Hi sharron,
Yes, you can still apply to stay the AORO after you become bankrupt.
This will prevent you bank accounts from being frozen. ( if you succeed )
The Memorandum of Appeal is where you document down what you think of how the
High Court Judge arrived at the wrong decision or what the Judge did wrong.
This list is very important, because an issue that is not in this list cannot be brought up again at the Court of Appeals.
Here is an example of Memorandum of Appeal which you need to add to your Appeals Record
for Court of Appeal, Putrajaya.
I made it bi-lingual for easier understanding for all parties and judges.
Feel free to change it to suit your case.
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA
(Bidang Kuasa Rayuan)
RAYUAN SIVIL NO : XXXX XXXX XXXXXX
<YOUR NAME> ( IC No ) ......................... Perayu
ABC Bank Berhad ( Company No) .......................... Responden
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI SHAH ALAM
DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA
KEBANKRAPAN : XXX XXXX XXXXX
<Your Name> ( ICNo )......................... Penghutang Penghakiman
ABC Bank Berhad (Company No).......................... Pemiutang Penghakiman
MEMORANDUM RAYUAN
<Your Name> iaitu perayu yang namanya tersebut diatas merayu kepada keseluruhan keputusan Yang Arif Tuan <High Court Judge Name> yang diberikan di Shah Alam pada DD haribulan MM YEAR atas alasan yang berikut.
1. Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi khilaf apabila beliau hanya merujuk kepada kaedah penyampaian yang ada di dalam Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi 1980 tanpa memberi pertimbangan kepada kaedah-kaedah yang lebih khusus yang termaktub di dalam Akta Kebankrapan 1967 dan Kaedah-kaedah Kebankrapan.
(The High Court Judge fell into error when he relied solely on High Court Rules 1980 for service of documents without consideration of more specific requirements stated in Bankruptcy Act and Rules.)
2. Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi khilaf bila beliau gagal mempertimbangkan bahawa Afidavit Peyampaian Notis Kebankrapan yang diikrar oleh kerani pejabat tidak dengan sendirinya (tanpa bukti dokumen yang lain) melebihi afidavit-afidavit perayu yang menafikannya.
(The High Court Judge failed to consider that the Affidavit of Service of Notice of Bankruptcy averred by a legal clerk does not by itself (without other documentary proof) overcome the denial affidavits by the appellant.
3. Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi gagal melihat bahawa pihak pempetisyen (yang menanggung beban bukti ) telah gagal mengemukakan bukti yang mencukupi bahawa Perbuatan Kebankrapan telah berlaku bila dicabar oleh perayu.
(The High Court Judge failed see that the petitioner (who had a burden of proof) had failed to provide a sufficient Standard of Proof that an Act of Bankruptcy has been committed when put to strict proof by the appellant's affidavits.
4. Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi khilaf bila beliau gagal mempertimbangkan bahawa jika adanya keraguan dalam prosiding kebankrapan, pihak yang paling tinggi impeknya (iatu perayu) mestilah diberi kelebihan.
(The High Court Judge fell into error when he failed to consider that when doubt exists in a bankruptcy proceeding, an advantage must be given to the party most affected/impacted which is the appellant)
5. Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi khilaf bila beliau gagal mempertimbangkan bahawa jika rayuan ini tidak dibenarkan, kes ini akan menjadi suatu preceden baru dimana penyampaian gantian tidak lagi diperlukan dan Pemiutang hanya memerlukan affidavit penyampaian sahaja bagi Notis Kebankrapan.
(The High Court Judge failed consider that disallowing this appeal will set a new precedent which will obsolete the requirement for substituted service for all future Notices of Bankruptcy )
Bertarikh pada DD haribulan Month YYYY.
....................................
Perayu
