ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN

This is an appeal by the Petitioners, Standard Chartered Bank Malaysia Berhad (hereinafter referred to as "SCB") against the decision of the learned Deputy Registrarwho had on 12th February, 1998 dismissed the Creditor"s petition. Initially the hearing of the said Creditors petition was fixed by the Court on 9th October 1997, with the presence of the Judgment Debtor and despite all such cause papers being in order theCourt allowed an adjournment of the hearing to enable the Judgment Debtor to engage counsel and had fixed 8th January 1998 as the next hearing date (final date). On 8th January 1998, the Judgment Debtor was represented by counsel, Mr. J.S. Gill who had on behalfof the Judgment Debtor filed on the very same morning a "Notice by Debtor of Intention to Oppose Petition" (hereinafter referred to as "the said Notice of Intention to Oppose"). Incidentally, the said Notice of Intention to Oppose Petition wasalso served on the Petitioner that very morning. As the counsel for the Judgment Debtor had only filed into Court the said Notice of Intention to Oppose, it was naturally not in the Court"s file and despite the Petitioner"s objection to the late filingand insistence that the hearing of Creditor"s Petition should proceed that morning the said Deputy Registrar had allowed for another hearing date be fixed, and the date fixed was 12th February 1998 as the next hearing date of the Creditor"s Petition.

The said Notice of Intention to Oppose had basically disputed the Creditor"s Petition based on the following grounds:

(i) The Bankruptcy Notice/Creditor"s Petition have not been properlyserved on the Judgment Debtor;

(ii) The calculation of late charge was incorrect as the amount of RM12.00 only was wrongly added into;

(iii) The bankruptcy proceedings are irregular.

Prior to the 12th February 1998 hearing date of the Creditor"s Petition, the Judgment Debtor through its counsel had on 4th February 1998 served on the solicitors for the Petitioner an affidavit of the Judgment Debtor. This affidavit is purportedlyused to refer and reflect the earlier said Notice of Intention to Oppose filed on 8th January 1998. The said Judgment Debtor had also on 4th February 1998 filed in a Notice of Intention to Cross-examine one Noorhaidi bin Mohd. Noor Rahim, the deponent for bothaffidavit of service affirmed on the 18th October 1996 and 21st June 1997 respectively. On the said hearing date of 12th February 1998, the Petitioner reiterated again its objection and stance on the late filing of both Notice of Intention to Oppose and theaffidavit of the Judgment Debtor affirmed on 4th February 1998. But the Petitioner"s objections to the same the learned Deputy Registrar had disallowed the Petitioner to proceed with the merits of their objections. The said Deputy Registrar then proceededwith the hearing of the Judgment Debtor"s Notice of Intention to Oppose and the Affidavit of the Judgment Debtor. However, the Judgment Debtor had withdrawn its Notice of Intention to Cross-examine on the said hearing date. During the said hearing date theDeputy Registrar had considered facts raised in the said Notice of Intention to Oppose and the Affidavit of the Judgment Debtor and subsequently proceeded to dismiss the Creditor"s petition with costs. Hence this appeal.

At this juncture,it is apposite to summarise the various points that the Appellant is raising to form the merits of this appeal. They are as follows:

(i) The learned Deputy Registrar had erred when he disallowed thesubmission of the said objections of the Petitioners;

(ii) The learned Deputy Registrar had erred in law when he allowed for the inclusion of the said Notice of Intention to Oppose and the Affidavit of the Judgment Debtoraffirmed on 4th February 1998;

(iii) The learned Deputy Registrar had erred in fact when he failed to consider that all relevant cause papers filed for the hearing of the Creditor"s petition was done in accordance withthe Bankruptcy Act and Rules;

(iv) The lear