PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Andrea Tan Soon Li for the Judgment Creditor [Messrs Peters Chambers] PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Muhammad Zahir Sanjay Bin Abdullah for the Judgment Debtor [Messrs Muhammad Zahir]

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Andrea Tan Soon Li for the Judgment Creditor [Messrs Peters Chambers] PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Muhammad Zahir Sanjay Bin Abdullah for the Judgment Debtor [Messrs Muhammad Zahir]

The Appeals were dismissed: procedurally because the Notices of Appeal failed to specify the order sought in breach of Order 56 r1/Form 114 and substantively because the Amended Creditor's Petition was validly served personally on 23.7.2021 and the absence of the verifying affidavit did not cause substantial injustice under s.131 of the Insolvency Act; the dismissed substituted service application and subsequent attempts did not affect validity of the personal service.

Citation
WA-29NCC-2160-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Judgment Debtor: Muhammad Zahir Sanjay bin Abdullah; Judgment Creditor: Mentari Dhuha Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 April 2022
Case Number
WA-29NCC-2160-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy/insolvency Proceedings / Appeal to Judge in Chambers Against Registrar/deputy Registrar Decisions
Outcome
Both Appeals dismissed and Deputy Registrar/Registrar decisions affirmed
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Substituted Service, Affidavit Verifying Petition, Form/rule Compliance, Formal Defect Doctrine
Source Language
Malay/English
Insolvency/bankruptcy Civil Procedure Service of Process Substituted Service Affidavit Verifying Petition Form/rule Compliance Formal Defect Doctrine

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Zahir Sanjay bin Abdullah

Judgment Debtor

Mentari Dhuha Sdn Bhd

Judgment Creditor

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy/insolvency Proceedings / Appeal to Judge in Chambers Against Registrar/deputy Registrar Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Amended Creditors Petition and verifying affidavit were validly served
  2. 2 Whether absence of the verifying affidavit at time of personal service invalidates proceedings
  3. 3 Whether substituted service was appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeals were dismissed: procedurally because the Notices of Appeal failed to specify the order sought in breach of Order 56 r1/Form 114 and substantively because the Amended Creditor's Petition was validly served personally on 23.7.2021 and the absence of the verifying affidavit did not cause substantial injustice under s.131 of the Insolvency Act; the dismissed substituted service application and subsequent attempts did not affect validity of the personal service.

Court Disposition

Both Appeals dismissed and Deputy Registrar/Registrar decisions affirmed

Orders

  • Dismiss Enclosure 119 and affirm Deputy Registrar's decision dated 12.1.2022 dismissing the Judgment Debtor's objection and dismissing Enclosure 50
  • Dismiss Enclosure 120 as without merit