Tutorial 5

1. Mr Pandai who resides and runs a business of music school in Petaling Jaya was
served with a bankruptcy notice on 14 August 2020 for the amount of RM120,000 by Piano
& Guitar Sdn Bhd. Mr Pandai did not pay the amount claimed in the bankruptcy notice. Since
Mr Pandai did not make any payment towards the sum claimed in the bankruptcy notice
Piano & Guitar Sdn Bhd presented a Creditors Petition dated 30 March 2020 against Mr
Pandai. The Creditor’s Petition was signed by Piano & Guitar Sdn Bhd’s authorised officer
and was attested to by Mr Lawyer, a solicitor practicing in Kuching, Sarawak. Mr Lawyer
also affirmed the affidavit verifying the creditor’s petition on 27 March 2020.

Mr Pandai comes to see you for advice regarding the Creditor’s Petition. Advice Mr Pandai.

Whether the CP is valid

Whether Piano& Guitar Sdn Bhd officer may sign and authorized CP
 R.98(1) IR stated that every petition must be dated, signed and witnessed.

It means, the bankruptcy petition must be signed by the creditor or the debtor
themselves.

 s. 133(a) IA : For all purposes of the Insolvency Act, a corporation may act by any
of its officers authorized in that behalf under the seal of the corporation.

 rule 215 IR
(1) Where a corporation presents a petition or acts under this Act, the officer of the
corporation may act in his own name, stating that he is such officer authorised under
seal but a petition may be presented by the corporation and signed by the officer on its
behalf.
(2) Any person chosen by the corporation to act for its as agent can act for the corporation
if authorised under a seal.

 Case: Re See Joon Siong Ex-parte Mayban Securities Sdn Bhd [2009]
Held: It was decided that the authorization need not always be under seal. What
important is that the office is authorized by the corporation.

Applying in this situation, Piano Sdn Bhd is a corporation, according to s133(a) IA and r215
IR officer may authorized the CP if the petitioner is a corporation. Therefore, there is no issue
of the officer authorizing the CP.

Issue 2: Whether Mr Lawyer, a lawyer practicing in Kuching, Sarawak may attest CP

of the petition in Petaling Jaya
  r. 101 IR1 : a bankruptcy petition shall be attested and can only be attested by a
qualified person. .

R101: Attestation
(1) Every bankruptcy petition shall be attested.
(2) If the attestation is-
(a) attested in Malaysia, the witness must be a solicitor, Federal Counsel,
Magistrate, Director General of Insolvency or Registrar; or
(b) attested outside Malaysia, the witness must be a Judge, Magistrate, Consul,
Vice-Consul or a Notary Public.

Ooi Thean Chuan v Banque Nationale de Paris [1992] 2 MLJ 526 at page 531I
Fact : The judgment creditor had presented a creditor’s petition against the
judgment debtor. The debtor objected against the petition, inter alia, because
the petition attested by a Singaporean lawyer in Singapore, who was not a
qualified attesting witness under r 102 of the Bankruptcy Rules (now r 101).
Held : The CP was dismissed as the attesting witness (the Singaporean lawyer) is
not a qualified person within the meaning of r 102 (now r 101) of IR.

Lie Kok Keong v Tang Container and Services Sdn Bhd [2004] 1 MLJ 373 [CoA]
Held : The Bankruptcy Act interprets the word “advocate/solicitor” to mean 'any
person entitled to practise as an advocate/ solicitor under any law in any part
of Malaysia'. However, since lawyers practicing in west Malaysia cannot
practice in East Malaysia, lawyers in west Malaysia can only attest petitions in
west Malaysia. This is because, to hold otherwise, would mean that a lawyer
in west Malaysia would automatically be practising in East Malaysia by
attesting a petition in East Malaysia. (So, conversely, lawyers in East Malaysia
can’t attest a petition in West Malaysia)

Application: According to rule 101 Mr Lawyer may attest the CP. However, applying the
case of Lie Kok Keong v Tang Container and Services Sdn Bhd practicing lawyer in East
Malaysia cannot attest a petition in west Malaysia. In the current situation, Mr Lawyer is a
practicing lawyer in Kuching Sarawak while the BN is served on Mr Pandai in Petaling Jaya
in West Malaysia. Therefore, the CP can be challenge by Mr Pandai as it is not attested by a
qualified person.

Issue:3 Whether the affidavit may be verified by Mr Lawyer

1
101: Attestation
(1) Every bankruptcy petition shall be attested.
(2) If the attestation-
(a) attested in Malaysia, the witness must be a solicitor, Federal Counsel, Magistrate, Director General
of Insolvency or Registrar; or
(b) attested outside Malaysia, the witness must be a Judge, Magistrate, Consul, Vice-Consul or a
Notary Public.
  The CP shall be supported by an affidavit to verify the statements in the petition.
These CP can either be verified by the JC himself or someone who can testify the
statements in the CP.
 s.6(1) IA2 : A creditor’s petition shall be verified by affidavit of the creditor or of
some person on his behalf having knowledge of the facts, and shall be served
personally to a debtor.
 r.105 IR3
(1) A creditor’s petition shall be verified by affidavit.
(2) A petitioning creditor who cannot himself verify all the statements contained
in his petition shall file an affidavit made by some person who can depose to
them.
 Therefore a petition shall be verified by the creditor himself .
 Where the petitioner is a corporation, it is to be executed/ affirmed by an
authorized person by the corporation under the company’s seal. (as requested by
s.133(a) IA and rule 215 IR)

Application: Applying in the current situation, Mr Lawyer was the one who verified the
affidavit. This should not be allowed. Only Mr Pandai or his officer may verify the affidavit

 When should the affidavit be affirmed?

In Re Mohd Sharif bin Sapie, ex p Malayan Banking Bhd where the court held that the
petition was not invalid simply because the verifying affidavit was affirmed before the petition
was presented. It was a formal defect or an irregularity which can be cured by s.131
Bankruptcy Act 1967. There is no time frame prescribed in the Bankruptcy Act 1967 or
Bankruptcy Rules 1969 for the swearing and filing of the affidavit verifying the bankruptcy
petition

Applying in the current situation, although Mr Lawyer affirm the affidavit on 27 March 2021
which is before the CP was resented, there is no issue as the case of re mohd sharif allow it to
ve done. However, since Mr Lawyer is not a lawyer practicing in west Malaysia, the affidavit
should be deem invalid.

 There are two procedure to set aside a CP. It depends on whether you are:

1. Rule 116 IR: Objecting against the statement in the CP; or

2
6: Proceedings and order on creditor’s petition
(1) A creditor’s petition shall be verified by affidavit of the creditor or of some person on his behalf
having knowledge of the facts, and shall be served personally to a debtor.

3
105: Verification
(1) A creditor’s petition shall be verified by affidavit.
(2) A petitioning creditor who cannot himself verify all the statements contained in his petition shall file
an affidavit made by some person who can depose to them.
 2. Rule 17 IR: Applying to set aside the CP on other ground.
 The application must be made by Summon in Chambers supported
by affidavit.

 Case: Dato’ Sri Teong Teck Leng v Jupiter Securities Sdn Bhd [2004]


If the JD only wishes to show cause against the petition, he only
needs to file a notice in Form 16 (Form 45 IR) under r.117 (r.116
IR) specifying the statements in the petition that he intends to deny
or dispute.
 However, if the debtor wants to apply to set aside the petition
on other grounds, for example, for non-compliance with the rules
regarding the petition, only then a Summons in Chambers must
be filed. This is because such grounds arise separately from the
statements in the petition and therefore cannot be specified in the
notice.
 Application: Therefore, in order to set aside the CP, Mr. Pandai must file SIC.#

2. Mr. Pelupa was served with a creditor’s petition by Coldplay Bank Berhad pursuant to
his non-compliance of a bankruptcy notice served on him by the bank. The creditor’s petition
was fixed for hearing on 30/4/2020 before the High Court of Malaya in Shah Alam. Mr
Pelupa informs you that he has only recently gone to the bank to negotiate a settlement on the
amount claimed and would like to request an adjournment on 30/4/2020.

Referring to provisions of the law and decided cases advise Mr Pelupa on the possibility of
his success in obtaining an adjournment for the hearing on 30/4/2020.

 Adjournment is governed by section 93(2) IA and Rule 126 IR

s.93 (2) IA : The court may at any time adjourn any proceedings upon such
terms, if any, as it thinks fit to impose

rule 126 IR : After one month from the first hearing of a petition (provided such
petition shall have been served) no adjournment is allowed merely by
consent of parties unless the debtor has given prior notice that he
intends to show cause against the petition.
Re Dato Mohamed Pilus bin Yusoh Ex Parte Southern Bank Bhd [1988] 1 MLJ 536
Fact : The CP was served on the debtor on July 11, 1986. It came up for hearing on
October 13, 1986 where an adjournment was granted on the basis that the
debtor had entered into some scheme of arrangement. The hearing of the
petition was further adjourned for another 2 times. At the fourth hearing, the
debtor’s counsel submitted a medical certificate in respect of the debtor’s
 illness as a ground of adjournment. The request was rejected, and a bankruptcy
order was made against the debtor.
Held :Adjournment of bankruptcy petition is governed by r.127 of the Bankruptcy
Rules 1969 (now r.126 IR). However, the court still has the discretion for any
sufficient cause or reasonable ground to order a postponement (for example
where there is a genuine offer to settle the amount claimed – see page 538 of
the judgment).
: In this circumstance, the court felt that the refusal of adjournment of the 4 th
hearing will not cause injustice to the debtor as the debtor was not giving oral
evidence and the debtor was represented throughout the proceedings.

OCBC Bank (M) Bhd v Sethu a/l Ambalagara Thevar [1998] 3 MLJ 769
Fact : The petitioning creditor took out a bankruptcy notice and served it on the
judgment debtor in 1993. In that bankruptcy notice, it was stated that the
judgment debtor owed the petitioning creditor the sum of RM55,211.37. When
the petition finally came up for hearing before the senior assistant registrar two
years later, the judgment debtor tendered two banker’s drafts for the total sum
of RM55,211.37.

The petitioning creditor refused to accept the banker’s drafts stating that at the
time when the banker’s drafts were tendered, the amount of the debt due under
the bankruptcy notice had beeninflated due to the non-payment of interest. The
senior assistant registrar dismissed the petition on the ground that the
judgment debtor was solvent. The petitioning creditor appealed.4
Held : (by obiter)
: After the bankruptcy notice had been served on the judgment debtor, no
negotiation whatsoever should take place.
: A bankruptcy proceeding is the final resort open to a creditor because all
other avenues to recover the debt had been closed. Hence no negotiation
should take place. Courts below should take note of r127 of the Bankruptcy
Rules 1969. (nor r126)
: It should be adhered to strictly and an adjournment of not exceeding one
month be allowed only once. An adjournment is not really necessary because
the proceedings have reached the last and final stage. If a judgment debtor is
unable to pay the amount stated in the bankruptcy notice, he should be made a
bankrupt without further ado.
: Thus in the present appeal, when the judgment debtor tendered the two bank
drafts for the full amount in the bankruptcy notice, he had done the obligations
imposed upon him by the bankruptcy notice and the Bankruptcy Act.
: As such, he had tendered the full amount due from him under the bankruptcy
notice which showed that he was solvent. He should not be made a bankrupt
and it did not matter whether the petitioning creditor refused to accept the
bank drafts or not.

Re Tan Eng Niang; ex p Ng Choo Kwan & Sons Hardware Sdn Bhd [2003] 4 MLJ 679
4
On appeal to the High Court, the judge also found that the judgment debtor was solvent and stated that
there were evidence to show that the judgment debtor owned assets more than the amount stated in the
bankruptcy notice.
 Fact : This was an appeal by the judgment debtor ('JD') against the order of the
registrar who refused to grant an adjournment of the hearing of the judgment
creditor’s ('JC') petition against the JD. On 22 August 2002, the JC"s petition
against the JD was to be heard.
On 19 August 2002, ie, three days before the hearing, the JD"s solicitor
wrote a letter to the learned registrar asking for an adjournment of the said
hearing. That application for adjournment was granted by the learned registrar
who re-fixed the hearing for 21 November 2002.
On 19 November 2002, the JD filed an application to set aside the judgment in
default obtained by the JC against him. On the same day, ie, two days before
the hearing of the creditor’s petition, the JD's solicitor wrote to the learned
registrar asking for a second adjournment which was refused.
Held :Despite the strict requirement of r 127 of the Bankruptcy Rules 1969, if the
JD is able to show sufficient cause or reasonable ground, there is still a
discretion conferred upon the court to exercise on whether to grant or refuse
an adjournment.
: The facts in the instant appeal revealed that when the first adjournment was
granted by the learned registrar on 22 August 2002 and re-fixed to 21
November 2002, no step was ever taken by the JD to apply to set aside the
default judgment until 19 November 2002, ie two days before the adjourned
hearing. This is far from being a sufficient cause or reasonable ground to be
considered in exercising the discretion to grant an adjournment under r 127.

Application:
 In this present case, the High Court has the power to adjourn any proceedings if
there is a sufficient cause or reasonable ground.
 Based on Re Dato Mohammed Pilus, Mr Pelupa may have a sufficient ground to
request an adjournment for 30/4/2020 hearing as he has gone to the bank to
negotiate a settlement on the amount claimed.
 However, under Rule 126, once the court has given the adjournment, after expiry
of 1 month of that adjournment on 30/4/2020, the court will no longer allow further
adjournment.
 If Mr Pelupa still does not pay the amount due after the adjournment, then CP
shall make a bankruptcy order.

3. On 17.4.2006, Top Bank obtained judgment against Alice in KL High Court for
RM500,000.00 together with interest and costs. On 2.5.2006, Top Bank served a bankruptcy
Notice on Alice and she ignored it. On 2.6.2006, Top Bank filed and served a Creditors
Petition on Alice together with an affidavit verifying the petition on Alice. The Creditors
Petition was attested by a Solicitor from Kuching, Sarawak. Alice intends to oppose the
Petition, advise Alice.
Main Issue: Whether Alice has the ground and can object the CP?

Whether the amount of the debt was according to the IA?

 S.5(1)(a) IA: A creditor shall not be entitled to present bankruptcy petition against
a debtor unless; the debt owing to the petitioning creditor amounts to RM50k or
more and;
 S.5(1)(b) IA: the debt is liquidated sum.
 Application:
o Since the Top Bank obtained judgment against Alice in KL High Court for
RM500,000.00 together with interest and costs.
o We can say that the debt amount is definitely more than RM50k, and the
new rules under the COVID-19which is RM100k.
o And, the debt is a liquidated sum because the RM500k is already including
the interest and costs.
o Hence, the amount of the debt is according to the IA.

Whether the CP had been filed and served within the right time?
 S.5(1)(c) IA: The act of bankruptcy on which the petition is based on has occurred
within 6 months before the presentation of the petition.
o It means the creditor’s petition must be presented within 6 months after the act
of bankruptcy.
 S.3(1)(i) IA: The last time period to comply a BN is within 7 days after the service of
BN.
 Case: Kewangan Utama Bhd v Muhibah Hj Ali [2008]
o The creditor’s petition must be presented before the expiry of 6 months from
the date of bankruptcy. Otherwise, it would run out of time.
 Application:
o Assuming that the BN was served before 3.00PM on 2 May 2006 (Tuesday).
o The period comply the BN is 7 days from 2 May 2006. These 7 days start
from 3 May 2006 (Wednesday) until 9 May 2006 (Tuesday). So, the last date
for Alice to comply is on 9 May 2006 (Tuesday).
o Next, as stated in S.5(1)(c), the 6 months periods to file the CP is from 10 May
2006 until 9 November 2006.
o Therefore, the CP which was filed and served on 2 June 2006 is within the 6
months as stated in S.5(1)(c).
o Conclusion: The CP has been filed and served within the right time.

Whether a solicitor who is practicing in Kuching, Sarawak have the authorization to

attest the petition?

 Attestation can only be attested by a qualified person, if not it is defective.

 o R. 101 (1) IR: A bankruptcy petition shall be attested.
o R. 101 (2) (a) IR: If the attestation is attested in Malaysia, the witness must be
a solicitor, Federal Counsel, Magistrate, Director General of Insolvency or
Registrar.

 But lawyers who are practicing in Peninsular Malaysia are not authorized to attest to a
petition in Sabah & Sarawak and vice versa.
o Case: Lie Kok Keong v Tang Container and Services Sdn Bhd [2004]
 The Bankruptcy Act interprets the word “advocate/solicitor” to mean
'any person entitled to practise as an advocate/ solicitor under any law
in any part of Malaysia'.
 However, since lawyers practicing in west Malaysia cannot practice in
East Malaysia, lawyers in west Malaysia can only attest petitions in
west Malaysia.
 Application:
o Assuming that the petition was filed in KL HC due to the fact that Top Bank
obtained judgment against Alice in KL High Court
o Hence, the solicitor for Top bank can attest the petition as stated by R.101(2)
(a) IR.
o But, referring to the Lie Kok Keong v Tang Container and Services Sdn Bhd
case, a solicitor who is practicing in Kuching, Sarawak cannot practice in
West Malaysia, because lawyers in East Malaysia can only attest petitions in
East Malaysia.
o Conclusion: Therefore, the lawyer did not have the authorization to attest a
petition in Selangor (West Malaysia). Hence the CP can be dismissed.

o The CP and the verifying affidavit were defective due to the reason that 1) the person who
attest the Petition is not a person who have the authorization.

o Therefore, Alice can proceed to object the Petition.

 There are two procedure to set aside a CP. It depends on whether you are:

3. Rule 116 IR: Objecting against the statement in the CP; or

4. Rule 17 IR: Applying to set aside the CP on other ground.

 The application must be made by Summon in Chambers supported
by affidavit.

 Case: Dato’ Sri Teong Teck Leng v Jupiter Securities Sdn Bhd [2004]
  If the JD only wishes to show cause against the petition, he only
needs to file a notice in Form 16 (Form 45 IR) under r.117 (r.116
IR) specifying the statements in the petition that he intends to deny
or dispute.
 However, if the debtor wants to apply to set aside the petition
on other grounds, for example, for non-compliance with the rules
regarding the petition, only then a Summons in Chambers must
be filed. This is because such grounds arise separately from the
statements in the petition and therefore cannot be specified in the
notice.

 Application: In this situation since the ground to set aside the CP is due to
defective affidavit, only a SIC needs to be file as in the case of Dato Sri Teong
Teck Leng.

4. A creditor’s petition was served on Mr Hutang by Kadoline Bank Berhad. Mr Hutang

wishes to oppose the creditor’s petition because he was of the view that the bankruptcy notice
was invalid as the creditor had miscalculated the amount claim. The amount claimed is
actually RM45,000 instead of RM55,000. According to him, he has in his safekeeping
documents which showed several payments which were made by him to the creditor.
However, these payments were not taken into consideration by the creditor in calculating the
amount claimed by the creditor.

Advise Mr Hutang on the following:

(i) whether he can show cause the creditor’s petition?

S5: Conditions on which creditor may petition
(1) A creditor shall not be entitled to present a bankruptcy petition against a debtor unless
—
(a) the debt owing by the debtor to the petitioning creditor, or if two or more creditors
join in the petition the aggregate amount of debts owing to the several petitioning
creditors, amounts to RM 50k.

 Under S5(1)(a), if before the hearing of the petition, the aggregated amount of debt is
below RM50k, no bankruptcy order can be made.
 
However, before the hearing of the petition, even if the debt been substantially
reduced (ie the debtor paid some of it), the court can still make a bankruptcy order
unless the judgment debt is less than the statutory minimum amount (RM50k).
Moscow Narodny Bank Ltd v Ngan Ching Wen [2005] 3 MLJ 693 (FC)
Fact : One of the issues was on the calculation interest and the other one is payments
made by the debtor. The amount was reduced before hearing but it was still
above RM 50,000.
Held : The CP was still valid.
Notice re anurachalam-no prescribe form on the notice
Case datuk lim keng kim – give particulars of the amount that is actually due

Application: In this situation, Mr Hutang was serve a CP amounting to RM55,000. Mr

Hutang claims that the amount that he owes is RM45,000. If Mr Hutang can prove that he has
kept the documentwhich showed several payments that were made by him to the creditor he
may be able to show cause.

(ii) what are the procedures to show cause the creditor’s petition?

r.116IR : If a debtor wants to challenge a CP, 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 a copy of the notice to the petitioning creditor and his solicitor (if
known) 3 days before the hearing of petition by post or otherwise

Development & Commercial Bank Bhd v Datuk Ong Kian Seng [1995] 2 MLJ 724
Fact : The JC filed a CP against the JD and the debtor filed an affidavit opposing the
petition.
: At the hearing of the CP, the JC raised a preliminary objection:
The JD’s affidavit was not a proper notice to oppose the petition under r.117
Bankruptcy Rules 1969 (now r.116 IR).
 The JD was required to file a notice in Form 16 (now Form 45 IR) specifying the
statements in the petition which he disputed.
Held : The debtor’s affidavit in opposition cannot be substituted as a notice to show cause
against the petition. R.117 (now r.116 IR) clearly provides that if a debtor intends to show
cause against the petition, he shall file a notice in Form 16 (now Form 45 IR).
: This is a breach of a mandatory rule. S.131 of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 and r.274 of the
Rules. This mistake cannot be corrected by section 131.

Application: In order for Mr Hutang to challenge a CP, he will need to file a notice in form
45 with registrar specifying the amount of RM55,000 which he inted to deny and submit the
copy of the notice to Kadoline Bank Berhad and their solicitor if known 3 days before
hearing of the petition by post or others.
(iii) The proceedings of the petition’s hearing. You were informed by Mr Hutang that the
creditor has stated to him that it will not be attending the hearing.
113ia
6(2)IA
6(5) IA
R121
 Normally, the petitioner doesn’t have to be present and the presence of his counsel
is sufficient.
 However, where the petitioner is acting in person or when there is serious
challenge to the existence of the act of bankruptcy (such as when the JD alleged
that the debt is below RM 50k), the petitioner must be present at the hearing of the
petition.

Affin Bank Bhd v Tan Sri Kishu Tirathrai

Fact : The JC commenced bankruptcy proceedings against the JD. The issue was
whether the JC had complied with s.6(2)(a) IA, that is, whether the creditor
has proven his debt. The JD contented that
- the JC must prove his debt at the hearing of the CP.
- the JC cannot just use the affidavit verifying the CP to prove the debt.
- the JC should personally present in the Court for cross-examination to
prove the debt.
The JC argued that the summary judgment obtained is prima facie prove of
the debt owed by the JD.
Held : The JD had not provided any evidence that the value of the debt has fallen
below the statutory requirement or any other challenge on the CP. Thus, the
affidavit verifying the petition was not challenged. As such, the personal
attendance of the petitioner was not required and the attendance of the JC’s
counsel is sufficient.
: Although the word ‘shall’ appear in s.6(2), it was not mandatory for the
petitioning creditor to prove the debt again through cross examination at the
hearing of the petition, especially when the affidavit verifying the petition
was never challenged.

Principle: This petitioner of the CP does not have to attend the hearing if the
verifying petition was never challenged but if the debt has fallen below the
statutory requirement, the petitioner must be present as the creditor’s petition is
seriously challenged)
  When the Petitioner is required to attend but he did not, he can’t sue the JD again
for the same debt as provided by r 119. However, if he wishes to do so, he has two
options:

i. Obtain the leave from the court and file a fresh proceeding under r 119
Insolvency Rules
ii. Reinstate the hearing under S92 Insolvency Act

Rule 119 IR: Non-appearance of creditor

Where the presence of the petitioner is required but he is absent at the
hearing, the petition may be dismissed. No subsequent petition against
the same debtor by the same petitioner in respect of the same act of
bankruptcy can be presented without the leave of court.

Section 92(1) of the IA

The court may review, rescind or vary any order made by it under its
bankruptcy jurisdiction.

BBMB Factoring Berhad v Mariam Sasiman

Held :The words ‘any order’ in s. 92(1) of the Act applies to any order made by a
bankruptcy court including an order dismissing or striking out a CP.
: A creditor whose petition has been dismissed or struck out on the grounds of
his absence has two courses open to him:
i. He may apply under s.92(1) of the Act to have his petition reinstate
for hearing.
ii. If he fails in his application or does not wish to have his former
petition reinstated, he may file a fresh petition against the debtor.
However, if the petition relies upon the same act of bankruptcy, he
must obtain leave of court before presenting the new petition.

Application: According to section 5(1) , the Kadoline Bank will be required to attend the
hearing since the debt falls below the statutory minimum, if they do not attend, they may not
sue Mr Hutang for the same debt as in r119. However, the bank has two options if they want
to take legal action against Mr Hutang, which are obtaining the leave from the court and file a
fresh proceeding under r 119 Insolvency Rules or the bank can ask for reinstatement of the
hearing under S92 Insolvency Act