PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN MALAYSIA DEBT VENTURES BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN ABDUL RAHIM BIN ABDUL BAKAR

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN MALAYSIA DEBT VENTURES BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN ABDUL RAHIM BIN ABDUL BAKAR

JD's application was dismissed because JD failed to comply with the mandatory seven-day notice and filing requirement under s3(2)(ii) IA and the AIO did not particularize any counterclaim/set-off as required by s3(1)(i); the underlying summary judgment remained final and established joint and several liability making the bankruptcy notice and creditor's petition valid.

Citation
BA-29NCC-1936-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Judgment Debtor: ABDUL RAHIM BIN ABDUL RAHMAN; Judgment Creditor: MALAYSIA DEBT VENTURES BERHAD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 December 2022
Case Number
BA-29NCC-1936-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Petition Under Insolvency Act 1967 / Setting Aside Application to Dismiss Creditor's Petition (summons in Chambers)
Outcome
Applicant's (Judgment Debtor) application to set aside/dismiss creditor's petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Notice Requirements Under Insolvency Act S3, Joint and Several Liability of Guarantors, Summary Judgment Enforcement, Setting Aside Creditor's Petition, Res Judicata
Source Language
Malay/English
Insolvency Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Contract (guarantee) Notice Requirements Under Insolvency Act S3 Joint and Several Liability of Guarantors Summary Judgment Enforcement Setting Aside Creditor's Petition +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ABDUL RAHIM BIN ABDUL RAHMAN

Judgment Debtor

MALAYSIA DEBT VENTURES BERHAD

Judgment Creditor

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Petition Under Insolvency Act 1967 / Setting Aside Application to Dismiss Creditor's Petition (summons in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether JD complied with s3(2)(ii) IA seven-day time limit to dispute the bankruptcy notice
  2. 2 Whether the amount claimed in the creditor's petition was inaccurate because of another judgment debtor's liability
  3. 3 Whether the AIO contained required particulars of counterclaim/set-off/cross demand under s3(1)(i) IA

Ratio Decidendi

JD's application was dismissed because JD failed to comply with the mandatory seven-day notice and filing requirement under s3(2)(ii) IA and the AIO did not particularize any counterclaim/set-off as required by s3(1)(i); the underlying summary judgment remained final and established joint and several liability making the bankruptcy notice and creditor's petition valid.

Court Disposition

Applicant's (Judgment Debtor) application to set aside/dismiss creditor's petition dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs of RM1,500.00 subject to allocatur