An absolute discharge from bankruptcy divests the Director General of Insolvency of rights over the bankrupt's property, restoring ownership to the discharged individual.

Introduction

[1] This is an application by the Applicant seeking:

1) Satu injuksi deklarasi bahawa Responden tiada sebarang hak kepada syer Pemohon sebanyak 1/18 atas tanah yang dipegang di bawah Sibu Lease 45865, TRN: 03-SSL-000-000, 45865, Area 1.2019 Ha more or less, Locality of Land Bukit Lima, Sibu pada ketika ini. (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai "Hartanah tersebut");

2) Satu perintah injuksi interim bahawa Responden ataupun ejen-ejen mereka dihalang daripada memasuki premis hartanah tersebut, ataupun menjual/mencagar/memindah hakmilik kepada pihak ketiga; dan selepas pendengaran secara Inter-Partes satu perintah injunksi mutlak;

3) Bahawa Responden hendaklah menandatangani semua dokumentasi dan melakukan apa yang perlu untuk memindah balik 1/18 syer Pemohon kepadanya;

4) Sekiranya Responden telah menjual ataupun melelongkan hartanah tersebut, hasil jualan dipulangkan kepada Responden;

5) Kos bagi dan berkaitan dengan permohonan ini dijadikan kos dalam kausa; dan

6) Lain-lain perintah Mahkamah yang mulia ini dianggap adil.

[2] This Court allows the application. The reasons are as deliberated.

Brief Facts

[3] The Applicant is a discharged bankrupt. He was adjudged bankrupt on 7 January 2016 by the application of Masteron Sdn Bhd in Suit No 29NCC-721-02/2015.

[4] The Respondent is the Director General of Insolvency.

[5] On 10 October 2022 the Applicant filed an Application For Discharge in Suit No. WA-29PB-1153-10/2022 under s 33(1) of the Insolvency Act 1967 .

[6] It was not disputed that the Applicant was granted the Order for an absolute discharge on 27 September 2023.

[7] Prior to the bankruptcy, the Applicant has a share of 1/18 of a piece of land under Sibu Lease 45865, TRN: 03-SSL-000-000, 45865, Bukit Lima, Sibu, Sarawak (Land), transferred as a gift from his mother.

[8] Accordingly, during the period when the Applicant was an undischarged bankrupt, the Respondent acts as the administrator of the bankrupt's estate and the Land is vested in the Respondent's name.

Contention Of Parties

[9] The Applicant contended that despite the fact that the Land was vested in the name of the Respondent since 2019, no action has been taken by the Respondent pertaining to the Land to assist in the payment of the Applicant's debt and now that the Applicant has been granted an absolute discharge, it is only fair that his Land to be returned to him.

[10] The Applicant further contended that the Respondent has not declared in the Respondent's report under s 33 of the Insolvency Act 1967 , about the Land during the discharge application on 27 September 2023.

[11] The Applicant also contended that according to the Respondent's Report under s 33 of the Insolvency Act, submitted to the Court, the Respondent had admitted that:

a) The applicant had achieved the target contribution of his provable debt as determined by the DGI;

b) No creditors showed up during the hearings of the application to discharge in particular Masteron Sdn Bhd who had made him a bankrupt, despite being informed by the OA; and

c) They had also failed to show up at the Creditors Meetings.

[12] Therefore, the Applicant contended that his 1/18 share should revert back to him as his bankruptcy discharge was an absolute discharge.

[13] The Respondent, on the other hand, contended that the Land has been vested in the name of the Respondent and will remain so as the Land has been registered under the name of the Respondent in the document of title of the Land