SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 311

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
TIONG SING CHIONG – Appellant
Versus
KETUA PENGARAH INSOLVENSI – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: WA-24NCvC-589-02/2024]



Upon absolute discharge from bankruptcy, the bankrupt's property reverts to him, and the Director General of Insolvency loses rights over it.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency Act 1967 - Sections 33(1), 35(1)(a), 35A, and National Land Code - Section 350 - Application for discharge of bankruptcy - The court held that upon absolute discharge, the property of the bankrupt reverts to him, and the Director General of Insolvency loses rights over it - The Respondent's failure to declare the property in the discharge report was noted - The court emphasized that the Respondent's functions cease upon the bankrupt's absolute discharge. (Paras 15, 21, 24, 30)

(B) Property Vesting - The court ruled that property remains vested in the Director General of Insolvency only until the discharge of bankruptcy is granted and all debts are settled - The court referenced previous cases to support this conclusion. (Paras 21, 22, 24)

Facts of the case:
The Applicant, a discharged bankrupt, sought to reclaim his 1/18 share of land previously vested in the Respondent, the Director General of Insolvency, following his absolute discharge from bankruptcy. The Respondent contended that the land remained vested in him for creditor benefit.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Applicant's absolute discharge meant the Respondent had no further rights over the property, which should revert to the Applicant.

Issues: The main issue was whether the property of a bankrupt remains vested in the Director General of Insolvency after the bankrupt's absolute discharge.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that upon absolute discharge, the bankrupt's property divests from the Director General of Insolvency, and the Respondent's functions cease.

Result: Application allowed with costs.

JUDGMENT

Suzana Muhamad Said JC:

Introduction

[1] This is an application by the Applicant seeking:

1) Satu injuksi deklarasi bahawa Responden tiada sebarang hak kepada syer Pemohon sebanyak 1/18 atas tanah yang dipegang di bawah Sibu Lease 45865, TRN: 03-SSL-000-000, 45865, Area 1.2019 Ha more or less, Locality of Land Bukit Lima, Sibu pada ketika ini. (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai "Hartanah tersebut");

2) Satu perintah injuksi interim bahawa Responden ataupun ejen-ejen mereka dihalang daripada memasuki premis hartanah tersebut, ataupun menjual/mencagar/memindah hakmilik kepada pihak ketiga; dan selepas pendengaran secara Inter-Partes satu perintah injunksi mutlak;

3) Bahawa Responden hendaklah menandatangani semua dokumentasi dan melakukan apa yang perlu untuk memindah balik 1/18 syer Pemohon kepadanya;

4) Sekiranya Responden telah menjual ataupun melelongkan hartanah tersebut, hasil jualan dipulangkan kepada Responden;

5) Kos bagi dan berkaitan dengan permohonan ini dijadikan kos dalam kausa; dan

6) Lain-lain perintah Mahkamah yang mulia ini dianggap adil.

[2] This Court allows the application. The reasons are as deliberated.

Brief Facts

[3] The Applicant is a discharged bankrupt. He was adjudged bankrupt on 7 January 2016 by the application of Masteron Sdn Bhd in Suit No 29NCC-721-02/2015.

[4] The Respondent is the Director General of Insolvency.

[5] On 10 October 2022 the Applicant filed an Application For Discharge in Suit No. WA-29PB-1153-10/2022 under s 33(1) of the Insolvency Act 1967 .

[6] It was not disputed that the Applicant was granted the Order for an absolute discharge on 27 September 2023.

[7] Prior to the bankruptcy, the Applicant has a share of 1/18 of a piece of land under Sibu Lease 45865, TRN: 03-SSL-000-000, 45865, Bukit Lima, Sibu, Sarawak (Land), transferred as a gift from his mother.

[8] Accordingly, during the period when the Applicant was an undischarged bankrupt, the Respondent acts as the administrator of the bankrupt's estate and the Land is vested in the Respondent's name.

Contention Of Parties

[9] The Applicant contended that despite the fact that the Land was vested in the name of the Respondent since 2019, no action has been taken by the Respondent pertaining to the Land to assist in the payment of the Applicant's debt and now that the Applicant has been granted an absolute discharge, it is only fair that his Land to be returned to him.

[10] The Applicant further contended that the Respondent has not declared in the Respondent's report under s 33 of the Insolvency Act 1967 , about the Land during the discharge application on 27 September 2023.

[11] The Applicant also contended that according to the Respondent's Report under s 33 of the Insolvency Act, submitted to the Court , the Respondent had admitted that:

a) The applicant had achieved the target contribution of his provable debt as determined by the DGI;

b) No creditors showed up during the hearings of the application to discharge in particular Masteron Sdn Bhd who had made him a bankrupt, despite being informed by the OA; and

c) They had also failed to show up at the Creditors Meetings.

[12] Therefore, the Applicant contended that his 1/18 share should revert back to him as his bankruptcy discharge was an absolute discharge.

[13] The Respondent, on the other hand, contended that the Land has been vested in the name of the Respondent and will remain so as the Land has been registered under the name of the Respondent in the document of title of the Land. The Respondent further contended that the Respondent has the discretion to produce the Bankrupt's part for the benefit of the creditors who filed the Proof of Debt.

[14] The Respondent further contended that s 73(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act also provides the duties of the Respondent pertaining to a bankrupt's estate. Section 73(1)(a) provides:

73. Duties of DGI as to the bankrupt's estate

(1) As regards the estate of a debtor, the DGI shall

(a) act as receiver of the debtor's estate, and act as manager thereof..."


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top