Mohamed Azmi J:

This is an application by Notice of Motion dated 29 November 1973 by an undischarged bankrupt for an order annulling the adjudication order dated 7 May 1973 under ss. 92(1) and 105(1) of the Bankruptcy Act, 1967 for reasons that the applicant ought not to have been adjudged a bankrupt as he is not indebted to anyone and that his own petition was filed under a misconception of law and liability towards his alleged creditor, namely, J Ballas & Co. Pte Singapore, by reason of duress and mental instability, and for other reliefs. The applicant's own petition came up before Yong J wherein the applicant declared that he was unable to pay his debts and accordingly receiving and adjudication orders were made against him. From the Official Assignee's Report dated 1 January 1974 the bankrupt filed his state of affairs on 7 May 1973, i.e.

the very day he was adjudged bankrupt, disclosing a liability of $39,092.50 due to J Ballas & Company - an unsecured creditor. No assets were disclosed. But the unsecured creditor filed a claim to the extent of $1,263,759.59 against the bankrupt's estate on account of purchase of shares and share transactions with the bankrupt and supported its claim with a statement of account. Summary administration order was made on 7 July 1973. The first creditors Meeting was held on July 19 the same year. Public examination under s. 17 was fixed on 24 August 1973 and adjourned to 10 April 1974 for further hearing.

When this application came up for hearing, Mr. Das for the Official Assignee raised a preliminary objection on point of law. Both in his written and oral submissions it is his contention that having regard to the provisions in the Bankruptcy Act 1967, an undischarged bankrupt in this country is disabled not only from maintaining the present application but also from employing an advocate and solicitor unless the prior sanction of the Official Assignee is first obtained. Since no such sanction has been obtained, it is argued that the present application is misconceived and ought to be struck out. In support of his argument, Mr. Das relies on the provisions of ss. 8(1), 24(4), 30, 38(1)(a), 55(1) and (2), 58 and 61(b) and (c) of the Bankruptcy Act, and he also relies on the judgment of Thorne Ag CJ in K Ismail Ganey Rowther & Co. v. M A Abdul Kader [1933] MLJ 98 .

On the question of incompetency of an undischarged bankrupt to maintain Court action, s. 38(1)(a) provides:

Where a bankrupt has not obtained his discharge - the bankrupt shall be incompetent to maintain any action (other than an action for damages in respect of an injury to his person) without the previous sanction of the Official Assignee.

The first question for determination is whether the requirement of sanction of the Official Assignee under s. 38(1)(a) applies only to a bankrupt's ordinary claims, i.e. maintaining Court action involving third parties, or does it extend to all actions including proceedings, as in the present case, where the bankrupt is challenging the very validity of the adjudication order by which he has been adjudged bankrupt. Having considered the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act as a whole and the section itself, it is my considered opinion that the sanction requirement does not apply to cases where the bankrupt is seeking to challenge an order in bankruptcy, or where he is applying to be discharged or where he is seeking the court's discretion to review, rescind or vary any order made by it under its bankruptcy jurisdiction. The exception contained within brackets in s. 38(1)(a) clearly indicates that the section is intended to apply only to actions for recovery of something - either real or personal - which can be turned into assets such as a claim for recovery of property or money due. Further, there is nothing in ss. 33, 92 or 105 to indicate that it is the intention of the legislature to require prior sanction of the Official Assignee before a bankrupt can seek relief under those provis