Bankruptcy discharges require thorough investigation and credible reporting; incomplete DGI reports cannot support any discharge decision, especially with less than the statutory minimum dividend to creditors.

[1]There are five related appeals being heard together The first appeal (No. P-03-125-07) is by the bankrupt against part of the decision of the learned High Court judge dated 25 June 2007 whereby he was ordered to pay a monthly sum of RM10,000 for a period of ten years as a condition of him being discharged as a bankrupt. The other four appeals (No. P-03-137A-07; P-03-146-07; P-03-172-07 and P-02-624-07) are by the respective judgment creditors (JC) namely OCBC Bank (M) Bhd, Allianz General Insurance Co (M) Bhd, Hong Bee Hardware Sdn Bhd and Overseas Assurance Corporation (M) Bhd. Their appeals are against the decision of the learned High Court judge dated 25 June 2007 in affirming the earlier decision of the Deputy Registrar of the High Court in granting a conditional discharge of bankruptcy in favour of the bankrupt.

Factual Background

[2]On his own application, a receiving order and adjudication order were made against the bankrupt on 23 November 2000.

[3]Subsequently, on 3 June 2003, the bankrupt filed an application for an order of discharge under s 33 of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 . To facilitate the determination of the said application three reports pursuant to s 33(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 were prepared by the Director-General of Insolvency (DGI) namely report dated 26 January 2004, additional report dated 12 May 2004 and another additional report dated 2 August 2004.

[4]On 23 August 2004, the learned deputy registrar granted a conditional discharge subject to the bankrupt being made to pay a sum of RM5,000 per month for a period of five years.

[5]Being dissatisfied, all the judgment creditors (appellants in the other four appeals) appealed to the judge-in-chamber against the said decision of the learned deputy registrar On 25 June 2007 the said appeals were dismissed, but the learned judge varied the conditional order to payment of RM10,000 per month for a period of ten years.

[6]The bankrupt was not satisfied with the variation of the conditional order requiring him to pay a sum of RM10,000 per month for a period of ten years; while all the four JCs were not satisfied with the discharge order Hence, the five appeals before this Court.

[7] It is pertinent to note that the bankrupt filed his application for a discharge under s 33 of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 only two years and ten months after the date of adjudication order made against him. According to the additional DGI's report dated 12 May 2004, the amount of unsettled debts at the relevant time was RM20,336,910.46. The credit balance in the estate of the bankrupt at the material time was RM37,442.38. On top of that, the family members of the bankrupt have agreed to contribute a sum of RM200,000 to help the bankrupt to partly settle the debts. The total amount of RM237,442.38 is sufficient to declare dividend of 1% only to 32 creditors who had filed their proof of debts with the DGI.

[8]In their appeals, the judgment creditors contend that the bankrupt should not have been discharged of his bankruptcy mainly on the ground that the reports by the DGI are incomplete and the DGI has failed to carry out a proper investigation into the bankrupt's affairs and assets. The judgment creditors also contend that d