DECISION

Nallini Pathmanathan J:

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the learned Senior Assistant Registrar dated 19 August 2011 dismissing the Judgment Debtor's ('JD') application to rescind and annul the Receiving and Adjudication Orders made against the JD on 18 May 2011.

[2] The salient background facts are that the Judgment Creditor ('JC') obtained judgment in default against the JD on 5 August 1999 for a principal sum of RM103,484-83 as at 18 May 1999 together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said judgment sum from 19 may 1999 until the date of realisation, together with legal fees of RM750-00 and costs of RM1,595-00. The bankruptcy proceedings against the JD were filed some eleven years later on 19 April 2010, premised on the aforesaid judgment in default.

[3] Vide this appeal the JD seeks to rescind the Receiving and Adjudication Orders made against him on 18 May 2011 primarily on the ground that the bankruptcy notice filed against him is invalid and bad in law in that the said notice included, apart from the judgment sum, a sum claimed by way of interest, which although limited to a period of six years, was filed outside the period of six years prescribed under s 6(3) of the Limitation Act 1953. In other words, the interest claimed under the bankruptcy notice, it is contended is time barred.

[4] The JD complains that accordingly it follows that the Creditor's Petition is also invalid as it is also premised on a claim for interest that is time barred.

[5] The JD also complains that the service of the bankruptcy notice and creditor's petition was bad in law and that accordingly he had no notice of the same.

Is The Claim For Interest On The Judgment Debt In The Bankruptcy Notice Dated 19 April 2010?

[6] This requires a consideration of the claim for interest as set out in the bankruptcy notice. In the notice the JC commences by setting out the judgment debt dated 5 August 1999 totalling RM103,484.83. This is not in issue.

[7] Then the JC computes and sets out interest on the judgment debt at 12% per year for the period from 19 May 1999 until 31 December 1999. This is followed by interest computed on a yearly basis from the year 200 right until 4 August 2005. In other words, interest is computed for a period of six years from the judgment debt only. The JC then claims the total of the judgment debt plus the accrued or arrears of interest for the period of six years commencing from the date of judgment in its bankruptcy notice.

[8] This bankruptcy notice was filed on 19 April 2010, ie some eleven years after the judgment.

[9] The JD argues that the bankruptcy notice is invalid, as despite containing the correctly computed quantum of interest, it was filed outside of the limitation period stipulated in s 6(3) of the Limitation Act 1953 for the recovery of interest on a judgment debt. That limitation period, it is maintained, is also six years. Accordingly any claim for interest on a judgment debt must be filed six years after such interest has accrued and no later. In the instant case, the bankruptcy notice claiming interest for a term of six years was filed outside of the six year period stipulated under s 6(3). This, it is contended, renders the entire bankruptcy notice invalid as the inclusion of the interest element, which is time barred, renders the entire notice void. The bankruptcy notice, would, in other words, have been valid if it had been restricted simply to the judgment debt and nothing more.

[10] The Judgment Creditor differs in its approach. It maintains that the limitation period for the filing of a bankruptcy notice is 12 years while interest on such a judgment debt can be claimed for only six years. Accordingly they contend that they have complied with the law as set out, inter alia, in ; [2009] 3 MLJ 253; [2004] 2 CLJ 787; [2004] 3 AMR 699, in that they have restricted their claim in interest on the judgment debt to only six years. But given that a bankruptcy notice or proceedings have a tw