the court may, if it thinks fit, revoke his discharge, but without prejudice to the validity of any sale, disposition or payment duly made, or thing duly done subsequent to the discharge, but before its revocation [20] The Respondent contended that even when a person has been discharged under section 33 of the Insolvency Act 1967, the Respondent is still responsible and has rights over the assets and must realize those assets in accordance with the provision under Section 35A of the Insolvency Act 1967. This Court disagrees. [21] This Court is of the view that since the Applicant has been granted an absolute discharge of the bankruptcy, the functions of the Respondent also ceases. Reference is made to the case of Pravinchandra Doshi (T/A M/S P Doshi & Co) v. Ismail Bin Syed Mohamed & Anor [1998] 8 MLRH 311; [1999] 1 MLJ 35, where the Court held- “…What more, most pertinently, as the plaintiff was granted an absolute discharge and even given a refund of the surplus funds, which could only have been if the OA had satisfied the claims of the plaintiff's creditors, whereupon, the OA had no reason to hang on to the estate of the plaintiff or to continue to realize or distribute the property of the plaintiff. It could only be said, with respect, that Mr Teja's proposition that the plaintiff despite his absolute discharge has no capacity to maintain the action, because of s 33 of the Act, is totally unacceptable. The proposition is as S/N oPfxP8smlE8gH0E3p1Ztg absurd as it is farcical as to suggest that a man who has served his sentence must yet observe the prison rules.” (Emphasis Added) [22] Likewise, the Court in In Re Badan Pengurusan Bersama Kondominium Lagenda [2017] MLRHU 1874 has cited with approval the case of Pravinchandra Doshi (supra) that held- [32] I am in complete agreement with the observations of my learned brother Jeffry Tan J (as he then was) as to the effect of a discharge of bankruptcy. Once an absolute discharge is given, the property of the discharged bankrupt, except for those caught under ss 35(1)(a) and 35A of the Bankruptcy Act 1967, divests from the Director General of Insolvency and the discharged bankrupt is free to deal with these property. The Director General of Insolvency has no reason to hold on to the estate of the discharged bankrupt, especially when all of the bankrupt's debts had been settled. Thus, I do not find any merit in the arguments of learned counsel for the Applicant that ESH as a discharged bankrupt lacked locus standi when making the application for the stay of winding up order. [23] Further, in Chan Chee Chiu & Anor v. Director General of Insolvency & Anor [2025] 3 MLRH 210, it was held- [49] … And that in Malaysia, upon an unconditional discharge, the DGI would be divested of the assets of the JD and such assets would then be returned to the control of the JD to do as he pleases.”. [24] This Court would agree with the contention of the Applicant that the effect of the Discharge Order is that the Applicant has since been released from all his debts provable in bankruptcy except debts due to the S/N oPfxP8smlE8gH0E3p1Ztg Government, State or Attorney General. But these, he has none. The Respondent had not stated that the Applicant is still indebted to either the Government, State or Attorney General in the Respondent’s report under section 33 of the Insolvency Act. Based on the Respondent’s Report under section 33 of the Insolvency Act, it is clear that the Applicant had achieved the target contribution of his provable debt as determined by the Respondent. [25] Accordingly, this Court is of a considered view that section 35A, will only take effect, if the Applicant’s discharge was conditional, but this is not the case. [26] Additionally, the Respondent has no more functions to be carried out as stipulated under Order 35(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act. It is clear from the Respondent’s Report under section 33 of the Insolvency Act, that all dividends due had been fully settled and this fact contributed towards the absolute discharge of the Applicant. [27] Another point that this Court has observed, is that the Land will only vest in the Respondent, if the Land is registered under section 349 of the S/N oPfxP8smlE8gH0E3p1Ztg National Land Code. In this regard, section 350 of the National Land Code has, the provision where the bankrupt is discharged. [28] For ease of reference, section 350 of the National Land Code provides-No disclaimer by the Director General of Insolvency, and no order for the discharge of any bankrupt or the annulment of any adjudication of bankruptcy, shall operate to divest the Director General of Insolvency of any land, share or interest registered in his name, and any such land, share or interest shall continue vested in him until the registration of a transfer thereof, or of any vesting order made with respect thereto by the Court. [29] In this regard, this Court is of the view that the Applicant should also observe section 350 of the National Land Code, when making this application. CONCLUSION [30] As such, the Application is allowed with cost. - SGD – (Y.A DR. SUZANA BINTI MUHAMAD SAID) Judicial Commissioner of the High Court Kuala Lumpur High Court (NCVC1) S/N oPfxP8smlE8gH0E3p1Ztg Dated : 17 APRIL 2025 COUNSELS PLAINTIFF Tetuan Jennifer Thomas & Co. Peguambela & Peguamcara No. F-7-2, Block F, Sri Manja Court Taman Sri Manja 46000 Petaling Jaya RESPONDENT Pegawai Insolvensi b/p Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia Cawangan Wilayah Persekutuan Tingkat 22, 23, 24 & 25 Menara TH Perdana 1001, Jalan Sultan Ismail 50250 Kuala Lumpur S/N oPfxP8smlE8gH0E3p1Ztg