Thomson J:

This case raises a question of some small importance relating to the present state of the Bankruptcy law in the Federation.

The facts are in no way in dispute.One Cheong Yuk Sim whom I shall call "the debtor" has, at all material times, been domiciled and resident in Penang.On 29 July 1953 the petitioning creditor obtained judgment against her and two other persons to whom I shall refer as the "co-debtors" jointly for a sum of over $8,000 and costs.One of the co-debtors at all material times was domiciled and resident in Kuala Lumpur and the other at all material times was domiciled and resident in lpoh.

No part of the judgment debt was paid and on 14 September 1953 a bankruptcy notice was issued at lpoh and was addressed to the debtor and to each of the two co-debtors, all three names appearing on the face of the notice. A copy of this notice was served on the debtor at Penang without leave of the Court but though attempts were apparently made to do so it was not served on either of the two co-debtors.The debtor did not comply with the notice and in due course a bankruptcy petition was presented against her, the act of bankruptcy relied on being her failure to comply with the bankruptcy notice.

That petition has now been withdrawn by leave of the Court, but Counsel for the debtor has contended that she is entitled to her costs in connection with the withdrawal of the petition on the grounds:

(a) that the bankruptcy notice served on her was a joint bankruptcy notice and therefore bad;

(b) that as the debtor was not a debtor within the meaning of s. 4(iii) of the Bankruptcy Enactment, the Court had no jurisdiction to make a receiving order against her; and

(c) that the bankruptcy notice, having been served on her at Penang without leave of the Court noncompliance with it could not constitute an act of bankruptcy.

With regard to the first of these points, I will only say that to my mind it is without substance.So long as a bankruptcy notice is in the proper form and sets out the required particulars correctly and is served on one of a number of joint judgment-debtors, I can see no grounds for questioning its validity simply because the names of the other joint judgment-debtors appear upon it. This view to my mind is supported by the case of Re Low [1895] 1 QB 734 to which I was referred by Counsel as some authority to the contrary.

In order to deal with the second point it is necessary to consider briefly the recent history of the law relating to bankruptcy in the Malay Peninsula and in Singapore.

I am not concerned here with the position in the former Unfederated States of Trengganu, Kelantan, Kedah and Perlis which apparently had no Bankruptcy Law before the war, or with the State of Johore which had its own Enactment.In the Federated Malay States, however, the law was contained in the Bankruptcy Enactment (Cap. 55).

Under that Enactment proceedings in bankruptcy can only be taken where there is an act of bankruptcy and an act of bankruptcy can only be committed by a "debtor" as defined by s. 4(iii) of the Enactment which reads as follows:

(iii)The word "debtor" in this section shall be deemed to include any person

(a) who is domiciled in any of the States; or

(b) who within a year before the date of the presentation of the petition has ordinarily resided in or had a dwelling-house or place of business in any of the States; or

(c) who though not himself personally within the States carries on business by an agent within the States.

For convenience I shall call such a debtor "an FMS statutory debtor". That was the substantive law.

The Court having jurisdiction was the Supreme Court.Its jurisdiction, however, was to be exercised in accordance with s. 81(ii) which provided that a bankruptcy petition was to be presented in any State in which the debtor had resided or carried on business during the six months immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.In effect, the word "debtor" in that section must me