SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 MarsdenLR 1187

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
LIM TEE KEONG – Appellant
Versus
HLG SECURITIES SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: B-03(IM)-2-01-2014]



The court must consider thorough DGI investigations and statutory compliance when assessing a bankruptcy discharge application.

Headnote:The case concerns an appeal against the dismissal of an application for discharge from bankruptcy pursuant to s 33 of the Bankruptcy Act 1967. The appellant, a bankrupt for 10 years, sought relief citing severe health issues and unjust circumstances leading to the bankruptcy. The court emphasized the necessity of proper investigation by the Director General of Insolvency and the requirement of compliance with statutory provisions concerning discharge. The central issues revolved around the assessment of the bankrupt's conduct and the adequacy of the DGI report. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision.

Table of Content
1. application for bankruptcy discharge case. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. statutory provisions under the bankruptcy act. (Para 5 , 6)
3. consideration of circumstances leading to bankruptcy. (Para 8 , 12)
4. judicial discretion and statutory compliance. (Para 11 , 24)
Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim JCA:

[1] This is an appeal by the appellant (a bankrupt) who was the applicant in the High Court against the dismissal of his application to be discharged from his bankruptcy on 21 November 2013 by the High Court on appeal to the judge in Chambers. The application for the discharge was made pursuant to s 33 of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 ("the Act"). Earlier, the Deputy Registrar had heard the application and had dismissed the same on 5 July 2013.

[2] The bankrupt in this case, Lim Tee Keong, had passed away on 14 April 2014 before this appeal could be heard and disposed of. For the purpose of continuing this appeal, this Court had on 30 April 2014, on an application of one Lim Chee Wah, the younger brother of the bankrupt, allowed the applicant Lim Chee Wah to carry on this appeal in place of the bankrupt.

[3] Before the application for discharge was made on 11 March 2013, the bankrupt has been in bankruptcy for about 10 years. He was about 65 years at that time and was diagnosed with Stage IV Oesophagal Carcinoma (cancer of the throat) sometime in February 2014. The bankrupt had filed an application on 17 March 2014 (encl 12a) to adduce further evidence of his medical condition. But before the application (encl 12a) could be heard, the bankrupt succumbed to his illness and passed away. In his affidavit in support of the application affirmed on 14 March 2014 (before his death), the late bankrupt had stated that it was his fervent wish to have his name cleared and to spend the remainder of his life free from the shackles and stigma of the bankruptcy that has plague him since 2003.

[4] The late bankrupt was adjudged as a bankrupt on 18 February 2003 on a petition presented by the respondent.

[5] Since the application for discharge as a bankrupt was made under s 33 of the Act, it would be helpful if we reproduce the section in full:

"Discharge Of Bankrupt By Order Of Court

33. (1) 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.

(2) (Deleted by Act A827).

(3) On the hearing of the application the Court shall take into consideration a report of the Director General of Insolvency as to the bankrupt' conduct and affairs, including a report as to the bankrupt' conduct during the proceedings under his bankruptcy, and may either grant or refuse an absolute order of discharge, or suspend the operation order of discharge subject to any conditions with respect to any earnings or income which may afterwards become due to the bankrupt, or with respect to his after-acquired property.

(4) In all cases where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the bankrupt has committed any offence under this Act or under any written law repealed by this Act or under ss 421, 422, 423 or 424 of the Penal Code [Act 574] the Court shall unless Bankruptcy 37 for special reasons it otherwise determines either refuse the discharge or suspend the operation of the order until a dividend of not less than fifty per centum has been paid to the creditors, and on proof of any of the facts mentioned in subsection (6) the Court shall either:

(a) refuse the order; or

(b) suspend the operation of the order for a specifiled time; 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

(d) grant an order of discharge subject to such conditions as aforesaid. The powers of suspending and attaching conditions to a bankrupt's discharge may be exercised concurrently.

(5) If at any time after the expiration of two years from the date of any order made under this section the bankrupt satisfies the Court that th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top