Pan Malaysian Enterprises Sdn Bhd v Ong Keh Keong (WA-29NCC-2004-10/2024)

These Grounds concern 2 Notices of Appeal to the Court of Appeal in Encl 75 and 76 dated 5.3.2025 against my decision on the same date of 5.3.2026. 2 2. By my said decision, I dismissed both Encl 43 and Encl 44, being the Judgment Debtor’s (“JD”) 2 Appeals to the Judge in Chambers with costs of RM7,500.00 each: a. Encl 44 is an Appeal against the decision of the Registrar on 19.8.2025 dismissing the JD’s application in Encl 26 for an Extension of Time to file Supplementary Affidavits; and b. Encl 43, is an Appeal against the decision of the Registrar on 6.8.2025 dismissing the JD’s Application in Encl 12 to strike out the Bankruptcy Notice dated 30.10.2024 in Encl 2 with costs of RM3,000.00 to the Judgment Creditor (“JC”).

The grounds for my decision on 5.3.2026 are as follows.

In relation to Encl 43, Counsel for the JD maintained that the evidence to be adduced vide the Supplementary Affidavits concern issues of res judicata and is crucial. Counsel for the JC objected and submitted that, the JD had failed to file his affidavits and Submissions in accordance with the Court’s directions given at the case management on 12.2.2026. The JC had filed its Submissions. As such, no extension should be granted. ANALYSIS 3 5. As confirmed by Counsel, the evidence with respect to res judicate could adduced in an affidavit in response to the Creditor’s Petition (“CP”) and that the issues raised in the striking out could also be taken at the hearing of the CP. I was therefore minded to dismiss both Encl 43 and Encl 44.

The JD would not be prejudiced as he will be able to file an affidavit raising the allegedly crucial evidence to be read at the CP hearing. Further, the grounds for the striking out of BN may also be ventilated at the hearing of the CP. The JC would not be prejudiced as the JD would be entitled to file the affidavits to be read at the hearing of the CP in any event.

I have held in other decisions involving bankruptcy, that there is a habit of the JD raising numerous interlocutory applications challenging every step in the bankruptcy process when the same could be taken at the hearing of the CP. This practice only duplicates the submissions and grounds raised, and more importantly, wastes judicial time and resources. I addressed this habit in Re Dato’ Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow; ex parte Ewe Saw Lee [2025] MLJU 4481 at paras 40 to 45. I said this: “[44] I do believe that the approach of the winding-up Courts as to multiple interlocutory challenges to the winding-up petitions, should be applied in bankruptcy. For completeness, the practice as referred to in Re Tunku Maryam (supra) is as stated in Maril-Rionebel (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor v Perdana Merchant Bankers Bhd and other appeals [2001] 4 MLJ 203 per Abdul Hamid Mohamad JCA (as he then was) in the Court of Appeal. [45] As such, all interlocutory challenges to bankruptcy proceedings prior to the creditor’s petition, should (except in special circumstances) be taken at the hearing of the creditor’s petition itself. As an example, I gladly refer to the Federal Court’s decision in Dato’ Sri Teong Teck Leng v Jupiter Securities Sdn Bhd [2003] 4 CLJ 34, where the Court held 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. I believe this approach to interlocutory applications in bankruptcy to be correct.”

As such, where possible, all objections should be taken at the hearing of the CP.

As such I dismissed both Encl 43 and 44 with costs of RM7,500.00 for each of Encl 43 and 44 subject to allocatur. Costs are to be paid within 2 weeks. 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: • Re Dato’ Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow; ex parte Ewe Saw Lee [2025] MLJU 4481 Decision Date: 05th March 2026 Counsel for the Judgment Debtor: Solicitors: Ong Keh Keong & Jay Jagesh Messrs. Ong Partnership (Kuala Lumpur) Counsel for the Judgment Creditor: Solicitors: Sean Tan Messrs. Thomas Philip (Kuala Lumpur)