JUDGMENT

Azlan Sulaiman J:

Introduction

[1] This Judgment is on two appeals. The first in encl 47 ("Enclosure 47 Appeal") is an appeal by the abovenamed Judgment Debtor ("JD") against the decision of the Senior Assistant Registrar ("SAR") given on 15 November 2024 dismissing his application in encl 28 (Enclosure 28 Application") to set aside/strike out the Creditor's Petition dated 19 June 2024 ("CP") and to strike out the Bankruptcy Notice dated 2 January 2024 ("BN").

[2] The second in encl 55 ("Enclosure 55 Appeal"), is the JC's appeal against the decision of the SAR given on 11 December 2024 allowing the JD's application in encl 26 ("Enclosure 26 Application") to stay the hearing of the CP pending the disposal of the JD's appeal to the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No: W- 02(NCvC)(W)-630-04/2023 ("CA Appeal") against the judgment in Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No: WA-22NCVC-595-11/2017 ("Civil Suit") [Kebabangan Petroleum Operating Company Sdn Bhd v. Mikuni (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors]

Salient Facts

[3] On 27 March 2023, the JC obtained a Judgment jointly and severally against the JD and four others ("Judgment") for sums totalling over RM170m and costs of RM200,000.00 ("Judgment Sum") in the Civil Suit.

[4] On 2 January 2024, on the JC's application, the BN was issued against the JD for the Judgment Sum ("BN") for the sum of RM170,748,975.11 alleged to be outstanding under the Judgment as at the date of the BN.

[5] On 24 January 2024, by Affidavit in encl 4 pursuant to r 95 of the Bankruptcy Rules 2017 ("Rules"), the JD applied to set the BN aside ("Enclosure 4 Application"). The SAR dismissed the encl 4 Application on 7 June 2024 and the JD did not appeal that decision.

[6] On 19 June 2024, the JC then filed the CP.

[7] On 2 August 2024, the JD filed a Notice to Oppose the CP in encl 25 and then filed the encl 26 Application and the encl 28 Application.

[8] As mentioned at the outset, the SAR allowed the encl 26 Application and dismissed the encl 28 Application.

Enclosure 47 Appeal

[9] It is trite law that an appeal from the Registrar to the Judge involves a re-hearing of the application that resulted in the appeal (see Tuan Haji Ahmed Abdul Rahman v. Arab-Malaysian Finance Berhad; [1996] 1 MLJ 30; [1996] 1 CLJ 241; [1996] 1 AMR 215). Hence, this encl 47 Appeal that will involve a re-hearing of the Enclosure 28 Application, ie the JD's application to set aside/strike out the CP and to strike out the BN.

[10] My first finding is that, as the JD did not appeal against the decision of the SAR on 7 June 2024 dismissing his encl 4 Application, he is therefore to be regarded as conceding that the BN is valid. Thus, his application to strike out the BN in the encl 28 Application is misconceived. Consequently, the consideration of the encl 47 Appeal will be confined to whether the CP should be set aside or struck out.

[11] In his Written Submissions, the JD submitted that the CP should be set aside / struck out because the amount of the judgment debt had been reduced by the sum of RM108,120.00 that he had paid to the JC on 1 March 2024, and therefore the amount stated in the CP is wrong.

[12] Urging this Court to set aside or struck out the CP, the JD relies on s 6(3) of the Insolvency Act 1967 ("Act"), which provides:

If the Court is not satisfied with the proof of the petitioning creditor's debt or of the act of bankruptcy or of the service of the petition, or is satisfied by the debtor that he is able to pay his debts, or that for other sufficient cause no order ought to be made, the Court may dismiss the petition. "

[13] The conditions for presenting a creditor's petition are prescribed by s 5(1) of the Act, which provides:

"A creditor shall not be entitled to present a bankruptcy petition against a debtor unless:

(a) the debt owing by the debtor to the petitioning creditor, or if two or more creditors join in the petition the aggregate amount of debts owing to the several petitioning creditors, amounts to one hundred thousand ringgit; a