PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT MALAYSIA BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN MOHD SAIFUL AZUAR BIN MD ISA (NRIC NO: 791107-04-5035)

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT MALAYSIA BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN MOHD SAIFUL AZUAR BIN MD ISA (NRIC NO: 791107-04-5035)

The appeal was allowed and the AO & RO restored because the judgment debtor failed to dispute the amount stated in the bankruptcy notice within the statutory seven-day period, thereby committing an act of bankruptcy; additionally, a consent judgment is contractual and, absent an express contrary agreement, liability of joint promisors is joint and several (supported by s44(1) Contracts Act and subsequent Federal Court authority).

Citation
AA-29PB-165-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Judgment Debtor: Mohd Saiful Azuar bin Md Isa; Judgment Creditor: Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
16 July 2021
Case Number
AA-29PB-165-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Appeal to Judge in Chambers
Outcome
Appeal allowed; AO & RO dated 18.7.2014 restored.
Legal Topics
Consent Judgment, Joint and Several Liability, Bankruptcy Notice, Annulment of Bankruptcy Order, Late Payment Charges (ta'widh), Statutory Time Bar for Disputing Bankruptcy Notice
Source Language
Malay/English
Bankruptcy Insolvency Contract Law Civil Procedure Banking Law Shariah Law Consent Judgment Joint and Several Liability +4 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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd Saiful Azuar bin Md Isa

Judgment Debtor

Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad

Judgment Creditor

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy / Appeal to Judge in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bankruptcy proceedings were lawfully initiated in Ipoh
  2. 2 Whether the amount demanded in the bankruptcy notice was correct to give rise to an act of bankruptcy
  3. 3 Whether the judgment debtor was time-barred from disputing the bankruptcy notice

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed and the AO & RO restored because the judgment debtor failed to dispute the amount stated in the bankruptcy notice within the statutory seven-day period, thereby committing an act of bankruptcy; additionally, a consent judgment is contractual and, absent an express contrary agreement, liability of joint promisors is joint and several (supported by s44(1) Contracts Act and subsequent Federal Court authority).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; AO & RO dated 18.7.2014 restored.

Orders

  • Decision of Senior Assistant Registrar set aside
  • Adjudication Order and Receiving Order dated 18.7.2014 against the judgment debtor restored