Thomson CJ:

Receiving and adjudication orders in bankruptcy were made against this appellant on 3 June 1963, and against these orders he has now appealed.

Judgment against the appellant was entered on 3 July 1962, at the suit of a Doctor Dicum for $25,000 and interest and costs for money lent. The writ was issued on 17 May 1962.

On 5 February 1963, when no part of the judgment had been satisfied and the total amount due was $26,674, a bankruptcy notice was issued. The notice was in proper form and as regards its form no complaint has been made. Personal service of the notice proved impossible and on 18 March 1963, an order was made for substituted service. This order, the validity of which has never been questioned, though it could have been (see Ex parte Chatteris, 10 Ch. 227), provided that the notice be served by posting copies on the notice boards of the Supreme Court and Magistrate's Court, Kuala Lumpur and on the front door of No. 9A, Kong Hooi Road, Kuala Lumpur, the last known place of residence of the debtor.

This was done and somehow or other the notice came to the knowledge of the appellant for on 8 April 1963, he filed an affidavit which referred to the bankruptcy notice. It stated that he had a set-off against the creditor's claim for $27,000 for fees for professional services rendered by him to the creditor over "a period of many many years", that the creditor was accordingly indebted to him in the sum of $27,000 and that in those circumstances he prayed that the bankruptcy notice be set aside. There was attached what purported to be a signed bill of costs covering the period 5 January 1951 to 30 December 1961, for a lump sum of $27,000 in respect of professional services rendered during this period, being advice "regarding your bigamous marriage with your Chinese wife". It is unnecessary to quote the description of these alleged services at length, but it is to be observed that in the bill the words "bigamous" and "bigamy" occur at least four times.

Four days later, on 12 April, the creditor filed a bankruptcy petition against the appellant the act of bankruptcy alleged being non-compliance with the bankruptcy notice.

No steps were taken by the appellant to prosecute his application to set aside the bankruptcy notice but on 4th May he gave notice of intention to oppose the bankruptcy petition and in his supporting affidavit he again alleged that the creditor owed him $27,000 and was withholding payment of that sum with the intention to hold it as security against the judgment debt.

Up to this stage nothing had been said regarding the validity of the bankruptcy notice, but at some time it either came to the appellant's knowledge that the copies of the bankruptcy notice which had been posted on the notice boards of the Supreme Court and the Magistrate's Court at Kuala Lumpur had not been sealed and signed or he discovered the case of Muthiah Chettiar ex parte Ramanathan Chettiar [1938] MLJ 233, to which I shall refer later, and on 8th May he filed a further affidavit to the effect:

that the Notice of Bankruptcy served on me is a copy and not a sealed copy as required by the Law of Bankruptcy.

The following day a further affidavit was filed amplifying this statement and he amended his notice of intention to oppose the petition by adding the ground that he had not committed an act of bankruptcy as alleged because the bankruptcy notice was not signed and sealed and was therefore not duly served on him.

On 13 May 1963, the petition came on for hearing before Gill J and he made a receiving order and adjudicated the appellant a bankrupt.

Against that decision the appellant has now appealed.

His grounds of appeal are those on which he opposed the petition, that is to say that he has a counterclaim for more than the amount of the judgment debt and that the bankruptcy notice was not duly served because at any rate two of the copies that were posted in pursuance of the Order for substituted service were