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 are dismissed: procedurally because the Notices of Appeal failed to specify the order sought as required by Form 114 and Order 56 r1 and thus are incompetent; on the merits because the Amended CP was validly personally served on 23.7.2021 and the absence of the Affidavit Verifying the Petition did not cause substantial injustice and is cured by section 131 Insolvency Act 1967 and Rule 282 Insolvency Rules 2017, so the Deputy Registrar's decisions are affirmed.

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 the Deputy Registrar dated 12.1.2022 affirmed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Substituted Service, Verifying Affidavit for Petition, Formal Defects, Appeal Procedure, Rules of Court Compliance
Source Language
Malay/English
Insolvency Civil Procedure Service of Process Substituted Service Verifying Affidavit for Petition Formal Defects Appeal Procedure Rules of Court Compliance

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 6 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 (Amended CP) was validly served on the Judgment Debtor without the Affidavit Verifying the Petition
  2. 2 Whether substituted service should have been ordered
  3. 3 Whether the Notices of Appeal were defective for failing to specify the order sought as required by Form 114 and Order 56 r1 Rules of Court 2012

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals are dismissed: procedurally because the Notices of Appeal failed to specify the order sought as required by Form 114 and Order 56 r1 and thus are incompetent; on the merits because the Amended CP was validly personally served on 23.7.2021 and the absence of the Affidavit Verifying the Petition did not cause substantial injustice and is cured by section 131 Insolvency Act 1967 and Rule 282 Insolvency Rules 2017, so the Deputy Registrar's decisions are affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeals in Enclosure 119 and Enclosure 120 dismissed; decision of the Deputy Registrar dated 12.1.2022 affirmed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Dismiss Enclosure 119 and affirm the Learned Deputy Registrar's decision dated 12.1.2022 dismissing the Judgment Debtor's objection in Enclosure 46 and dismissing Enclosure 50
  • Dismiss Enclosure 120 as devoid of merit