When the creditor's petition came for hearing on 19 February 1990, Mr Loa Djin Liang, counsel for Lai Hua Kian, the debtor, asked for an adjournment on the grounds that two persons were involved and the bankruptcy notice was issued wrongly, ie without the authorization. If I understood Mr Loa correctly, the debtor intended to object against the creditor's petition. I indicated that if that is the intention of the debtor, it cannot be done orally but he must comply with r 117 of the Bankruptcy Rules 1969 ('the Rules'). In fact going by the provision of r 117 of the Rules, he needs to serve the notice of his intention to oppose on the petitioning creditor and his solicitor, if known, three days before the day in which the petition is to be heard. Clearly, therefore, the debtor is in breach of r 117. Be that as it may, I was of the view that I should in the circumstances and for good cause exercise my discretion under r 275 of the Rules and accordingly gave the debtor time to file the notice as required under r 117 and adjourned the hearing to 2 March 1990. The notice was then duly served on the petitioning creditor's advocates and the petitioning creditor on 21 and 22 February 1990 respectively.

Mr Loa, counsel for the debtor, relied only on one ground to oppose the petition, ie the bankruptcy notice was improperly issued in the context of the bankruptcy legislation as the petitioning creditor, being a corporation, has not specifically authorized any of its officers to issue a bankruptcy notice. He submitted that by virtue of s 133 of the Bankruptcy Act 1967, the petitioning creditor must appoint an officer under seal to act on its behalf to institute all or any actions including the request for issue of a bankruptcy notice. Section 133 reads:

For all or any of the purpose of this Act —

(a) a corporation may act by any of its officers authorized in that behalf under the seal of the corporation;

(b) a firm may act by any of its members;

(c) a mentally disordered person or lunatic may act by his committee or curator bonis.

A bankruptcy notice is issued under r 9(1) of the Rules which reads as follows:

A bankruptcy notice shall be issued by the Court in which a bankruptcy petition against the debtor may subsequently be filed.

The request for issue of a bankruptcy notice is prescribed in Form 4 to the appendix to the Rules. Looking at the prescribed Form 4, it is clear, in my view, that the request for issue of a bankruptcy notice can be made by the judgment creditor or solicitor for the judgment creditor. I think it is not disputed that the request for the issue of a bankruptcy notice in this case is not made by the petitioning creditor but by its solicitor, Goh & Partners (see encl 2). It appears that the petitioning creditor has complied strictly with the prescribed Form 4. Can it then be said that such action offends s 133 of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 or for that matter rule 215 of the Rules? Comparing Form 4 and Form 9 (relating to creditor's petition), it seems that in Form 9 there is no provision for a solicitor to file the creditor's petition on behalf of a corporation or a firm or an individual creditor and it would appear therefore that in respect of a corporation it must be filed by an officer of the corporation authorized in that behalf under the seal of the corporation. In my opinion, this should be so as the details specified in Form 9 must necessarily ascribe to an officer of the corporation who has knowledge of the details required to be inserted therein and thereby such officer should be duly authorized under seal by the corporation. In this petition it is not disputed that the petitioning creditor duly authorized its officer, Foong Yew Loen (see exh 'FLY-1'), before the petition was filed in the court. It should be noted that a bankruptcy notice is a notice issued by the court and served by a creditor who has obtained final judgment against the debtor. The bankruptcy notice is not an act of bankruptcy. Failu