Hearing of Precision breach of contract lawsuit to commence on March 22nd

The hearing of Precision Woodworking’s over five-year-old lawsuit against Republic Bank (Guyana) Limited for alleged breach of contract is now set to begin on March 22nd at 1 pm.
Though Justice Navindra Singh was ready to proceed on February 7th, lawyers for the defendants—the bank and Kashir Khan in his capacity as receiver for Precision—had asked the court to first await rulings in interlocutory appeals that they have filed before the Full Court.
Senior Counsel Robin Stoby, on behalf of the defendants, had asked that all proceedings be halted, pending Full Court rulings, which were scheduled to be delivered on February 19th.
While the judge granted the request, however, he noted that a date would have been set for trial to commence, irrespective of the rulings.
At a hearing last Monday morning, Justice Singh announced that the trial will commence on March 22nd.
Apart from Precision, the other plaintiffs are listed as Ronald Bulkan and Rustum Bulkan, who are being represented by attorney Nigel Hughes.
After restoring several parts of Precision‘s statement of claim, which was filed in September, 2012, Justice Singh had set October 16th, of last year, for commencement of the trial but it did not start.
The defendants, through their attorneys, had appealed Justice Singh’s ruling to restore the stricken parts of the plaintiff’s original claim.
In its statement of claim, Precision has said that owing to difficulties by which it was overcome, it was invited to and attended a meeting convened by the bank on June 30th, 2011.
Prior to the meeting, it said, 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 institution as an “excellent customer.”
At the meeting, the company said its indebtedness stood at $406,553,074, representing the principal, and $10,613,224, representing interest.
Precision said that before the meeting, which dealt with 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 $230,000,000, 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.
Its statement of claim details that it thereafter accepted $30,000,000 from Torginol Paints as a deposit on the 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 that Khan (the first-named defendant), in his capacity as receiver for Precision, 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.
It has also argued that Khan failed to act honestly and in good faith in dealing with its property “in a commercially reasonably manner” and added that its assets were unlawfully disposed of.
It says it has suffered loss and damage as a result of the actions of the defendants.
It has also advanced that the bank breached the provisions of the Financial Institutions Act by attributing interest to the company’s outstanding indebtedness, when it was not permitted to do so.
It is also seeking a declaration that the appointment of Khan as receiver for Precision Woodworking Limited was unlawful, null, void and ultra vires to the Companies Act 1991.
It also seeks a declaration that Khan did not act in its best interest, given his role as agent of its company, nor did he exercise reasonable care in his dealings with its assets.
A declaration is also being sought that Khan has not acted and or conducted himself as the appointed receiver of Precision in accordance with the Companies Act 1991.

Around the Web