INNOSEVEN SDN BHD v Muhammad Zahir Sanjay Bin Abdullah (WA-29NCC-569-06/2023)

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) BANKRUPTCY NO.: WA-29NCC-569-06/2023 BETWEEN RE: MUHAMMAD ZAHIR SANJAY BIN ABDULLAH (NRIC No: 730618-08-5013) … JUDGMENT DEBTOR AND EX-PARTE: INNOSEVEN SDN BHD [(Company No.: 199301029677 (284416-U)] … JUDGMENT CREDITOR GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

1. These Grounds concern a Notice of Appeal (Encl 206) dated 25.2.2025 to the Court of Appeal against my decision on 30.1.2026 dismissing Encl 171, the Judgment Debtor’s (“JD”) appeal against the learned Registrar decision in dismissing the Notice by Debtor of Intention to Oppose Petition dated 1.12.2023 (Encl 171). 01/04/2026 15:59:34 WA-29NCC-569-06/2023 Kand. 211 **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 2. The principles relating to the validity of a Notice by Judgment Debtor of Intention to Oppose Petition are well established. Rule 116 of Insolvency Rules 2017 provides that: “Where a debtor intends to show cause against a petition, he shall file a notice in form 45 with the Registrar specifying the statements in the petition which he intends to deny or dispute and submit by post or otherwise to the petitioning creditor and his solicitor, if known, a copy of the notice three days before the day on which the petition is to be heard.”

3. It is clear from Rule 116 (in pari materia with Rule 117 of the Bankruptcy Rules 1967) that the Notice of Intention needs to specify the statements in the Creditor’s Petition (“the CP”) which he intends to deny or dispute.

4. In Cho Yu-Lon v Arab-Malaysian Finance Bhd [2003] 5 MLJ 289 (refer to page 8-12 JCBOA), the High Court (in relation to the previous Rule 116) held: “However, pursuant to r 117 of the Rules, the judgment debtor must specify the statement in the petition which he intends to deny or dispute. The detailed particulars as contained in the creditor’s petition contains 20 different items with their respective calculations. There are also set out 16 instances when payments were credited. The judgment debtor has indeed failed to identify the items he intended to dispute. This to my mind is clearly a breach of r 117 of the Rules. On this preliminary issue itself, I find for the judgment creditor.” **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 5. Similarly, in Gamel Nasir Taib v. Dopag Far East Sdn Bhd [2021] 1 LNS 389 (refer to page 13-28 JCBOA), the High Court held: “[33] The notice in form 45 herein, being enclosure 30, did not specify the statements in the petition which the JD intends to deny or dispute but had only averred that "saya berniat untuk menentang pendengran petisyen ini untuk suatu perintah penerimaan sperti dipohon dan saya juga berminat untuk mempertikaikan hutang yang dituntut oleh Pemiutang Penghakiman dan tnidakan kebrankapan yang didakwa.." In the circumstances, the JD is therefore deemed not to have shown cause against the Petition herein as required by the law.”

6. The failure to specify the statements in the CP which the JD intends to dispute is fatal, rendering the Rule 116 Notice invalid. CONCLUSION

7. The appeal is therefore dismissed on this ground alone. The JD also withdrew Encl 182, the appeal against the stay of the bankruptcy order which had become redundant. Encl 182 is struck out with no order as to costs. Postscript

8. In Re Choong Chee Meng (Bankruptcy No.: WA-29 NCC-1089- 06/2024), I held following the Federal Court in Dato’ Sri Teong Teck Leng v. Jupiter Securities Sdn Bhd [2004] 1 MLJ 1: **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 “15. The decision in Re Chew Kok Lian (supra) was based on Dato’ Sri Teong Teck Leng v. Jupiter Securities Sdn Bhd [2004] 1 MLJ 1, Abdul Hamid Mohamad FCJ (as he then was) had this to say at para 40, speaking for the Federal Court: "We also note that in the instant case, the learned SAR first heard encl 13 (notice of intention to oppose the creditor's petition) and after deciding on encl 13, heard the creditor's petition three weeks later. We are of the view that there should be no separate hearing of the notice of intention to oppose the creditor's petition. It is to be considered at the hearing of a creditor's petition, just as a statement of defence is not heard separately from the hearing of the claim. It may be different in the case of an application by way of a summons in chambers to strike out the creditor's petition. Even then, for the sake of expediency, unless, for some reasons, it is not practical, the summons in chambers should be heard together with the creditor's petition."

9. The judgment of the Federal Court is clear, and I was bound. There is no basis to hear the Rule 116 Notice prior to and as a hearing separate from the CP. It is merely a notice. Instead of hearing the Rule 116 Notice as if it were an application, the issues in the Rule 116 Notice should be raised and dealt with at the hearing of the CP proper. For this reason as well, the appeal fails. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Dated the 27th day of March 2026 ........................tt............................ YA TUAN SAHERAN SUHENDRAN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER OF THE HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL 11) (INSOLVENCY 2) OF KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA Case References: • Cho Yu-Lon v Arab-Malaysian Finance Bhd [2003] 5 MLJ 289 • Gamel Nasir Taib v. Dopag Far East Sdn Bhd [2021] 1 LNS 389 • Re Choong Chee Meng (Bankruptcy No.: WA-29 NCC-1089- 06/2024) Counsel for the Judgment Debtor: Solicitors: Muhammad Zahir Sanjay bin Abdullah Messrs. Kamarudin Wee & Co. (Subang Jaya) Counsel for the Judgment Creditor: Solicitors: Tan Xuan You Messrs. Kesavan (Kuala Lumpur) **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 Legislation References: • Rule 116 of Insolvency Rules 2017 • Rule 116 of the Bankruptcy Rules 1967 Decision Date: 30th January 2026 **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal