With several parts of its original claim now restored, a five-year-old case where Precision Woodworking Limited is challenging its placement into receivership by Republic Bank (Guyana) Limited is finally set for trial in October before Justice Navindra Singh.
Justice Singh on Monday restored stricken parts of the original claim filed in September, 2012 following an application on March 20, 2017 by the plaintiffs: Precision Woodworking Ltd, Ronald Bulkan and Rustum Bulkan.
The number one defendant is Kashir Khan in his capacity as the receiver for Precision Woodworking while the number two defendant is Republic Bank (Guyana) Limited.
The case had originally been before Justice Rishi Persaud and he has since recused himself. The matter is now being heard by Justice Singh.
Justice Persaud had made an order in March of 2015, for a number of reliefs sought by the plaintiffs to be struck out.
In the respective paragraphs, the plaintiffs sought, among other things, a declaration that the appointment of the first-named defendant as receiver for Precision Woodworking Limited was unlawful, null, void and ultra vires to the Companies Act 1991.
Another paragraph sought an order restraining Republic Bank from appointing any person to act as a receiver and or receiver/manager in respect of the property of the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs subsequently applied to the court to have the struck-out claims restored. Republic Bank, had opposed this.
To the plaintiff’s summons, Justice Singh ruled on Monday in favour of Precision Woodworking, for the restoration of those paragraphs.
In his written ruling, Justice Singh said it was unfortunate that there was no written decision disclosing the reason/s why certain claims would have been struck out or even whether the claims that were identified to be struck out were not legally sustainable in this action for some reason.
The judge said further, that there was no application in the record of the Court by any of the parties prior to the ruling, praying for such order/s; but noted that, in accordance with Section 24 of the High Court Act: CAP 3:02 there need not be an application, since “the Court can manage the case in such manner as it deems fit.”
Section 24 states, “subject to the provisions of any written law, the Court may, in any cause or matter make any order as to the procedure to be followed or otherwise which the court considers necessary for doing justice in the cause or matter, whether that order has been expressly asked for by the party entitled to the benefit thereof or not.”
Notwithstanding this provision, however, Justice Singh noted in his ruling, “that in order to ensure that the case is dealt with justly, that being the overriding objective of any Court, that all parties should be invited to make whatever applications they think fit and proper, especially with a view to ensuring that all issues between the parties with respect to the cause/s of action in this case are fully ventilated and completely and finally determined in keeping with the spirit and mandate of Section 25 of the High Court Act: CAP 3:02.
Section 25 of the High Court Act: CAP 3:02 provides, “the Court shall, in every cause or matter pending before it, have power to grant, and shall grant, either absolutely or on such reasonable terms and conditions as the Court may think just, all the remedies or relief whatsoever to which any of the parties appear to be entitled in respect of any and every claim properly brought forward by him or them respectively in the cause or matter; so that, as far as possible, all matters so in controversy between those parties respectively may be completely and finally determined, and all multiplicity of proceedings concerning any of those matters avoided.”
Justice Singh noted that owing to a discrepancy as to the claims the parties believe were struck out and Justice Persaud’s minute book and the court’s flysheet, compounded by the fact that an order of Court pertaining to this ruling has never been entered, the plaintiffs made the application for restoration.
Justice Singh said that considering all these factors, and the duty of the court to ensure that all matters in controversy between the parties are completely and finally determined, “it is ordered that all the claims enumerated in the plaintiff’s statement of claim are hereby restored.
The defendants, through their attorneys, have since signaled their intention to appeal Justice Singh’s ruling before the Full Court of the High Court.
The trial of the substantive case is set to commence before Justice Singh on October 16.
The plaintiffs are represented by attorney Nigel Hughes. The defendants, meanwhile, are being represented by attorneys Senior Counsel Robin Stoby and Tariq Khan.
Claim
In its statement of claim from 2012, Precision Woodworking said that it was invited to, and attended a meeting convened by the Bank on June 30, 2011.
According to Precision, prior to the meeting it had borrowed from the Bank and had repaid principal in full of about $513,000,000 and had paid interest in excess of $327,000,000 and was always considered by the bank as an “excellent customer.”
At the date of that meeting, the plaintiff claimed that it was not in arrears.
At that said meeting, the plaintiff said its indebtedness was principal $406,553,074 and interest $10,613,224.
In a bid to extinguish part of this debt, it had entered an agreement of sale with Torginol Paints Incorporated for lots 21 and 32 of the property in transport No. 490/2008 for the sum of $230 000.
Precision said that before the meeting, its directors had informed the Bank of their efforts to find a purchaser for part of that property, to which the bank had no objections.
Precision, in its statement of claim, said that it thereafter accepted $30,000,000 from Torginol Paints as a deposit on the aforementioned sale which was then handed over to, and encashed by the bank.
According to Precision, it was only after the said cheque was handed over, the first-named defendant, Khan was introduced to its directors by the bank, as having been appointed receiver of the company under the existing debentures.
In its statement of claim, Precision advanced as unlawful, among other things, the bank’s appointment of Khan as receiver of the woodworking limited.
The plaintiff has also argued that the receiver failed to act in good faith in dealing with its property “in a commercially reasonably manner;” adding that its assets were unlawfully disposed of.
Precision says it has suffered loss and damage as a result of the actions of the defendants.
It has also claimed that the bank, breached the provisions of the Financial Institutions Act by attributing interest to the plaintiff company’s outstanding indebtedness, when they were not permitted to do so.
It is seeking damages for a series of alleged transgressions by the bank and an injunction restraining the defendants from selling or encumbering the plaintiffs’ property, among other things.
