FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
MOHD KAMAL OMAR – Appellant
Versus
UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (MALAYSIA) BHD & OTHER APPEALS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bankruptcy notices are considered null if based on judgments modified by installment orders. (Para 1) |
| 2. facts surrounding the bankruptcy notice and debtor compliance. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's analysis on bankruptcy notice validity. (Para 5) |
[1] These are three appeals by the respective appellants against the decision of the Court of Appeal in dismissing their appeals against the decision of the High Court. The Federal Court had granted leave for the following question of law:
"Whether the making of an Order on a judgment debtor summons pursuant to the Debtors Act 1957 for the satisfaction of an original Judgment by payment of instalments, constitutes a variation or modification of the said original Judgment, thereby barring the presentation of a Bankruptcy Notice founded on an original said judgment having regard to the decisions in Montgomery & Co v. de Blumes [1898] 2 QB 420 and Re H A Pereira; Ex Parte Pagor Singh (Bhagat Singh), 1932 MarsdenLR 112 ?"
Background Facts
[2] These three appeals by the respective appellants are related and arose from the same judgment of the High Court dated 11 August 2011. On 11 August 2011, the respondent as the Judgment Creditor
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.