res judicata& quot; and/or & quot;issue estoppel& quot; would apply to the proposed amendments since they are substantially the same as the 'new events' contained in the second petition which has been struck out and as such this application amounts to an abuse of process.

Decision Of The Court

I am of the view that the respondents' objections on the ground that the amendments are substantially the same as the 'new events' in the second petition filed by the petitioners are without merits. The striking out of the second petition by me then must be read in the proper context and cannot be used as a general bar to the petitioners raising the new events in this petition.

It must be read in the context of this family windingaup petition by the quasiapartners. In my decisio