Legal bickering on the suspension of MBSL CEO

Monday, 23 January 2012 00:35 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

By S.S Selvanayagam

Western Provincial High Court overruled the preliminary objections raised by Plaintiff-Respondent A.G.P Karunathileka who had been suspended from the Post of CEO by the Merchant Bank of Sri Lanka (MBSL).

Plaintiff-Respondent Karunathileka was suspended from the Post of CEO by the MBSL.

He initiated action in the Colombo District Court challenging his suspension. District Court issued an enjoining order restraining his suspension by the MBSL.

The MBSL filed an action for leave to appeal against the enjoining order of the District Court.

The matter came up before the High Court with the Bench comprising Judges H.C.J Madawala and L.T.B Dehideniya.

President’s Counsel S.A Parathalingam with Farman Cassim appeared for the Petitioner MBSL. President’s Counsel WijedasaRajapakshe with D. Nagashena appeared for Respondent Karunathileka.

The Counsel for the Plaintiff-Respondent Karunathileka raised a preliminary objection in respect of this case stating that there is no valid petition before the Court to hear and determine in this case.

The objection was that the petition of the Defendant-Petitioner the MBSL was not signed by H.M Sideek, Attorney-at-Law, who has been appointed by the Petitioner MBSL as its Attorney-at-Law by proxy.

The objections further contended that the petition has been signed by Integrated Associates who is who is not appointed by the Defendant-Petitioner MBSL.

It was argued therefore the Integrated Associates does not have any authority to appear on behalf of the Defendant-Petitioner the MBSL.

The Counsel for the MBSL countered that H.M Sideek is a partner of the Integrated Associates and maintained that therefore the petition is valid and should be accepted by Court the petition has been signed by Integrated Associates for the Petitioner MBSL.

He also submitted there is irregularity however, this irregularity is not fatal to the action and that is a curable defect and as such the Court be pleased to grant permission to take steps to cure the defect.

Counsel for the Respondent Karunathileka objected and stated that this defect is fatal to the action and pleaded that the case should be dismissed in limine.

The Court observed that the defect in the petition and the proxy is a curable defect and noted that as Sideek is a partner of Integrated Associates, the Court finds that as the defect is curable and it should be rectified. The Court directed that the Petitioner MBSL should rectify the defect in the proxy in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.