V.C. George J:

This appeal was dismissed with costs. We now give our reasons for having done so.

The appeal was said to turn on the one issue, whether the service of the bankruptcy notice on the appellant was good service. It turned out that the real bone of contention was the appellant's complaint that the order for substituted service had been improperly obtained.

The petitioner bank, the respondent in the appeal, had obtained judgment against the appellant in the High Court at Kuala Lumpur on 15 December 1989 for RM4,024,013.85 interests and costs - the appellant had been sued as a guarantor of a customer of the bank. In the letter of guarantee the appellant's address is given as No. 146 Jalan Maarof Bangsar, Kuala Lumpur.

The petitioner had obtained an order for substituted service (SS) of the bankruptcy notice pursuant to which service was to be effected on the appellant by posting a copy of the notice and of the order for SS on the notice board of the Court and also on a conspicuous part of the premises known as No. 146 Jalan Maarof Bangsar 59000 K.L. on the basis that that was the last address of the said judgment debtor (i.e. the appellant) known to the bank and