Pyramid Media International Sdn Bhd v S Murugan A/L M Suppurayan (JA-29NCC-562-09/2022)

Penolong Kanan Pendaftar (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “PKP”) ditugaskan untuk membuat keputusan sama ada membenarkan atau menolak permohonan Penghutang Penghakiman (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “JD”) untuk mengetepikan Petisyen Pemiutang (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “CP”) bertarikh 16/11/2022 dengan kebebasan memfailkan semula atau mengekalkan CP tersebut.

Pemiutang Penghakiman (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “JC”) telah memperolehi Penghakiman Ingkar terhadap JD pada 7/6/2018.

Seterusnya, JC telah memulakan tindakan kebankrapan diatas JD dan berjaya mendapatkan Perintah Penghukuman dan Penerimaan terhadap JD pada 18/6/2020.

Pada 5/5/2021, JD telah berjaya memperolehi satu Perintah Membatalkan Perintah Kebankrapan bertarikh 18/6/2020 tersebut.

Selepas itu, pada 14/9/2022, JC telah sekali lagi memfailkan Notis Kebankrapan terhadap JD. Setelah menyempurnakan serahan BN kepada JD secara kediri pada 4/10/2022, JC telah dengan sepantas kilat memfailkan Petisyen Pemiutang pada 16/11/2022 S/N iVZLG1l/30us/18uosxkA

JD telah memfailkan permohonan di Lampiran 9 pada 23/12/2022 untuk mengetepikan Petisyen Pemiutang bertarikh 16/11/2022 dan/atau untuk menggantungkan prosiding kebankrapan ini.

Antara yang lain, salah satu alasan JD adalah bahawa JC tidak memperolehi apa-apa kebenaran menurut Seksyen 5(3) Akta Insolvensi 1967 (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Akta tersebut”) untuk memulakan tindakan kebankrapan terhadap JD kerana JD mendakwa bahawa dirinya merupakan seorang guarantor. Isu No. 1: Sama ada Peruntukan Seksyen 5(4) Akta Insolvensi 1967 telah dipatuhi

JD berhujah bahawa JC tidak berhak di sisi undang-undang untuk mengeluarkan BN terhadap JD yang berkapasiti sebagai penjamin sebelum JC menggunakan (“exhausted”) dan/atau melaksanakan SEMUA cara pelaksanaan (“modes of execution”) penghakiman sebagaimana diperuntukkan dibawah Seksyen 5(4) Akta tersebut.

Seksyen 5(4) Akta Insolvensi 1967 memperuntukkan bahawa:- “(4) Before granting leave referred to in paragraph (3)(b), the court shall satisfy itself that the petitioning creditor has exhausted all modes of execution and enforcement to recover debts owed to him by the debtor.” S/N iVZLG1l/30us/18uosxkA

JC berhujah bahawa JD telah gagal untuk menunjukkan pinjaman yang diberikan daripada JC kepada JD jatuh di bawah peruntukan Seksyen 2 Akta tersebut yang menyatakan seperti berikut:- "social guarantor" means a person who provides, not for the purpose of making profit, the following guarantees:

a guarantee for a loan, scholarship or grant for educational or research purposes;

a guarantee for a hire-purchase transaction of a vehicle for personal or non-business use; and

a guarantee for a housing loan transaction solely for personal dwelling;

Berdasarkan dokumen-dokumen yang dirujukkan dalam Permintaan untuk Mengeluarkan Notis Kebankrapan, Mahkamah ini adalah berpandangan bahawa JD tidak merupakan seorang penjamin. Oleh yang demikian, JC tidak perlu menyempurnakan semua cara pelaksanaan (“modes of execution”) penghakiman sebelum memulakan tindakan perundangan terhadap JD. S/N iVZLG1l/30us/18uosxkA

JC telah membangkitkan bahawa Penghakimanan Ingkar Kehadiran yang merupakan asas Notis Kebankrapan ini tidak pernah, sehingga sekarang dicabar oleh JD.

Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Abu Bakar Bin Ismail v Alliance Investment Bank Berhad [2012] MLJU 185 dimana JCA Lee Swee Seng telah merujuk kepada beberapa kes seperti berikut:- “In the case of Re Chong Sew Jin, ex parte Borneo Housing Mortgage Finance Bhd [1991] 3 CLJ 2470 the learned Judge dismissed the judgment debtor's application to set aside the bankruptcy notice and held as follows at page 2470: "[1]...The fact that the judgment was obtained without the knowledge of the judgment debtor does not turn a good judgment into one infested with fraud or even with fraudulent intent [3] The Court hearing the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice cannot go behind the judgment. In the instance case, the debt remains and the judgment remains good and intact. The judgment debtor has not satisfied the requirements of settling the debt or of having a counter claim." S/N iVZLG1l/30us/18uosxkA Similarly, the Judgment delivered by the Court in the KLHC D1 Suit was perfectly regular in all aspects and the JC is well entitled to enforce it against the JD. The JD's argument of "no knowledge" is clearly tainted with bad faith and is nothing more than an afterthought. To this date no attempt has been made to set aside the Judgment obtained or to appeal against the Judgment obtained on ground of fraud, collusion or miscarriage of justice. If the JD is bent on challenging the judgment obtained in the summary judgment application and affirmed on appeal, then the JD should with all due diligence mount his challenge in the Court that had granted the judgment and not in the bankruptcy proceeding. The following authorities were referred to by learned counsel for the JC: …

Re Margaret may Nashataram GP Gomez; Ex Plaintif Arab Malaysian Finance Bhd [2002] 8 CLJ 924 at headnotes (2), (3) and

on page 935: "[2] Once the registrar issues a bankruptcy notice the JD may only apply to set aside the notice by showing that no such judgment order has been made against him. The JD is not entitled to have the judgment notice set aside merely by pointing to some procedural defects in the application or in the issuance of the notice. S/N iVZLG1l/30us/18uosxkA [3] A bankruptcy court is least equipped by the summary nature of the proceedings to conduct a detailed inquiry into the propriety of the judgment obtained against the JD beyond satisfying itself that, prima facie, that judgment was regular. The task of challenging the legality of the judgment should be undertaken in another forum by an application to set aside the same. [4] The judgment that was entered against the JD here was obtained after a hearing under 0.14 and was perfectly regular in all respects. The judgment was obtained on merit and was not obtained by fraud, collusion or through a miscarriage of justice…” …

Tee Lian Joo v Tee Tiong Lian [2009] 8 CLJ 208 at headnotes

and (4) on page 209: 'The judgment debtor further contended that the interest charged on the gross sum in the BN was erroneous, far excessive and incorrect. However, it was rather late in the day for the judgment debtor to take up this issue. The sums claimed in the BN were pursuant to the orders dated 20.11.2003 and 17.2.2004. The judgment debtor had not taken any steps to set aside the said orders. The judgment debtor could not now ask the bankruptcy court to go behind the orders. The judgment debtor was guilty of laches on account of his failure to take any steps to set aside the said orders." S/N iVZLG1l/30us/18uosxkA The JC submitted that once the BN is issued, the JD may only apply to set aside the BN by showing that no such Judgment had been made against him. In this case, it is undisputed that the Judgment has been entered against the JD and remains owing until today.

Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Re Tunku Maryam Tunku Zainal Abidin; Ex P Arab Malaysian Finance Bhd [2007] 8 CLJ 626 dimana Mahkamah Tinggi menggunapakai keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Sovereign General Insurance Sdn Bhd v Koh Tian Bee [1988] 1 MLJ 304 seperti berikut:- “[18] It is trite law that a bankruptcy court cannot go behind the judgment. This law has been settled by the then Supreme Court's decision in Sovereign General Insurance Sdn Bhd v. Koh Tian Bee (Sovereign General) [1988] 1 CLJ 155; [1988] 1 CLJ (Rep) 277; [1988] 1 MLJ 304 where, at p 305 of the report, the then apex court had held: In the exercise of his jurisdiction in bankruptcy proceedings, the learned judge cannot go behind the judgment. Thus on an application to set aside a bankruptcy notice, it was laid down as early as 1893 that the court could not go behind the judgment. See In Re Easton [1893] 10 Mor 111; 9 TLR 409. Even if there has been an irregularity in the service of the notice of sale, it is not open to the respondent in this case to challenge the execution proceedings. Under s. 3(1)(i) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967, a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy if a creditor has obtained a final S/N iVZLG1l/30us/18uosxkA judgment for any amount and has served on him a bankruptcy notice requiring him to pay the judgment debt or sum ordered to be paid in accordance with the terms of the judgment. He has seven days after service of the notice to comply with the requirements of the notice or satisfy the court that he has a counterclaim, set-off or cross-demand which equals or exceeds the amount of the judgment debt or sum ordered to be paid and which he could not set up in the action in which the judgment was obtained or in the proceedings in which the order was obtained. Having regard to these provisions, it was wrong for the learned judge to strike out the creditors' petition. [19] The ratio in Sovereign General was that the bankruptcy court may go behind the judgment only in three instances, namely, where the judgment is obtained by: i. fraud; ii. collusion; or iii. there was miscarriage of justice. [20] In the present case, the JD has failed to show that the relevant judgment was obtained by fraud or collusion, and neither has the JD condescended upon any particulars of any miscarriage of justice or fraud or collusion committed by the JC. In fact, none of the statements in encl. 12 referred to fraud or collusion in relation to or which led to the entering of the judgment and not an iota of evidence was forthcoming from the JD in this regard.” S/N iVZLG1l/30us/18uosxkA

Mahkamah ini juga berpandangan bahawa isu berkenaan jumlah hutang tidak sepatutnya dibangkitkan disini. Ini bukannya forum atau tempat untuk membangkitkan isu tersebut memandangkan isu tersebut tidak jatuh di dalam bidangkuasa Mahkamah Perlaksanaan ini.

Mahkamah merujuk kepada Seksyen 3(1)(i) Akta Insolvensi 1967 (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Akta Insolvensi tersebut”) dimana adalah diperuntukkan bahawa:-

if a creditor has obtained a final judgment or final order against him for any amount and execution thereon not having been stayed has served on him in Malaysia, or by leave of the court elsewhere, a bankruptcy notice under this Act requiring him to pay the judgment debt or sum ordered to be paid in accordance with the terms of the judgment or order with interest quantified up to the date of issue of the bankruptcy notice, or to secure or compound for it to the satisfaction of the creditor or the court; and he does not within seven days after service of the notice in case the service is effected in Malaysia, and in case the service is effected elsewhere then within the time limited in that behalf by the order giving leave to effect the service, either comply with the requirements of the notice or satisfy the court that he has a counter-claim, set off or cross demand which equals or exceeds the amount of the judgment debt or sum ordered to be paid and which he could not set up in the action in which the judgment was obtained or in the proceedings in which the order was obtained: S/N iVZLG1l/30us/18uosxkA

Dalam menjelaskan prinsip ini, Mahkamah Tinggi Pulau Pinang dalam kes Re Khaw Siew Suan; Ex P Asia Commersial Finance (M) Bhd [2001] 1 MLJ 10 memutuskan bahawa:- “…Saya juga tidak bersetuju bahawa bantahan atas alasan itu boleh dibangkitkan di peringkat pendengaran petisyen, seperti yang diputuskan dalam beberapa kes yang saya telah sebutkan sebelum ini. Ini kerana, dalam sesuatu prosiding kebankrapan ada dua peringkat, pertama peringkat notis dan kedua, peringkat petisyen. Bantahan terhadap notis hendaklah dibuat diperingkat notis, bukan di peringkat petisyen. Sebab jika notis itu tidak sah, perbuatan kebankrapan (the act of bankruptcy) tidak berlaku dan petisyen pun tidak sah difailkan. Dan, petisyen tidak sepatutnya difail selagi bantahan mengenai keesahan notis kebankrapan belum diputuskan… …Dalam kes ini, notis di bawah s 3(2) proviso (ii) tidak diberi dan bantahan ini tidak dibuat (selepas memberi notis itu dalam tempoh tujuh hari yang ditetapkan itu) melalui saman dalam kamar di bawah k 18. Maka hujah mengenai jumlah hutang yang berlebihan itu sepatutnya ditolak atas alasan itu sahaja. Walau bagaimanapun, jika pandangan ini tidak betul, saya tidak ada sebab mencurigai pengiraannya. Sayugia diambil perhatian bahawa, walaupun penghakiman telah diperolehi semenjak tahun 1986 (sudah hampir 14 tahun hingga tarikh saya menulis alasan penghakiman ini) tetapi penghutang penghakiman cuma menuntut faedah selama enam tahun sahaja daripada tarikh penghakiman. Jika kiraan itu silap pun ia masih boleh dibetulkan semasa pemiutang penghakiman memfail bukti hutang.” S/N iVZLG1l/30us/18uosxkA

Dalam kes ini, JD tidak pernah memfailkan Notis Niat untuk Membantah Petisyen Pemiutang bertarikh 16/11/2023 dan JD tidak pernah membantah terhadap Notis Kebankrapan dengan menggunakan notis di bawah s 3(2) proviso maka dakwaan JD sekarang mengenai jumlah hutang yang berlainan itu sepatutnya ditolak atas alasan itu sahaja.

Pendirian JD bahawa Penghakiman Ingkar Kehadiran bertarikh 7/6/2018 tersebut tidak dalam pengetahuan JD bukan satu alasan dalam permohonan ini. Mahkamah Pelaksanaan tidak boleh membelakangi Penghakiman Ingkar Kehadiran tersebut. Dalam kes ini, hutang masih belum dijelaskan sepenuhnya dan Penghakiman Ingkar Kehadiran tersebut masih teratur. JC mempunyai hak untuk melaksanakan Penghakiman Ingkar Kehadiran tersebut diatas JD.

Berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang dinyatakan di atas, Mahkamah ini menolak permohonan JD di Lampiran 9 dan mengarahkan bahawa kos RM1,000.00 perlu dibayar oleh JD kepada JC tertakluk kepada fi alokatur. Petisyen Pemiutang adalah tidak diketepikan tetapi Pendengaran Petisyen Pemiutang ditangguhkan sehingga permohonan mengetepikan Penghakiman Ingkar dilupuskan di Mahkamah Sesyen Shah Alam. S/N iVZLG1l/30us/18uosxkA Bertarikh: 29 Mei 2023 Disediakan oleh, ………………………………….

Tetuan Francis Pereira & Shan Peguamcara Penghutang Penghakiman Suite 8A, Wisma TCT, 516-1, 3rd Mile, Jalan Ipoh, 51200 Kuala Lumpur. [No Ruj: FPS/4811/MS/22/L-CK] …

Tetuan Pritam Singh Doal & Co. Peguamcara Pemiutang Penghakiman Suite 01-20 SkyAwani Commercial Centre @ Sentul, No. 27, Jalan Sentul Perdana, 51100 Kuala Lumpur. [No Ruj: PSD/CIV/PMISB/2546/12(2017)] … Parvinder Singh S/N iVZLG1l/30us/18uosxkA Kes-kes yang dirujuk:

Abu Bakar Bin Ismail v Alliance Investment Bank Berhad [2012] MLJU 185 2. Re Chong Sew Jin, ex parte Borneo Housing Mortgage Finance Bhd [1991] 3 CLJ 2470 3. Re Margaret may Nashataram GP Gomez; Ex Plaintif Arab Malaysian Finance Bhd [2002] 8 CLJ 924 4. Tee Lian Joo v Tee Tiong Lian [2009] 8 CLJ 208 5. Re Tunku Maryam Tunku Zainal Abidin; Ex P Arab Malaysian Finance Bhd [2007] 8 CLJ 626 6. Sovereign General Insurance Sdn Bhd v Koh Tian Bee [1988] 1 MLJ 304 7. Re Khaw Siew Suan; Ex P Asia Commersial Finance (M) Bhd [2001] 1 MLJ 10 S/N iVZLG1l/30us/18uosxkA