Minor irregularities in bankruptcy notices do not invalidate proceedings unless they cause substantial injustice.

[1] In the notice of Appeal to the Judge in Chambers at encl 29 (Appeal), the Judgment Debtor (JD) herein has appealed against the decision of the Learned Registrar which was given on 3 May 2021 which dismissed the Summons in chambers dated 25 January 2021 (encl 18) with costs of RM1,000.

[2] Enclosure 18 is the JD's application to set aside the Bankruptcy Notice (BN) and Creditors Petition (CP) dated 13 May 2020 on the inter alia the following grounds:

(a) that the BN is defective;

(b) the Consent Judgment dated 28 December 2018 (Consent Judgment) had only stated that the sum of RM252,999.60 and monthly instalment payments of RM2108.33 and in the event of default on the said instalment payments, interest at the rate of 10% per annum was chargeable;

(c) the CP is defective;

(d) the calculation of interest by the Judgment Creditor (JC) till the date of filing the CP is not in accordance with s 3(1)(i);

(e) the JC is still receiving the monthly payments from the JD and should vary the terms of the Consent Judgment in respect of the monthly instalment payments;

(f) the Consent Judgment is not a final judgment.

Judgment Debtor's Submissions

[3] The JD had submitted inter alia that:

(a) the BN did not contain an endorsement date which resulted in the JD being unable to compute the time for determining the time to reply and/or refer to the BN;

(b) the date of filing is not the date of the BN;

(c) the details in the BN referred to a judgment at the Klang Sessions Court and had not made any amendments thereto;

(d) the JC had only enclosed the draft Consent Judgment in the BN and not the sealed copy thereto and that the draft Consent Judgment cannot be accepted as a final judgment until it is sealed by the Court;

(e) accordingly, the BN is invalid and defective;

(f) the calculation of interest in the BN by the JC does not follow the Consent Judgment and the JC should calculate the interest of 10% on the amount in arrears and not in the amount in the said Consent Judgment;

(g) the Consent Judgment does not state that the calculation of the interest of 10% in the Consent Judgment is to be based on the principal amount and thus the JC's claim on the interest on the principal sum is unreasonable and excessive;

(h) the JC had claimed the costs of the action amounting to RM1,000 in the BN which is pre mature as the Court had not given such a decision to the same as yet;

(i) the CP is defective as the Affidavit Verifying the Petition (AVP) which was affirmed on 6 May 2020 was done a week prior to the filing of the CP on 13 May 2020 which is wrong in fact and in law and is void ab initio;

(j) the amount claimed in the CP is different from the amount claimed in the BN as the JC had calculated interest on the costs till the date of the filing of the CP;

(k) enclosure 46 WS not accessible.

Judgment Creditor's Submissions

[4] It was submitted by the JC inter alia that:

(a) the typing error in the BN does not prejudice the JD and that the details in the BN are as per the Kuala Lumpur Court matter;

(b) the calculation of the interest is in accordance with the Consent Judgment and the amounts in arrears and not the principal sum only;

(c) the JD has abused the Court process by filing the applications in Court.

Findings Of The Court

[5] This Court has after examining the BN at encl 2, found that the arguments raised by the JD with regards the same does not tantamount to any form of substantial injustice to the JD and can be cured by virtue of s 131 of the Insolvency Act 1967 which provides:

"No proceeding in bankruptcy shall be invalidated by any formal defect or by any irregularity, unless the Court befor