Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    Tutorial 5, Q2 (Slides)

    Uploaded by

    Marvin Goshan
    The document discusses the viability of ABC Bank's objection to the DGI's application to discharge a bankrupt, Muthu. It analyzes whether the DGI was correct to object to ABC Bank's objection on four grounds: that the case had been administered for 16 years, the bankrupt could not be located, the bankrupt had no known assets, and no dividends could be declared. The document concludes that the DGI was wrong to object to ABC Bank on all four grounds.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tutorial 5, Q2 (Slides)

    Uploaded by

    Marvin Goshan
    6 views4 pages
    The document discusses the viability of ABC Bank's objection to the DGI's application to discharge a bankrupt, Muthu. It analyzes whether the DGI was correct to object to ABC Bank's objection on four grounds: that the case had been administered for 16 years, the bankrupt could not be located, the bankrupt had no known assets, and no dividends could be declared. The document concludes that the DGI was wrong to object to ABC Bank on all four grounds.

    Original Description:

    tuto

    Original Title

    Tutorial 5,Q2 (slides)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the viability of ABC Bank's objection to the DGI's application to discharge a bankrupt, Muthu. It analyzes whether the DGI was correct to object to ABC Bank's objection on four grounds: that the case had been administered for 16 years, the bankrupt could not be located, the bankrupt had no known assets, and no dividends could be declared. The document concludes that the DGI was wrong to object to ABC Bank on all four grounds.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    6 views4 pages

    Tutorial 5, Q2 (Slides)

    Uploaded by

    Marvin Goshan
    The document discusses the viability of ABC Bank's objection to the DGI's application to discharge a bankrupt, Muthu. It analyzes whether the DGI was correct to object to ABC Bank's objection on four grounds: that the case had been administered for 16 years, the bankrupt could not be located, the bankrupt had no known assets, and no dividends could be declared. The document concludes that the DGI was wrong to object to ABC Bank on all four grounds.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 4

    Tutorial 5

    Question 2
    Prepared by ,
    Marvin Raja ( 1161100438 )
    Muthu was adjudged a bankrupt by the High Court, following a creditor's petition filed by ABC Bank Bhd. The 'DGI then, wrote to
    the bankrupt at his last known address, but there was no response, and his estate was left unadministered. Subsequently, the DGI
    wrote to various organisations for further information and details the bankrupt. Filing to get any information about the bankrupt, the
    DGI issued a notice of intention to issue a certificate of discharge in respect of the bankrupt. ABC Bank Bhd., served its notice of
    objection. The DGI rejected the ABC Bank Bhd's notice of objection on the grounds that

    (i) the case had been administered for 16 years;

    (ii) the bankrupt could not be located;

    (iii) the bankrupt had no known assets to be distributed to the creditors;

    and (iv) no dividends could be declared to the creditors. ABC Bank Bhd. filed its notice of application to the SAR to prohibit the DGI
    from issuing a certificate of discharge to the bankrupt under s. 33B(4) IA1967 .

    Discuss the viability of ABC Bank’s objection to the DGI’s application to discharge the bankrupt.
    (i) Whether DGI was correct in objecting to ABC Bank’s objection to the DGI’s application to discharge the bankrupt on
    ground that the case had been administered for 16 years?

    Applying S33A (1), DGI has the discretion but not absolute to issue a certificate of discharge a bankrupt, Muthu from
    bankruptcy as it was subjected to S33(B) of IA. Pursuant to the case mentioned, DGI does not have absolute discretion to
    issue certificate of discharge and thus no right to refuse ABC Bank Bhd’s notice of objection. DGI should procure the
    attendance of Muthu and commence the administration of the estate. DGI was wrong in objecting to ABC Bank’s objection to
    the DGI’s application to discharge the bankrupt on ground that the case had been administered for 16 years as DGI had no
    absolute discretion in doing so.

    (ii) Whether DGI was correct in objecting to ABC Bank’s objection to the DGI’s application to discharge the bankrupt on
    ground that the bankrupt could not be located?

    Applying the case mentioned, court required DGI to make use all reasonable endeavours to locate Muthu even-though DGI
    had written to other organisations to enquire for Muthu’s information. It is insufficient due to the fact DGI never enquired
    details from ABC Bank. As a creditor of Muthu, ABC Bank could have details about him. This shows DGI did not make use all
    reasonable endeavours to locate Muthu. Therefore, DGI was wrong in objecting to ABC Bank’s objection to the DGI’s
    application to discharge the bankrupt on ground that the bankrupt could not be located.
    (iii) Whether DGI was correct in objecting to ABC Bank’s objection to the DGI’s application to discharge the
    bankrupt on ground that the bankrupt had no known assets to be distributed to the creditors?

    Re Benny Ong Swee Siang, ex parte United Overseas Bank (M) Bhd (formerly known as United Overseas
    Finance (M) Bhd where DGI should procure the attendance of the bankrupt JD and commence the
    administration of the estate when situation is of an unadministered estate in bankruptcy. Muthu’s estate here
    was left unadministered by the DGI. Applying the case mentioned, as Muthu’s estate was unadministered as
    no administrative task was done like meeting creditors or public examination of debtor undertaken up till this
    date. DGI should not have granted the certificate of discharge to Muthu and allowing him scot-free. But he
    should have should procured the attendance of the bankrupt JD and commence the administration of the
    estate. Therefore, DGI was wrong in objecting to ABC Bank’s objection to the DGI’s application to discharge
    the bankrupt on ground that the bankrupt had no known assets to be distributed to the creditors and the DGI
    should have procured the attendance of the bankrupt JD and commence the administration of the estate.

    (iv) Whether DGI was correct in objecting to ABC Bank’s objection to the DGI’s application to discharge the
    bankrupt on ground that no dividends could be declared to the creditors?

    DGI’s discretion in issuing a certificate of discharge is subjected to S33B of IA and it is to be exercised


    judiciously based on facts of individual case. Here, dividends were not paid to the creditor as the judgement
    debt was not recovered from assets of judgement debtor. Plus, DGI left the estate unadministered and High
    Court allowed appeal. Applying to our case, ABC Bank could challenge DGI’s application to discharge the
    debtor having the ground of DGI leaving estate unadministered which made the dividends unpaid.

    You might also like