Mohd. Azmi SCJ:

Both these appeals were heard together as they involved identical issues of law on the validity of the bankruptcy notices issued against a married couple (the appellants) on 15 October 1986, and served on them by substituted service. The demand for payment in each case was in identical terms, and the act of bankruptcy relied upon by the respondent bank was the appellants' failure to comply within seven days of service with the requirements of the notices for payment of judgment debt, interests, and costs, as provided under s. 3(1)(i) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967. The learned Judge had found both the petitions for bankruptcy against the appellants in order, and accordingly granted receiving and adjudicating orders against the husband (Zulkifli) on 1 March 1989 and against the wife (Fawzia) on 3 May 1989. By notice of motion dated 11 December 1989, the appellants applied to set aside the receiving and adjudicating orders on the ground that the bankruptcy notices were null and void ab initio for non compliance with the provisions of s. 3(1)(i) and as such, the appellants had not committed any act of bankruptcy under that sub-section. The learned Judge concluded that the notices were not defective and dismissed their motion with costs.

In both these appeals, the requirements in the bankruptcy notices for payment within seven days were for "the sum of RM612,065.07 together with interest to accrue thereon at the agreed rate of 13.25% per annum as from 31 October 1984 to date of actual realisation and RM300 costs."

Before us Counsel for the appellants repeated his argument in the High Court that whilst the judgment debt and costs were quantified in the notices, the demand for payment of interests was left at large from 31 October 1984 "to date of actual realisation" at 13.25% per annum. Relying on the decision of this Court in Low Mun v. Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd.[1987] CLJ 172 (Rep) which required judgment debt, interests and costs to be quantified, he argued that the notices served on both the appellants were null and void ab initio. He also referred to us the case of Re. Ismail bin Daud & Hjh. Qameriah bt Fateh Mohamed [1989] 1 CLJ (Rep) 617, 624 where the same learned Judge in annulling a bankruptcy notice as invalid and incapable of being saved by s. 131 of the Bankruptcy Act, had ruled:

I hold that where in the body of the notice, to the ingredients for calculating the interest ordered, the words `and continuing' or other words of like effect are appended, that could amount to the demand being uncertain and as such bad.

By the same token, learned Counsel urged us to conclude that the learned Judge ought to have held the words "to date of actual realisation" in the body of the notices as equally bad in law.

The basis of an act of bankruptcy under s. 3(1)(i) is non-compliance within seven days of service with a valid bankruptcy notice, requiring the debtor to pay the judgment debt or sum ordered to be paid in accordance with the terms of the judgment or order. Unless ordered to be assessed by the Registrar, the judgment debt is usually quantified in the judgment of the Court, but invariably it is not so in the case of other sums ordered to be paid, such as interests and costs. Since the debtor is entitled to know exactly the actual sum that he has to pay to the commission of the act of bankruptcy, it is essential that the notice must quantify the total sum required to be paid for the purpose of that particular bankruptcy notice. In these appeals, by leaving the amount of interests at large "to date of actual realisation", there is uncertainty in the actual amount due and payable which is required to be settled by the notices within seven days of service. As conceded by Counsel for the respondent, at the date of their issue, no one knew if the whole interests ordered to be paid would be realised; let alone the date of actual realisation. When the date of realization is questionable, and without any fixed date be