Abdul Aziz Mohamad JCA (dissenting):

The learned senior assistant registrar had dismissed the respondent's notice of intention to oppose the appellants' bankruptcy petition and had made receiving and adjudication orders against the respondent. On the respondent's appeal to the judge in chambers, the learned judge (then a judicial commissioner by appointment), allowing the appeal, set aside the receiving and adjudication orders. The appellants appealed to this court.

The appellants had, after 30 September 1999, that is after filing their notice of appeal, effected a change of their name from Affin Credit (1991) Sdn Bhd to Boustead Credit Sdn Bhd, and on the date of hearing of their appeal, 21 January 2003, we allowed their application to change their name in the appeal.

The bankruptcy proceedings against the respondent were a sequel to a writ action brought by the appellants against four parties: Prayitno (M) Sdn Bhd, the respondent, another individual, and Arief Holdings Sdn Bhd. The claim of the appellants in the action was for a sum due under a leasing agreement dated 23 September 1983 and a variation leasing agreement dated 23 May 1984 between the appellants, as owner of the goods leased, and Prayitno (M) Sdn Bhd as the hirer. The goods leased were a computer mainframe. The other three parties, which included the respondent, were sued as guarantors. According to the statement of claim, by the variation the total rental was RM978,923.01, which was to be paid monthly in such and such an amount per month until 23 July 1988, with interest at 16% per annum on any overdue rental. The statement of claim did not set out any other terms of the two agreements, such as terms concerning repossession of the goods upon default. According to the statement of claim, a demand was made for RM996,731.11 as the amount due as at 29 April 1984, to which there had been no response. The amount claimed in the statement of claim, dated 8 December 1987, was RM1,043,890.32 as the amount due as at 30 November 1987. The statement of claim did not state how the goods stood in view of the amount claimed.

On 9 September 1988 judgment in default of appearance was entered against the respondent and the other individual guarantor for the sum of RM1,043,890.32, interest thereon at 16% per annum from 1 December 1998 and costs of RM225.

Pursuant to a writ of seizure and sale, the respondent's own belongings were seized and auctioned to partly satisfy the judgment. They were sold for RM25,085, but after deducting such things as court commission and expenses relating to the auction, there remained RM16,083.37 as the net sale proceeds.

Subsequently on 30 July 1993, based on the judgment, a bankruptcy notice was issued against the respondent. The amount demanded was RM1,973,424.78 and consisted of the judgment sum of RM1,043,890.32, interest on it from 1 December 1987 to 30 July 1993 and costs of RM225, less the net proceeds of sale of the respondent's goods of RM16,083.37. The demand not being satisfied or countered, the respondent committed an act of bankruptcy, on the basis of which the appellants filed their bankruptcy petition against the respondent.

The respondent stated his grounds for opposing the petition in an affidavit which he filed together with his notice of intention to oppose the petition. For the two main grounds, the respondent claimed respectively that the sale of his own goods had been at a gross undervalue ( " the auction question " ) and that the appellants had failed to repossess the mainframe and sell it at the right time ( " the mainframe question " ). The two grounds did not find favour with the senior assistant registrar, who dismissed the respondent's opposition and made receiving and adjudication orders. The judge, on appeal to him, found in favour of the respondent on both grounds and set aside the orders. He gave his reasons as regards the auction question in a third of a page. He said that the appellants had not adequately re