This is an appeal by the judgment debtor against the decision of the Senior Assistant Registrar in making an order that the judgment debtor be discharged from bankruptcy subject to the following conditions ["the Order for conditional discharge"]:

(a) that the judgment debtor consents to judgment being entered in

favour of the Official Assignee against the judgment debtor for

the balance of the provable debts pursuant to section 33(10) of

the Bankruptcy Act 1967 ["The Act"].

(b) that the judgment debtor pays an increased amount of

RM300.00 every month to the Official Assignee on or before

(a)

2

the 7th of each month to begin from November 2002 until judgment debtor reaches the age of 65; and

(c) that the judgment debtor submits an income and expenditure statement every six (6) months to the Official Assignee.

The said Order for conditional discharge was made by the learned Senior Assistant Registrar at the hearing of the application for an Order of discharge filed by the judgment debtor as a bankrupt.

The Scheme For An Order of Discharge Under The Provisions of The Act

Section 33(1) of the Act reads as follows:

"A bankrupt may at any time after being adjudged bankrupt apply to the Court for an order of discharge

and the Court shall appoint a day for hearing the application."

As to the principles to be applied in considering the application for an order of discharge, quite apart from case law which will be dealt with later in this Judgment the Act does provide some guidance and this is reflected in

3

the provisions of Section 33(3) and (4) read together with sub-section (6) of the same section of the Act. These provisions of the Act provide amongst others a basis under which an Order of discharge is to be considered as follows:

(i) Whether the bankrupt has committed an offence under the Act and under sections 421, 422, 423 or 424 of the Penal Code?; and

(ii) Whether the bankrupt's conduct fit into any of the categories of conduct as listed out in section 33(6) of the Act?

It further follows that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a bankrupt has committed any of the offence aforesaid or his

conduct falls within the said list as spelt out then the Court may:

(a) refuse the Order; or

(b) suspend the operation of the Order; or

(c) suspend the operation of the Order until a dividend of not

less than fifty per centum has been paid to the creditors;

or

(a)

4

(d) grant an order of discharge subject to such conditions as aforesaid.

I am of the view based on the above mentioned provisions of the Act it would appear that if a bankrupt is not guilty or in breach of any of the matters as aforesaid, then the Court is empowered to discharge the bankrupt unconditionally taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case. As for the scheme and intention of Parliament in enacting these discharge provisions under the Act I would like to refer to the case of Re Siah Ooi Choe, exp. Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (1998) SLR 903 wherein his Lordship Warren LH Khoo J. in examining the Singaporean equivalent to our section 33 of the Act at page 908 had this to say:

"the Act was designed to meet two major conflicting concerns. One stemmed from the fact that many an individual businessman become insolvent not through any fault, moral or otherwise, but through just being caught at the wrong turning of the economic cycle. It would be in the interests of society that people who had become bankrupt in such circumstances

5

should be given a second chance in life The other concern

was that, without proper safeguards, people who have used dishonest and fraudulent methods in conducting their business affairs to the detriment of their creditors might get an undeserved advantage from their own wrong doings."

I am of the view the fact that there is a provision in the Act which allows a discharge from bankruptcy itself shows it is intended that a bankrupt have some form of relief. The Act has also expressly laid do