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]

Appeals dismissed because they were fundamentally defective for failing to specify the order sought as required by Form 114 and Order 56 r1; alternatively, on the merits the Amended Creditors Petition was validly served personally despite omission of the verifying affidavit because no substantial injustice was shown and section 131 and rule 282 permit curing formal defects.

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 / Appeal to Judge in Chambers
Outcome
Appeals in Enclosure 119 and Enclosure 120 dismissed; decision of Deputy Registrar affirmed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Substituted Service, Formal Defect, Creditor's Petition, Verification Affidavit, Summary Judgment
Source Language
Malay/English
Insolvency Civil Procedure Service of Process Substituted Service Formal Defect Creditor's Petition Verification Affidavit Summary Judgment

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Zahir Sanjay Bin Abdullah

Judgment Debtor

Mentari Dhuha Sdn Bhd

Judgment Creditor

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy / Appeal to Judge in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Amended Creditors Petition and verifying affidavit were properly served on the judgment debtor
  2. 2 Whether omission of the affidavit verifying the petition vitiates service under section 6 Insolvency Act 1967
  3. 3 Whether the Notices of Appeal were defective for failure to state the order sought

Ratio Decidendi

Appeals dismissed because they were fundamentally defective for failing to specify the order sought as required by Form 114 and Order 56 r1; alternatively, on the merits the Amended Creditors Petition was validly served personally despite omission of the verifying affidavit because no substantial injustice was shown and section 131 and rule 282 permit curing formal defects.

Court Disposition

Appeals in Enclosure 119 and Enclosure 120 dismissed; decision of Deputy Registrar affirmed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Dismiss Enclosure 119 and affirm Deputy Registrar decision dated 12.1.2022 dismissing the Judgment Debtor's objection and dismissing Enclosure 50
  • Dismiss Enclosure 120