Case for the winding-up of Touchwood Investments PLC was taken up in the Commercial High Court of Colombo on Friday to support a motion filed on behalf of seven investors who have invested in the plantation schemes promoted by the company being wound-up.
The motion dated 11 December 2014 was filed by JAT Holding Ltd. and six other individuals claiming ownership of their plots of land under the contract entered into by the said individuals with the company being wound-up.
A motion dated 2 February was filed by the Official Liquidator appointed by Court in the winding-up proceedings raising a preliminary objection and several other objections to the application made by the seven parties by way of a motion.
The case was taken up on Friday to support the said motions and to record the submissions of the parties in the case.
Court after hearing the brief submissions made by the Counsel for the Liquidator Dammika Gabadage, Counsel for the seven parties who have filed the afore mentioned motion, Kuwera de Soyza President’s Counsel, and Counsel for the Petitioner Avindra Rodrigo, allowed the Counsel for the Liquidator to record his submissions objecting to the application filed by the seven parties.
Counsel for the Liquidator elaborated on the basis on which a preliminary objection was raised against the motion and application made by the said parties. The Preliminary objection was raised on a strict legal issue pertaining to the procedure that must be adhered to in winding-up proceedings. Counsel further submitted that the seven parties who have made this application to Court have no locus standii to make such applications as they are not party to this action.
Counsel further reiterated that in the event they intended to make such an application to Court they ought to have complied with the Winding-up rules, more specifically Rule 13, which stipulates the procedure to be followed by all parties who wish to make their applications in Court in winding-up proceedings. Counsel further stated that the said parties do not qualify even under Rule 116 of the Winding-up Rules to make this application.
He also stated that the seven parties who have made an application at this juncture have not complied with mandatory rule of serving notice on the Petitioner and Court during the stipulated time period. In the event of such failure, the parties cannot appear and make application in Court at this juncture unless they are shareholder, creditors or directors of the Company. Counsel further stated that all parties who intended to intervene in the winding-up proceedings and make their applications had ample time to serve notice on the Petitioner and intervene on this matter. However, the seven parties in concern have failed to do so.
In response to a question raised by Court Counsel further submitted that the Commercial High Court has no jurisdiction to inquire into the matter or make an order in relation to the ownership of land. Counsel further submitted that if the parties wished to claim ownership to the plots of land, such action ought to have been filed in the relevant Court having jurisdiction to hear such matters in pursuance of declaration of title or ownership.
Counsel for the liquidator took up the position that no party who has failed to give notice to the Petitioner and Court can be allowed to intervene or make application in winding-up proceedings subsequent to the winding-up order being granted.
Counsel for the Petitioner, Avindra Rodrigo objected to the said motion filed by the said parties and further stated that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear or determine such application. Counsel further stated that notice of this application should have been filed on the Petitioner and raised his objections to the procedure followed by the parties who have filed a motion.
Counsel for the seven parties, Kuwera de Soyza, President’s Counsel admitted that the seven parties who are making this application are not party to this action and have no interest in the winding up proceedings and that the application has been made only to seek an order from Court pertaining to their interest in the plots of land.
The inquiry will be resumed on 25 February on which date Counsel for the Petitioner and the seven parties who have made an application to Court will make their submissions.
www.ft.lk
The motion dated 11 December 2014 was filed by JAT Holding Ltd. and six other individuals claiming ownership of their plots of land under the contract entered into by the said individuals with the company being wound-up.
A motion dated 2 February was filed by the Official Liquidator appointed by Court in the winding-up proceedings raising a preliminary objection and several other objections to the application made by the seven parties by way of a motion.
The case was taken up on Friday to support the said motions and to record the submissions of the parties in the case.
Court after hearing the brief submissions made by the Counsel for the Liquidator Dammika Gabadage, Counsel for the seven parties who have filed the afore mentioned motion, Kuwera de Soyza President’s Counsel, and Counsel for the Petitioner Avindra Rodrigo, allowed the Counsel for the Liquidator to record his submissions objecting to the application filed by the seven parties.
Counsel for the Liquidator elaborated on the basis on which a preliminary objection was raised against the motion and application made by the said parties. The Preliminary objection was raised on a strict legal issue pertaining to the procedure that must be adhered to in winding-up proceedings. Counsel further submitted that the seven parties who have made this application to Court have no locus standii to make such applications as they are not party to this action.
Counsel further reiterated that in the event they intended to make such an application to Court they ought to have complied with the Winding-up rules, more specifically Rule 13, which stipulates the procedure to be followed by all parties who wish to make their applications in Court in winding-up proceedings. Counsel further stated that the said parties do not qualify even under Rule 116 of the Winding-up Rules to make this application.
He also stated that the seven parties who have made an application at this juncture have not complied with mandatory rule of serving notice on the Petitioner and Court during the stipulated time period. In the event of such failure, the parties cannot appear and make application in Court at this juncture unless they are shareholder, creditors or directors of the Company. Counsel further stated that all parties who intended to intervene in the winding-up proceedings and make their applications had ample time to serve notice on the Petitioner and intervene on this matter. However, the seven parties in concern have failed to do so.
In response to a question raised by Court Counsel further submitted that the Commercial High Court has no jurisdiction to inquire into the matter or make an order in relation to the ownership of land. Counsel further submitted that if the parties wished to claim ownership to the plots of land, such action ought to have been filed in the relevant Court having jurisdiction to hear such matters in pursuance of declaration of title or ownership.
Counsel for the liquidator took up the position that no party who has failed to give notice to the Petitioner and Court can be allowed to intervene or make application in winding-up proceedings subsequent to the winding-up order being granted.
Counsel for the Petitioner, Avindra Rodrigo objected to the said motion filed by the said parties and further stated that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear or determine such application. Counsel further stated that notice of this application should have been filed on the Petitioner and raised his objections to the procedure followed by the parties who have filed a motion.
Counsel for the seven parties, Kuwera de Soyza, President’s Counsel admitted that the seven parties who are making this application are not party to this action and have no interest in the winding up proceedings and that the application has been made only to seek an order from Court pertaining to their interest in the plots of land.
The inquiry will be resumed on 25 February on which date Counsel for the Petitioner and the seven parties who have made an application to Court will make their submissions.
www.ft.lk
No comments:
Post a Comment