The court affirmed that failure to comply with statutory requirements in bankruptcy proceedings, particularly regarding the timely filing of a Statement of Affairs, constitutes contempt, justifying the refusal of discharge.

Muhammad Faisal Zulkifli:

Introduction

[1] The Judgment Debtor (in this application will be referred to as Bankrupt) filed an application of discharge by way of Summons in Chambers in Encl 1 on 6 January 2023.

[2] Previously on 29 July 2022, the Bankrupt filed similar application before this Court in WA-29PB-758-07/2022. During the first case management, the Director General of Insolvency ("DGI") informed that ROAO was recorded twice against the Bankrupt. The ROAO recorded against Bankrupt by AmBank Berhad was on 14 November 2007. Meanwhile, another ROAO recorded earlier against the Bankrupt on 8 May 2006 by petition presented from Maybank Berhad. The Bankrupt had also filed another similar application for discharge in the case of Maybank Berhad. These two applications were heard together before this Court.

[3] The DGI informed parties that there was absence of file for the ROAO recorded in AmBank's case and there was no administration initiated against the ROAO. Hence, the learned Senior Assistant Registrar directed the Bankrupt to withdraw the case and refile after DGI initiates administration for the Ambank's case.

[4] Hence, the Bankrupt refile the case before this Court. The Court has directed the parties to exhaust all affidavits and written submission and decision was fixed on 24 March 2023.

Issues

[5] The Bankrupt alleged that she has been adjudged bankrupt due to her position as a Guarantor for Gentali (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd and as a result of the company failed to pay the credit facilities given by the JC.

[6] Bankrupt averred that she has not brought on or contributed to her bankruptcy by rash and hazardous speculations or extravagance in living, or by recklessness, or gambling or want of reasonable care and attention to his business and affairs.

[7] Bankrupt is already 67 years old and not receiving any income.

[8] Adjudged as bankrupt for 14 years and hence second opportunity shall be given for the Bankrupt to start normal life for the remaining years of her life.

Analaysis And Findings

[9] This Court has scrutinized the previous case managements and hearings and found that this bankruptcy proceeding has started since February 2023;

[10] First and foremost, in dealing with Discharge Application filed under s 33 of the Insolvency Act 1967 , the most important aspect to consider is the report filed by DGI.

[11] The report filed by the DGI must contain facts regarding the Bankrupt's conduct and affairs. Referring to s 33(3) of the Insolvency Act 1967 , the provision stated as follows:-

"(3) On the hearing of the application the Court shall take into consideration a report of the Director General of Insolvency as to the bankrupt's conduct and affairs, including a report as to the bankrupt's conduct during the proceedings under his bankruptcy, and may either grant or refuse an absolute order of discharge, or suspend the operation order of discharge subject to any conditions with respect to any earnings or income which may afterwards become due to the bankrupt, or with respect to his after-acquired property"

[12] After careful consideration towards the report filed by DGI and affidavit by the Judgment Creditor, this Court finds that Bankrupt has not signed any consent form to pay monthly instalment. The first creditors/ meeting was only conducted on 14 November 2022 without any resolution being approved.

[13] The JC has filed a POD amounting RM 768,739.49 against the Bankrupt but has been rejected by the DGI via a notice dated 15 November 2022. It is pertinent to note here that DGI has not provide any reason on why the POD was rejected in the report. On top of