Dato� Rickie Tang Yong Kiat V Sinesinga Sdn Bhd

  

Download PDF Here

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR (COMMERCIAL DIVISION)

 

SUIT NO. D-29-2936-2009

 

BETWEEN

 

DATO’ RICKIE TANG YONG KIAT

 

… PLAINTIFF

 

AND

 

SINESINGA SDN BHD

 

DEFENDANT

 

GROUND OF DECISION (ENC. 29)

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP TUAN ANANTHAM KASINATHER JUDGE HIGH COURT MALAYA

 

KUALA LUMPUR IN CHAMBER

 

Enc. 29 is an appeal by the judgment debtor against the decision of the Learned Registrar refusing to set aside the Bankruptcy Notice dated 15th July 2009 and the A.O and R.O of 16th March 2010.

 

On the hearing of the appeal, Counsel for the appellant raised two grounds in support of the appeal. The first was that the Petitioner is not the creditor who obtained judgment against him in Kuala Lumpur Civil Suit No. D6-22-893-2000. The second was that the rate of interest was uncertain as the BLR was not specified.

 

1

 

I dismissed the appeal as I found no merit in either of the grounds raised by Counsel for the appellant. As regards the identity of the judgment creditor, in Paragraph 7 of Enc. 17, the representative of the Petitioner has set out in detail the circumstances giving rise to the vesting of the debt from the original judgment creditor to the Petitioner. Essentially, pursuant to vesting order dated 11th February 2009 made by the Court pursuant to Sec. 50 of BAFIA, the Petitioner acquired all the rights and liabilities pertaining to the customers of CIMB and one such debt which vested in the Petitioner is the debt due from the judgment debtor to the original judgment creditor (see Paragraph (h) of Paragraph 7 of Enc. 17). Pursuant to sec. 50 (3) of BAFIA, following the vesting orders, the Petitioner is entitled, in law, to file the bankruptcy notice and obtain A.O and R.O without the need to give any prior notice to the debtor. The vesting order is binding on the judgment debtor. Notice if any is requiring was complied with, in any event by the contents of the affidavit filed by the judgment creditor. This is not a case of a judgment debtor who is dying to settle the debt to the original judgment creditor but one who is in effect endeavouring not to settle the debt to either creditor.

 

As regards the BLR, there is no uncertainty because the rate of the BLR at the material date is expressly spelt out in the bankruptcy notice (Exh. AL8 to Enc. 17). In any event, that part of the bankruptcy notice dealing with interest is only a

 

2

 

reflection of the terms of the judgment. In my judgment, so long as the interest sought to be recovered in the bankruptcy notice does not deviate from the terms of the judgment of the Court, the same is valid.

 

I order no costs of the appeal against the appellant since he is already a bankrupt.

 

Sgd.

 

(Anantham Kasinather)

 

Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur

 

Date of Decision: 26th May 2010

 

Counsels:

 

Ms. S. Thillaga

 

(Tetuan S. Thilaga) … for Judgment Debtor

 

Mr. Effendy Othman Ms. S.J. Foo

 

(Tetuan Zaid Ibrahim & Co) … for Judgment Creditor

 

3

PDF Source: http://kl.kehakiman.gov.my