Home / Business/ Interim orders issued against MBES Group vacated by Commercial High Court

Interim orders issued against MBES Group vacated by Commercial High Court


Comments / {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}} Views / Saturday, 7 December 2019 00:01


MBES Group Ltd., which is a leading wholesale distributor in commodities in the Central Province situated in Dambulla, is the subject matter of several cases before the Commercial High Court and the Supreme Court. 

On an application by a Director of MBES Group, namely Shantha Bandara Waidyasekera, eight interim orders were granted by the Commercial High Court in the HC (Civil) 07/2017/CO against the MBES Group, its Chairman and other directors from engaging in certain acts in the course of its business activity. 

Pursuant thereto an application was made on behalf of the company and the Chairman of the MBES Group to vacate the Interim Orders and upon a preliminary objection the case HC (Civil) 07/2017/CO was dismissed on 4 May with costs. An appeal was preferred by the Petitioner to the Supreme Court challenging the decision dated 4 May by Honourable Commercial High Court Judge Ahsan R. Marrikar. 

The Supreme Court, having considered the matter, set aside the dismissal of the case and directed the Commercial High Court to go into the matter expeditiously. However, though the Petitioner took up the position that the Commercial High Court cannot go into the interim order inquiry again, the Commercial High Court overruling such position on the basis that it had only considered the threshold issue on a preliminary basis, made order to inquire into the matters set out in the 1st and 2nd Respondent’s Petition to vacate the interim orders. 

The Petitioner has appealed that order and also sought a further clarification by the Supreme Court on the Supreme Court’s decision which are both pending before the Supreme Court and to be mentioned on 14 January.

However, on 22 November Commercial High Court Judge Ahsan R. Marrikar made order vacating all the interim orders and granting Rs. 75,000 costs against the Petitioner.

The company and its Chairman who preferred the application to vacate the interim orders appeared through Counsel Nishan Premathiratne who appeared with Pravi Karunaratne and Migara Cabral on the instructions of Suba Jayasooriya.  

The third Respondent, Lanka Menike Sooriyadasa, who is another Director of MBES, appeared through President’s Counsel Ikram Mohamed with Niyomal Senathilaka. The fourth Respondent, the Company Secretary, was represented by Charitha Jayawickrama. Both the third and fourth Respondents appeared on the instructions of S.B. Dissanayaka, where both sailed with the position taken by the first and second Respondents.

The Petitioner Shantha Bandara Waidyasekera was represented in Court by President’s Counsel Shanki Parathalingam with Mangala Niyarapola and Kushini Gunaratne Attorneys at Law on the instructions of Tharaka Jayathilaka.

 


Share This Article

Facebook Twitter


DISCLAIMER:

1. All comments will be moderated by the Daily FT Web Editor.

2. Comments that are abusive, obscene, incendiary, defamatory or irrelevant will not be published.

3. We may remove hyperlinks within comments.

4. Kindly use a genuine email ID and provide your name.

5. Spamming the comments section under different user names may result in being blacklisted.

COMMENTS

Today's Columnists

Autocatalytic descent from plural democracy to supremacist authoritarianism

Wednesday, 29 January 2020

In a few days, Sri Lanka will celebrate its 72nd year of independence from colonialism. But behind the pomp and pageant of that celebration is a sad reality of an autocatalytic process – a small initial event triggering a chain reaction that evolve


Trump destroying brand USA: Implications for Sri Lanka

Wednesday, 29 January 2020

There is an old adage that ‘politics and tourism’ has a positive correlation. Many have tried to disprove this aspect but the relationship is coming out very strongly, the latest case study to the world being in the United States. Trump cost $4.


Freedom! Freedom! Where art thou?

Wednesday, 29 January 2020

Freedom: who could object? Yet this word is now used to justify a thousand forms of exploitation. In the name of freedom – the freedom of the powerful to exploit the weak, the rich to exploit the poor. The definition of freedom is, the condition of


Development project information: Public expectations and their right to know

Wednesday, 29 January 2020

Infrastructure development will be at the centre-stage during the next five years, irrespective of which mainstream political party will be in power. This writer has previously had articles published in the Daily FT on building regulations, infrastr


Columnists More