–has already handed over $16M, returned transformers
Owner of Buddy’s Inter-national Hotel, Omprakash Shivraj was yesterday ordered to pay Guyana Power and Light Incorporated (GPL) just over $35 million owed to the power company for the supply of electricity.
GPL had filed two actions in the Commercial Court in which it sought to have Shivraj pay the just over $59 million which the hotel had utilized in electricity over a period. The cases, heard by Justice Rishi Persaud, were adjourned on April 21, 2009 for final report on settlement yesterday.
Action Number 444/08 – Commercial Division (CD) and Action Number 445/08 – CD, both filed last year, sought to have the hotel owner pay $50,131,881 and $8,893,290 respectively. Justice Persaud yesterday granted judgment in the sum of $30,133,577 in Action Number 444/08 – CD and $4,893,290 in Action Number 445/08 – CD. Interest at a rate of six per cent is also to be paid in both cases.
However, 41 per cent ($23,998,304) of the original sum sought by the power company was not accounted for in the judgment. Stabroek News was reliably informed that Shivraj had paid GPL a total of $16 million in four equal monthly instalments prior to yesterday’s judgment. In addition to these instalments, transformers, for which Shivraj was also in debt, were returned to GPL thus settling the debt.
Shivraj has been given until the end of June to pay the sum granted in Action Number 445/08 – CD in two instalments. The larger sum granted in Action Number 444/08 – CD will be paid in monthly instalments of $4 million until payment is complete.
In one statement of claim, GPL said Buddy’s owed $50,131,881, being the balance of an amount due and owing for electricity supplied up to January 2008, in addition to interest and associated court costs. At the time of the filing of the suit in April 2008, GPL said, it had been supplying Buddy’s International Hotel with electricity from the start of its operations in February 2007, for which it received a single payment of $3,459,547, despite repeated demands. As a result, GPL billed Shivraj for $39, 417,217, which represented the total energy and demand charges due to GPL up to January 2008 and $10,714,664 constituting a non-refundable capital contribution. Shivraj, however, did not pay the bill. A separate court action filed in May, 2008 claimed $8,893,290 for electricity supplied.
Meanwhile, when asked why electricity supply to Buddy’s International Hotel had not been disconnected after its debt had reached a certain amount, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of GPL Bharrat Dindyal said that GPL had ceased service to the hotel. However, the hotel had offered a proposal for payment and was subsequently reconnected. He refused to comment further.
“They were disconnected… they came into the company and offered a proposal [for payment],” Dindyal, said last Tuesday.
The cases were heard in part by Justice James Bovell-Drakes and more recently by Justice Persaud, with the latter dismissing both suits on March 18, 2009 for want of prosecution.
Reacting to an April 8 Stabroek News article, which reported that both suits had been dismissed GPL had stated in a press release the same day that the order to dismiss the claims had been recalled. The company had further stressed that it was “making every effort to ensure” that all monies owed to it “are paid in full.”
It is still not clear exactly how both cases had advanced to the stage of dismissal. There has still been no disclosure by the court of the order being recalled.
In its April 8 press statement, GPL had said that on February18, 2009 when the case was called in the Commercial Court Shivraj’s attorney “confirmed to the court that [the defendant] had agreed, in principle, to settle GPL’s claim.” It said the case was then adjourned to March 18, 2009 “for terms of settlement to be prepared by the parties and [submitted] to the court.”
According to GPL, “the matter did not appear on the commercial list” on March 18, 2009 but the hotel’s defence attorney, who presented himself before the court, allegedly failed to inform the court that GPL had already delivered draft terms of settlement. Further, GPL said that the defence attorney failed to indicate that he had not formally responded to the terms of settlement, “and the court therefore dismissed the claim.” The hotel’s attorney Robin Hunte declined to comment on this when approached.
The court was informed of GPL’s position sometime later and “recalled its order,” the utility company press statement had said, adding that the action is therefore still extant and has been fixed to continue before Justice Persaud.
Stabroek News viewed documentation for both claims where the last action recorded was the dismissal of both suits last month. Records of Actions Numbers 444/08-CD (where GPL claimed just over $50 million) and 445/08-CD (where GPL claimed just over $8 million) show that on March 18, the defence attorney had appeared in the Commercial Court before Justice Persaud and the matters were dismissed for want of prosecution.
Attorney-at-law Timothy Jonas represented GPL in both cases.
