Spenser Wilkinson J:

This is a Bankruptcy Petition filed by a creditor of a married woman, who at present resides and apparently has always resided in Kulim in the State of Kedah and has neither herself nor through any agent carried on business within the past year anywhere within the Settlement.There is no specific evidence as to where she is domiciled, but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I assume that she is domiciled in Kedah.Two questions arise from the circumstances of the case : one is whether a receiving order can be made against a married woman without proof that she has some separate property; and the second is whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Petition.As the question of jurisdiction is fundamental I will deal with this point first.

Mr. Knorpel, who appeared for the petitioning creditor, very properly cited to me the recent case of Re Cheong Yuk Sim (f) [1954] MLJ 129 not followed decided by Thomson J in lpoh in respect of a debtor who had at all material times been domiciled and resident in Penang.Mr. Knorpel sought to distinguish that case on the ground that Thomson J had been careful to point out that he was not concerned with the position of the former Unfederated Malay States including Kedah.Another point of difference suggested was that the present case deals with a former Unfederated Malay State, in which prior to 1946 there was no bankruptcy law of any kind.In view of these differences I think the position is that I am not strictly bound by the lpoh decision in the present case, though the opinions expressed therein should be given the greatest possible weight and respect.

After dealing exhaustively with the relevant provisions of the Bankruptcy (Transitional Provisions) Ordinance, 1946 and expressing his views thereon the learned Judge in the last paragraph but four of his judgment in that case sums up his view of the present position in the former Federated Malay States as follows:

This Court has jurisdiction throughout the Federation.In the former FMS however the law to be applied is the former FMS Enactment (Cap. 55) subject to certain modifications which do not affect the argument, and in the former FMS the procedure and power of the Court are the same as under that Enactment.Similarly in the Settlements of Penang and Malacca the law to be applied is the former Colony Ordinance (Cap. 45) and the procedure and powers of the Court the the same as under that Ordinance.There is nothing in the FMS. Enactment which makes what I have called a Colony statutory debtor subject to it . . . . . .

So far I find myself, with respect, in complete agreement with the learned Judge; but the rest of the paragraph reads:

.......and there is nothing in it which gives the, Court powers to entertain bankruptcy proceedings against such a debtor except of course in the case where he is also an FMS statutory debtor.In the FMS the Court only has jurisdiction in the sense of power, in the case of an FMS statutory debtor.

Were it not for the, provisions of the Courts Ordinance 1948 I would be inclined, as a matter of convenience, to follow this construction of the 1946 Ordinance in spite of any different views I might have had.But it looks from the report as though the material provisions of the Courts Ordinance 1948 were not drawn to the attention of the learned Judge and it appears from his judgment that he did not consider the effect of these provisions. I feel, therefore, that I ought to express my views on the whole question, with particular reference to the Courts Ordinance, 1948.

In the first place it appears to me that the provisions of the Bankruptcy (Transitional Provisions) Ordinance 1946 (which I shall hereinafter refer to as the 1946 Ordinance) are to some extent ambiguous.Section 3 lays down that the laws to be applied in bankruptcy shall be "in the Settlements" the existing laws of the Settlements and "in the Malay States" the existing laws of the Federated Malay States, whi