Court hears TRO's case against Central Bank

[TamilNet, Monday, 27 November 2006, 11:14 GMT]
Attorneys representing the Tamils Rehabilitation Organization (TRO) filed written submissions to High Court requesting that the Judge vacate the ex parte order of 4 September 2006 that froze TROís bank accounts as directed by the Judge, TRO said in a press release issued in Colombo Monday, detailing the status of the case against Central Bank of the Government of Sri Lanka.

Status of Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) freezing of TRO Funds


On Thursday 16 November 2006 TRO filed a petition with the High Court of the Western Province, Holden in Colombo requesting that the Judge vacate the ex parte order of 4 September 2006 that froze TROís bank accounts.

The case was taken up before the High Court on Monday 20 November 2006. Prior to any arguments being heard the Attorney Generalís Department, representing the Central Bank, raised an objection and submitted that the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear the petition by TRO seeking to ďvacate or varyĒ the order.

Presidentís Counsel Romesh de Silva, who is leading TROís legal team, argued that as there is no specific provision for an appeal against or for the setting aside of the order in the Act under which TROís funds were frozen, TRO could invoke the inherent power of the Court to vacate or to vary the order. This was based, Mr. De Silva argued, in Natural Law and the laws of the country.

The Court ordered that the parties, the Attorney General and TRO, file written submissions on this point of law within one week and return to court on Wednesday 26 November 2006.

TROís full petition to the High Court requested that:

  • [i] that the order made ex parte be vacated;
  • [ii] in the alternative, that the order made ex parte be varied, by permitting the respondent to utilize the funds in the bank accounts restrained by the Courtís order, subject to the supervision of a competent person or persons appointed by Court;
  • [iii] for an interim order, permitting the respondent to utilize the funds in the bank accounts restrained by the Courtís order, subject to the supervision of a competent person or persons appointed by Court;
The petition was accompanied by documentary evidence countering the allegations made by the Central Bank in its ex parte petition on 4 September 2006.

History of the Case:

  • 28August 2006: TRO learns that its bank accounts have been ďfrozenĒ
  • 4 September 2006: Ex parte hearing in High Court. CBSL petitions for an extension of the freeze for 6 months. Petition was granted by the court without TRO having the opportunity to respond to the petition. Approximately Rs. 80,000,000 frozen.
  • 18 October 2006: TRO, after filing a request with the court, receives a copy of the Central Bankís 4 September petition and supporting documentation. TRO has to date still not received any formal notice from the court or the Attorney Generalís Department regarding this case.
  • 16 November 2006: TRO files petition and supporting documentation with High Court.
  • 20 November 2006: Case is to be heard in court but Attorney Generals Department raises objections to the High Courtís jurisdiction. Both parties asked to submit arguments on the point of law and return to court.
  • 26 November 2006: Next court date.


TRO Legal Team:

Mr. Romesh De Silva Presidentís Counsel
Mr. Desmond Fernando Presidentís Counsel
Mr. A.P. Niles Attorney
Mr. K. Ratnavale Attorney
Mr. Gammi Senanayakke Attorney

 

Latest 15 Reports
 
Find this article at:
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=20409