Ian HC Chin J:

This is an appeal by two bankrupts Lau Kah Lay and Tang Kuong Tiew against the refusal of the Deputy Registrar to have them discharged as bankrupts under s. 33 of the Bankruptcy Act 1967. The proper manner in which to consider this appeal is stated in Seloga Jaya Sdn Bhd v. Pembenaan Ting (Sabah) Sdn Bhd[1994] 2 CLJ 716; [1994] 2 AMR 24 to be:

Held 1(a) - A judge in chambers who hears an appeal from a discretionary order of the Registrar, exercises his own discretion as if the matter comes before him for the first time, unfettered by the previous exercise of the Registrar's decision. The Judge will give the Registrar's decision whatever weight it deserves.

This is the second time that the bankrupts had applied for a discharge, the first having been dismissed by me on 21 February 1998 and in which judgment I directed the Official Assignee to make further investigation and to give a further report. That report has been given but the Official Assignee in the report stated that they are powerless to investigate the wives of the bankrupts. The law in this regard is s. 31 of the Act, viz.:

S. 31 Discovery of debtor's property

(1) The court may, on the application of the Official Assignee or of any creditor who has proved his debt at any time after a receiving order had been made against a debtor, summon before it the debtor, or any wife of his, or any person known or suspected to have in his possession any of the estate or effects belonging to the debtor, or supposed to be indebted to the debtor, or any person whom the court deems capable of giving information respecting the debtor, his dealings or property, and the court may require any such person to produce any documents in his custody or power relating to the debtor, his dealings or property.

(2) If any person so summoned, after having been tendered a reasonable sum, refuses to come before the court at the time appointed, or refuses to produce any such document, having no lawful impediment made known to the court at the time of its sitting and allowed by it, the court may by warrant cause him to be apprehended and brought before it concerning the debtor, his dealings or property.

(3) The court may examine on oath, either by word of mouth or by the written interrogatories, any person so brought before it concerning the debtor, his dealings or property.

(4) If on the examination of any such person it appears to the court that he is indebted to the debtor, the court may, on the application of the Official Assignee, order him to pay to the Official Assignee, at such time and in such manner as to the court seems expedient, the amount in which he is indebted or any part thereof, either in full discharge of the whole amount in question or not as the court thinks fit, with or without costs of the examination.

(5) If on the examination of any such person it appears to the court that he has in his possession any property belonging to the debtor the court, on the application of the Official Assignee, order him to deliver to the Official Assignee such property or any part thereof at such time and in such manner and on such terms as to the court seems just.

(6) The powers given to the court under this section may in all cases be exercised by the Registrar and any order made or act done by the Registrar shall be deemed the order of act of the court.

The Official Assignee also took the position that it is up to the creditors to do their investigation but the primary duty is upon the Official Assignee. The Official Assignee cannot take the same attitude of the creditors because that office serves a greater interest than the self-interest of the creditors. It is understandable why creditors cannot afford to take further steps that involve costs to them as they are already saddled with a debt they have yet to recover and therefore it is unreasonable to expect them to expend money to do the things which the Official Assignee is authorised to do under the Bankruptcy Act 1967