JUDGMENT

I. APPEALS

Before me are two appeals by the judgment debtor (JD) against two decisions of the learned registrar, viz. :

1. dismissing the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice dated 4 September 2001 whereby the judgment creditor (JC) sought to recover RM19,645, including

2

allocatur amounting to RM1,460 being costs taxed on 16 April 1998 ("taxed bill of costs") in Seremban High Court Civil Suit No. 22-103-1995 ("the said suit"); and

2. allowing the JC's petition for receiving and adjudication orders against the JD.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is neither complex nor perplexing.

On 30 April 1997, the High Court in Seremban gave judgment with costs ("the said judgment") in the said suit against the JD. All subsequent applications by the JD in encl.(55) and (84) to set aside the said judgment had been dismissed. The JD's appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 28 August 2002. Leave to appeal to the Federal Court has been refused. There can

3

be no doubt whatsoever that the said judgment is final and conclusive.

The taxed bill of costs was the subject matter of the registrar's said decisions and now these two appeals before me.

III. JP'S SUBMISSION

In both these appeals, the JD relied on one ground only i.e. the said judgment is null and void and tainted with fraud, illegality or lack of jurisdiction, and so the taxed bill of costs must also fall.

Although legally represented by learned counsel, the JD chose to appear in person, prepared and presented his own submission, in which he launched a scathing attack on the said judgment and argued that the learned Judge who gave the said judgment was usurping powers, as a result of which, another Judge of the same High Court has

4

the jurisdiction to go round the said judgment and to inquire into the subject matter upon which the said judgment was founded.

IV. CONTENTION FOR JC

Cik Nor Razifah bt Siarap, JC's learned counsel, contended that these two appeals were groundless since the JD's applications vide enclosures (55) and (84) to set aside the said judgment had been dismissed with costs, and that the JD's appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 28 August 2002. She added that the JD's notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed on 29 April 2003.

V. DECISION ON APPEAL

In these appeals, the question of law for determination by me is simple and straightforward, and may be formulated as follows :

5

"In the exercise of bankruptcy jurisdiction by the registrar of the High Court, and in the exercise of bankruptcy jurisdiction by the Judge of the High Court in an appellate capacity, can the registrar or High Court Judge go behind and inquire into a final and conclusive judgment of the High Court which led to the issue of the bankruptcy notice and subsequently the creditor's petition?"

In considering this question, it is instructive for me to refer to Sovereign General Insurance Sdn Bhd v Koh Tan Bee [1988] 1 MLJ 304, where the then Supreme Court through the authoritative judgment of Lee Hun Hoe CJ (Borneo) held, inter alia, at page 305F-G left, that in the exercise of jurisdiction in bankruptcy proceedings, the judge cannot go behind the judgment, nor is it open to him to strike out the creditor's petition by disputing

6

the validity of the orders made in earlier execution proceedings when the orders have not been set aside.

It has been held by KC Vohrah J (later JCA) in Noordzi bin Mohd Ismail v Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd [1994] 1 CLJ 77 that the statutory provisions relating to the grounds for setting aside a bankruptcy notice viz s.3(l) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 ("the Act"), rr. 94(1)(b), 95 of the Bankruptcy Rules 1969 ("the Rules") and Form 7 in the Appendix to the Rules do not permit grounds which are outside the ambit of these provisions, and that at the hearing of an application to set aside the bankruptcy notice, the registrar should consider only the grounds which are within the ambit of s.3(l) of the Act, rr 9