Define the term counsel in respect to the case study

12th Jone, 2015 1. IPANG, I: The Respondent Gopera Investments Lid by its Notice of Motion filed on the 23rd of April, 2015 seeks to dismiss the entire petition for being abuse of the Court process pursuant to Order 12 Rule 40(1) (c) of the National Court Rules and Costs against the Petitioner, Reko (PNG) Limited. 2. The main crux of the Respondent's application is that the Petitioner filed its Petition under the Companies Rules, which the Respondent says is a wrong mode of proceeding as Companies Rules is a dormant piece of legislation. BACKGROUND 3. The Respondent Gopera Investment Lid is a land owner company and it is the holder of a Timber Permit No. 2-15 issued by the PNG Forest Authority on the 11th of May, 1992 for the Respondent to undertake logging operations within the Timber Permit Area of about 83,800 hectares of land known as East Kikori Timber Rights Purchase Area. 4. The Petitioner Reko PNG Limited and the Respondent entered into a Logging and Marketing Agreement on or around 11th March, 2014. 5. The relationship between the parties got sour when the Respondent take the LMA stands terminated. The Petitioner instituted court proceedings titled OS No. (Comm) 612 of 2014 Reko (PNG) Ltd -v- Gopera Investment Limited. The Petitioner sought orders from the Court that the termination of LMA is not proper and to say that LMA is effective. 6. When the Petitioner realized that the Respondent intended to put an end to their LMA and thus stopped the logging operation, the Petitioner issued a statutory demand under the Companies Act 1997 on the 20th January, 2015 and filed this Winding Up Petition on the 18th of march, 2015. RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION 7. Respondent submitted that the Petitioner filed its Petition under Form 2 of the Companies Rules and such other documents filed like Affidavit verifying Petition under Form 3 etc ... The petition is filed pursuant to s.14 of the Companies Rules. This provision states. 8. Mr. Tape of Counsel for the Respondent submitted that all the sections of Companies Act referred to in the Companies Rules are provisions under the repealed Companies Act and not Companies Act 1997 provides for Companies Legislation that were repealed and subsection (3) provides that the Companies Rules remain in force and not repealed by Section 440. Thus, Section 440 provides: 440. Repeals (1) The following Acts are hereby repealed- a) Companies Act (Chapter 146) b) Companies (Amendment) Act, 1985 c) Companies (Amendment) Act, 1986 d) Companies (Amendment) Act, 1988 e) Companies (Budget Provisions) Act, 1989 f) Companies (Amendment) Act, 1990 g) Companies (Amendment) Act, 1994 2) The Companies Regulation is hereby repealed. 3) For the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that the Company Rules remain in force and are not repealed by this Section.quot