JUDGMENT

Wong Mee Ling J:

[1] This is an appeal by the judgment debtor (the "JD") against the decision of the Senior Assistant Registrar ("SAR") dated 22 August 2024 which dismissed the JD's application for discharge pursuant to subsection 33(3) of the Insolvency Act 1967 [Act 360].

[2] Having considered the cause papers, the affidavits filed, the reports of the Director General of Insolvency ("DGI"), the written submissions of parties, and the applicable law, I allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the SAR.

[3] Below are the grounds of my decision.

[4] The background facts in this appeal are gathered from the affidavits and submissions filed by the parties and stated in chronological order.

[5] On 15 November 2019, the judgment creditor (the "JC") filed a creditor's petition ("CP") against the JD in the Johor Baharu High Court ("JBHC") Bankruptcy No: JA-29-774-04/2019 (Bankruptcy proceeding) for the alleged sum of RM101,464,321.82.

[6] On 28 January 2020, an adjudication and receiving order ("AORO") was granted against the JD, and the JD was adjudged a bankrupt.

[7] The JD commenced the discharge application vide summons in chambers dated 8 March 2024 pursuant to subsection 33(3) of Act 360.

[8] The bankruptcy arose from the facilities granted to Chye Hup Heng Sdn Bhd (the "Borrower") by the JC, for which the JD acted as one of the guarantors.

[9] The JD contends that he was merely a guarantor for the corporate borrowing and had subsequently ceased involvement in the borrower after disposing of his shares pursuant to a sale and purchase agreement dated 22 September 2008 ("SPA") (see exh "S-1", pp 17–24 of the JD's affidavit in support in encl 2).

[10] The JD further contends that he had previously sought to be released from his obligations as guarantor and relies on a purported letter of indemnity and correspondence exchanged with the JC.

[11] The JC subsequently through their letters dated 4 April 2012 to the JD stated that they were prepared to agree to release and discharge the JD from all the liabilities and obligations under the facilities granted to the borrower subject to written consent being obtained from all remaining directors/guarantors and the borrower in the form of a resolution from the Board of Directors (the "Conditional Discharge and Release").

[12] The JC later issued a letter dated 16 August 2012 to the JD stating that the JC had rescinded the consent/approval for the request to discharge JD's obligations and liabilities under the facilities since the JD has failed to fulfil the Conditional Discharge and Release.

[13] The borrower and/or the JD had breached their obligations by failing to make repayment towards the facilities granted by the JC.

[14] The JC had obtained summary judgment against the JD on 27 February 2018. No appeal was filed by the JD against the said summary judgment.

[15] The JD was adjudged bankrupt through bankrupt order dated 28 January 2020.

[16] On 8 March 2024, the JD filed an application pursuant to subsection 33(3) of Act 360 seeking an order for discharge from bankruptcy.

[17] In support of the application, the JD relies, inter alia, on the following reasons:

(a) his elderly age of 67 years;

(b) his status as a retiree without meaningful income;

(c) his medical condition involving heart-related illness, hypertension and dyslipidemia;

(d) he had complied with his obligations to the best of his ability; and

(e) continued bankruptcy would serve no practical purpose.

[18] The JC opposed the discharge application on several grounds, including:

(a) the alleged commission of offences under s 16 of Act 360 arising from delay in filing the statement of affairs ("SOA");

(b) the insufficiency and alleged inaccuracies in the DGI's reports;

(c) the low dividend contribution by the JD; and

(d) the substantial outstanding debt exceeding RM100,000,000.00.

[19] The DGI subsequently issued a report dated 24 April 2024 and an amended report dated 14 July 2024 pursuant to subsection 33(3) of Act