The Judgment Creditor (JC) obtained judgment against Judgment Debtor (JD) together with his brother Ng San Heng as partners of firm Sing Nang Furniture and Renovation on 7 July 2000 at the Sessions Court Kuala Lumpur.

JC proceeded with bankruptcy proceedings against the JD. The Judgment Debtor's application to set aside the Bankruptcy Notice was dismissed by the learned Senior Assistant Registrar and affirmed by me on appeal. When the creditor's petition was filed subsequently, JD filed a notice of opposition to the

2

petition. The learned Senior Assistant Registrar on the hearing of the petition granted the adjudication and receiving order and hence this appeal to me.

At the appeal before me, the JD's counsel raised the sole issue of want of authority under seal of the corporation. In his Rule 117 notice he raised two issues:

1) that the BN is irregular, not based on final judgment and does not

comply with the Judgment dated 7.11.00, and

2) that the Petition of 24.1.03 and the affidavit verifying truth not

signed by someone authorised under seal of the JC's company or

based on BN which is irregular.

In respect of the first issue, I had earlier dismissed JD's appeal against refusal of SAR to set aside the BN.

On the second issue of want of authority under seal of the officer presenting the creditor's petition on behalf of the corporation, numerous authorities were cited by JD's counsel. This issues centred on section 133 of the Bankruptcy Act and rule 215 of the Bankruptcy Rules.

3

Section 133:

"For all or any of the purposes of this Act -

(a) a corporation may act by any of its officers authorised in that

behalf under the seal of the corporation;" Rule 215:

"Where a corporation presents a petition or takes any other action under this Act, this officer of the corporation may act in his own name, stating that he is such officer duly authorised under seal; but a petition may be presented by the corporation, and signed by the officer on its behalf. Any person chosen by the corporation to act for it as agent, is an "officer" within section 133, and if duly authorised under seal can act for the corporation."

In Re Lim Chooi Sang Ex p. Soon Fay Sdn Bhd [1999] 5 CLJ 605 Steve Shim J (as he then was) in accepting the construction of rule 215 B.R and Section 133 of Bankruptcy Act in Samuel Pakianathan a/I Jabamanickam, Re ex p Perwira Habib Bank (M) Bhd [1995] 5 MLJ 737 was of the view that the JC has not shown that Encik Chong Che Chong who presented the creditor's petition on behalf of the Judgment Creditor, a corporation, had been duly authorised under seal to do so at the material time. The creditor's petition nor the affidavit of truth of statement deposed by Encik Chong Che Chong showed any indication that there was an authorisation under seal.

4

In Samuel Pakianathan's case (supra) the Court was satisfied that the deponents to the affidavit were clearly not authorised under seal as admitted by them. Further in Re Loi Teck Soon Ex parte MBf Finance Bhd [2000] 1 AMR 807 the Court found that the Judgment Creditor had not shown that the officer who had signed and presented the creditor's petition on its behalf had been duly authorised under seal to do so nor was there any indication to the effect in the creditor's petition or in the affidavit of truth of statements.

The authority under seal must be in existence when the petition is presented and could not be validated retrospectively. In Re Che Ku Rohaida bt Che Ku Sin Ex parte Public Finance Bhd [2002] 5 CLJ 435; [2002] 1 AMR 516 the Judge noted that there was an illegible signature of someone without a designation and there was nothing in the petition to indicate that the officer was authorised under seal. Similarly in Re Haroun Al-Rashid b. Mohd Yusof ex parte Daya Leasing Sdn Bhd [1996] 2 CLJ 516; [1996] 5 MLJ 317, the creditor's petition merely showed an illegible signature of someone without designation. There was also no evidence in the petition that th