Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Automatic discharge under s33c

Legal area

Court

14 Oct 2024

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN 1. ) TAN ENG KIONG 2. ) Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia

Citation

JA-29PB-135-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-29PB-135-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court concluded KPI failed to demonstrate he considered the statutory factors in s33C(2) and instead relied on the debtor's proposed RM850 monthly payment; that failure amounted to improper exercise of discretion warranting judicial intervention. Court granted the applicant's request to suspend the automatic discharge for two years (14.10.2024 to 13.10.2026) and made no order as to costs.
27 Jun 2024

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN 1. ) Pengarah Insolvensi Negeri Johor 2. ) TAN KIM LEONG

Citation

JA-29PB-47-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-29PB-47-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the creditor's procedural defect was curable under s131 and that the DGI had failed to exercise s33C discretion properly by not considering the statutory factors in s33C(2) and by relying solely on the debtor's proposed RM200 monthly payment; accordingly the court granted the creditor's application to suspend the automatic discharge for two years (27.6.2024–26.6.2026) and refused to order costs.
26 Jun 2024

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN PERBADANAN USAHAWAN NASIONAL BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN 1. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN INSOLVENSI MALAYSIA 2. ) ESAM BIN OTHMAN

Citation

JA-29PB-45-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-29PB-45-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the creditor's application was filed within 21 days measured from actual receipt (3.1.2024) and that the DGI had not complied with s33C(2) because he determined the contribution based solely on the bankrupt's proposal without considering the statutory factors; accordingly the court restrained the DGI from effecting the automatic discharge and suspended the discharge for two years (26.6.2024–25.6.2026).
24 Jun 2024

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN CHANDRAN A/L BALAKRISHNAN

Citation

JA-29PB-39-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-29PB-39-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the application for extension of time because section 33C(4) prescribes a mandatory 21‑day period which the court could not override absent demonstration of special circumstances and good cause; the applicant failed to adduce affidavit evidence explaining the delay and did not satisfy the burden for extension under s93(4) and Rule 283/Kaedah 283, and section 131 cannot cure non‑compliance with mandatory statutory requirements.

Malaysia Case Law

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN 1. ) TAN ENG KIONG 2. ) Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN 1. ) Pengarah Insolvensi Negeri Johor 2. ) TAN KIM LEONG

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN PERBADANAN USAHAWAN NASIONAL BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN 1. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN INSOLVENSI MALAYSIA 2. ) ESAM BIN OTHMAN

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN CHANDRAN A/L BALAKRISHNAN