The instant matter is a creditor's petition which came for disposal on 24th May, 1996. The respondent was duly served with the creditor's petition but was absent. He had, it would seem, ignored the bankruptcy notice and the creditor's petition.

The bankruptcy notice was based on a judgment dated 17th November 1993 in which the defendant was required to pay a sum of RM15,213.10 together with interest thereon at 8% p.a. from the date of judgment to the date of payment and the solicitor client costs fixed at RM400. The request for the issue of a bankruptcy notice was filed on 4th January, 1995 and the bankruptcy notice was issued a day later on 5th January, 1995. The portion of notice referring to the amount to be paid within 7 days of service of the notice is as follows:-

"... the sum of RM18,019.08 claimed by them as being the amount due on Judgment obtained by them against you in the Magistrate Court. Kuching dated 17th November, 1993 ..." [2]

The objection raised by the Official Assignee's representative was on the basis that the interest claimed was calculated up to 13th December, 1994 only and the interest had not been quantilied to the date of the Bankruptcy Notice i.e. 5th January, 1995.

The effect of an act of bankruptcy is penal in nature as it affects and restricts the rights of a debtor (the bankrupt). A person who is adjudged a bankrupt is shackled with some legal disabilities that he will not be able to do or act as an ordinary person, for example, as an undischarged bankrupt he cannot hold the post of a director in a company. As a general rule the bankruptcy law must be given strict construction akin to that construction of a penal statute or law, and strict compliance of the law concerned is called for, as for example, whenever a bankruptcy notice is being challenged by the judgment debtor. In this respect the Halsbury's Laws of England Vol. 3, 4th Edition at pages 161 and 162 states:

"where words are found in a section of an Act which is defining one act of bankruptcy they should be construed as strictly as if they occurred in a section which was defining an offence, because the commission of the act of bankruptcy entails disabilities to the person who commits it."

See LOW MUN v. CHUNG KHIAW BANK LTD (1988) 1 MLJ 263; GHAZALI BIN MAT NOR v. SOUTHERN BANK BHD & ORS (1989) 2 MLJ 142 and LIM BOON PENG v. UNITED ORIENT LEASING CO. LTD (1991) 1 MLJ 292

Now applying the principle to the interpretation of the bankruptcy law, i.e. section 3(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967.

For the purpose of this application, we are concerned only with section 3(1)(i) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 (Act 55/67) as amended by the amending Act A827.92 which came [3] into force on [ILLEGIBLE WORD] July, 1992. Thereafter all bankruptcy notices shall contorm to the present section 3(1)(i) which for ease of reference is reproduced as follows:

"S.3(1) A debtor commits an act of bankruptcy in each of the following cases

(i) if a creditor has obtained a final judgment or final order against him for any amount and execution thereon not having been staved has served on him in the Federation, or by leave of the court elsewhere a bankruptcy notice under this Act requiring him to pay the judgment debt or sum ordered to be paid in accordance with the terms of the judgment or order with interest quantified up to the date of issue of the bankruptcy notice or to secure or compound for it to the satisfaction of the creditor or the court; and he does not within seven days after service of the notice in case the service is effected in the Federation, and in case the service is effected elsewhere then within the time limited in that behalf by the order giving leave to effect the service, either comply with the requirements of the notice or satisfy the court that he has a counter-claim, set off or cross demand which equals or exceeds the amount of the judgment debt or sum ordered to be paid and which he could not set up in the action in which the judgment wa