1. Permintaan Untuk Mengeluarkan Notis Kebankrapan
2. Notis Kebankrapan
serve guna A.R dan kediri
3. Mohon Penyampaian ganti guna Saman Dalam Kamar (exparte)(akta insolvensi 1967 pindaan 2017)
4. Afidavit Sokongan
5. Afidavit Tanpa Penyampaian
6. Deraf Perintah
7. Perintah
8. Notis Iklan Penyampaian Ganti
iklankan di surat khabar
9. Afidavit Penyampaian (Akta Insolvensi 1967 pindaan 2017)
For the purposes of calculating the date of commission of an act of bankruptcy, the date of service of the bankruptcy notice is excluded.... Re Fadzil bin Othman, ex p Malayan Banking Bhd [1994] 2 MLJ 474
[2018] 1 LNS 904
[25] Briefly, based on Section 5 of Bankruptcy Act 1967, the Court can make a person a bankrupt if the condition stated in section 5 Bankruptcy Act 1967 is satisfied. The Court of Appeal in the case of Affin Bank Berhad v. Abu Bakar Ismail [2017] 7 CLJ 282; [2017] 1 LNS 65 had remarked that bankruptcy proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and strict compliance to the laws must be adhered. However bear in mind, that case must be distinguished from this case as in that case decided by the Court of Appeal, it involves an Adjudication Order and Receiving Order which was recorded against the judgment debtor. In this case, it involves the CP before the learned Registrar.
For the purposes of calculating the date of commission of an act of bankruptcy, the date of service of the bankruptcy notice is excluded.... Re Fadzil bin Othman, ex p Malayan Banking Bhd [1994] 2 MLJ 474
[2018] 1 LNS 904
[25] Briefly, based on Section 5 of Bankruptcy Act 1967, the Court can make a person a bankrupt if the condition stated in section 5 Bankruptcy Act 1967 is satisfied. The Court of Appeal in the case of Affin Bank Berhad v. Abu Bakar Ismail [2017] 7 CLJ 282; [2017] 1 LNS 65 had remarked that bankruptcy proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and strict compliance to the laws must be adhered. However bear in mind, that case must be distinguished from this case as in that case decided by the Court of Appeal, it involves an Adjudication Order and Receiving Order which was recorded against the judgment debtor. In this case, it involves the CP before the learned Registrar.
[26] The heart of the matter is whether the CP dated 21.7.2016 is materially defective as the 1st AFV in CP was affirmed on 20.7.2016. I hereby refer to Rule 106 of Bankruptcy Rules 1969which reads as follows:-
...(1) A creditor's petition shall be verified by affidavit.
(2) A petitioning creditor who cannot himself verify all the statements contained in his petition shall file an affidavit made by some person who can depose to them..
[27] The wordings of rule 106 are plain and unambiguous. There is nowhere in Bankruptcy Act 1967 and Bankruptcy Rules 1969 that provides for a time limit of which the JC must comply in filing an affidavit to verify. I find support in the case of Ho Weng Keong, Re [1992] 2 CLJ Rep 517 as attributed by the JC's counsel, where Justice Lamin Mohd Yunus had occasion to say,
"...Neither the Bankruptcy Act or Rules specifically state that the affidavit must be affirmed after filing or presentation of the petition. Since the petition and the affidavit were together before the Court, this was not the case of an affidavit supporting an "unborn" petition....There is no statutory provision stating any limitation of six months from the act of bankruptcy within which an affidavit verifying the petition. Time is not the essence for the filing of a verifying affidavit."
No comments:
Post a Comment