Comet Cable has not answered any of our questions on the questionnaire (see post on March 9th 2007) that we emailed them. We were able to get replies from LBN and Dialog TV for some questions that we emailed them and they were posted in their respective blogs several weeks ago but Comet has been keeping quiet and the excuse given by Mr. Harold is that relevant management personnel have been forwarded the questions and that the reply has not been received as yet from them.
One of the contentious issues that we raised is regarding the June 1st deadline by the TRC and the future of Comet Cable.
According to the present situation we are forced to come to the conclusion that June 1st may indeed be the end for Comet Cable. If that were not so then we do not see a need for Comet Cable to delay answering our questions.
One of the contentious issues that we raised is regarding the June 1st deadline by the TRC and the future of Comet Cable.
According to the present situation we are forced to come to the conclusion that June 1st may indeed be the end for Comet Cable. If that were not so then we do not see a need for Comet Cable to delay answering our questions.
47 comments:
For those who do not know an old daily news artice regarding the battle for comet
Link
http://www.dailynews.lk/2005/08/02/news30.htm
Multivision MD's Complaints : Hettiarachchi Group explains
Chamil Hettiarachchi Chief Operating Officer of Ruhuna 2001 Multivision (Private) Limited has sent the following in clarification to the news item that appeared in the Daily News on Thursday the 28th July 2005 titled "Multivision MD makes three complaints".
Ruhuna 2001 Multivision (Private) Limited is currently entangled in a shareholder dispute which arose following an investment of Rs. 50 million into the company by the Hettiarachchi Group in lieu of obtaining the controlling interest in the company and to prevent the company from being wound up by its creditors back in June 2001.
There are several cases pending in the High Courts of Sri Lanka and in Australia pertaining to this dispute and however, one commercial High Court decision had annulled all the shares issued thus reverting the position back to the two (2) subscriber shares as at incorporation and had removed certain Directors from the Board including Chamil Hettiarachchi. The order has been challenged by the Hettiarachchi Group in the Supreme Court and is yet to be determined.
However, Nihal Hettiarachchi, Chairman of Multivision and Sahida Hettiarachchi were not removed as Directors of Multivision by any order of Court. But pursuant to an alleged Special Resolution passed by the two subscriber shareholders after the said High Court Order, Mr. and Mrs. Hettiarachchi were removed from the Board of Multivision and a new board of directors was appointed to Multivision.
Chamil Hettiarachchi stated that "the appointment of the new Board of Directors has been challenged in Case Number HC (Civil) 88/2005(1) wherein the Plaintiffs have prayed for a Declaration that the purported Special Resolution passed on behalf of Multivision is ab initio void in law and the appointment of James Scobie and five others is void in law; for a Declaration that James Scobie and five others are not Directors of Multivision; for a declaration that James Scobie and five others are not entitled in law to represent to be Directors of Multivision and or interfere in the administration or affairs of Multivision in any manner whatsoever and or to interfere in any manner whatsoever with Mr. and Mrs. Hettiarachchi's rights to act as Directors of Multivision; for a Permanent Injunction restraining James Scobie and five others from representing to be Directors of Multivision; and for an Interim Injunction restraining James Scobie and five others from representing to be Directors of Multivision until the hearing and determination of the action, and the case is fixed for enquiry on the 13th of September 2005.
Also, Chamil Hettiarachchi explained that James Scobie has misled the public by stating that he had taken over the company pursuant to a Supreme Court Order. The said Supreme Court Order was only an appeal made by the Hettiarachchi Group pertaining to the enjoining order obtained by the Hettiarachchi Group against James Scobie and others being suspended on the grounds that an enjoining order can not be obtained on an exparte basis as Multivision is a B. O. I. company.
With regards to the allegation made relating to Shanaka Suriyaaratchi, Head of Engineering, the vehicle provided for him by the company for his use, Chamil Hettiarachchi stated that since the forceful take over by James Scobie and others, Mr. Suriyaaratchi has not been allowed to enter the office nor has been formally informed that his services have been terminated by the company.
However, since James Scobie is purporting to act as a director, the said police complaint has been made by one Sisira Kumara Yapa, acting as the Transport Officer of Multivision with no authority whatsoever.
Nihal Hettiarachchi complained to the police that at an earlier occasion, on the 29th of April 2005, James Scobie, Gerald Junkeer and Shanaka Jude De Silva, forcefully entered the premises of Multivision again with the assistance of armed personnel. Accordingly, Nihal Hettiarachchi as the Chairman of Multivision filed an action for criminal trespass in the Magistrate's Court of Mt. Lavinia bearing case number 14988.
The matter was called for hearing on the 28th July 2005 and a warrant was issued on Shanaka Jude De Silva and Summons reissued on Gerald Junkeer. Chamil Hettiarachchi stated that following the removal of the said James Scobie and his team from the possession of the company by an order of Court on 9th May 2005 in the Case Number HC (Civil) 88/2005(1), certain items had been found missing from the Company premises and a complaint to this effect had been lodged at the Bambalapitiya Police Station.
Further, the then managers of the company namely, David Charles, Denzil Ismail, Chandith Palawinna, Chandima Wijegunawardane and Zihar Zuhair had immediately resigned from Multivision without handing over the items in their custody and this too had been complained to the Police on the 12th May 2005.
Later it was discovered that James Scobie has informed the public that a new Multivision office had been established at Canal Road and it is believed that he had been attempting to relocate the staff and certain material from the office premises at 21, Anderson Road to the said new location. On a later occasion the security officers at Multivision found an employee of the company named Chinthaka Weligama attempting to remove certain computer equipment including a hard disk containing subscriber information from the premises and was handed over to the police. He was remanded until such time James Scobie had allegedly bailed the said employee out claiming to be the Managing Director of Multivision.
Chamil in his final comments stated that "the matter is not yet resolved and that there are several cases pending both on Sri Lanka and Australia since Alston Koch, Brayan Bartholomeusz, Roger Davy and Ivan Brookfield invited the Hettiarachchi Group to take over the company for an investment of US$ 5,00,000 back in 2001 when the company was to be wound-up by it creditors and they are now acting contrary to their undertakings and representations.
They had allegedly come to an arrangement to sell Multivision to another Australian company controlled by Ivan Brookfield named HLT Limited. James Scobie is only employee of the said HLT Limited and had allegedly been appointed to Multivision as the Managing Director, which is challenged in the aforementioned case.
Further to the pending cases, we are considering legal action against James Scobie on the statements made by him in the news item appeared in the Daily News on the 28th July 2005".
Another old Newspaper article regarding comet saga I havent got the link for this particular article
James Scobie, HLT Limited Chief Operating Officer, released on bail
Mt. Lavinia Magistrate Court Judge Vikum Kaluarachchi released James George Scobie,Chief Operating Officer of HLT Limited, formerly Healthpoint Technologies Limited) an Australian Public company, on cash and surety bail for criminal trespass on Friday, June 24, 2005 subsequent to a plaint (Case No.14988) filed under Section 134 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code Act, No.15 of 1979. HLT Limited is currently involved in numerous cases in Sri Lanka Challenging for the sharehold control of Ruhuna 2001 Multivisiön (Private) Limited (Multivision), a Sri Lankan company which was given a sate-owned media license with an implied value of US $36.6 million.
The criminal conduct on trial is in relation to the registered premises of Multivision. The Magistrate also ordered to summon Gerald Ignatius Junkeer, another Australian Citizen, and known associate of Mr. Scobie, to Court for the next hearing.
The same Scobie and Junkeer were earlier investigated by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of Sri Lanka in relation to a grenade attack on the family home of Nihal Hettiarachchi. Meanwhile, Shanaka Jude De Silva, an emplyee of the said Australian Company was granted bail hearing for the same offence. The next hearing is scheduled for July 28, 2005.
Another !OLD! newspaper article
Colombo District Court reinstates Hettiarachchi Group at Multi-vision
COLOMBO: The Colombo District Judge G. A. D. Ganepola lifted the enjoining order against the Hettiarachchi Group on Friday March 10 which was obtained on June 13 last year on an ex parte basis by Chalmway Proprietary Ltd one of the shareholders of Ruhuna 2001 Multivision (Pvt.) Ltd.
The case:
Chalmway filed an action under the sections 210 and 211 of the Companies Act with the case number HC (Civil) 2/2004 (2) on the 24th of March 2004 against Multivision naming it the 1st Respondent and making all the shareholders and the directors respondents.
On the 21st April 2005 the Commercial High Court Judge A. W. A. Sallam held that the shares issued to Osni Lanka Company (Private) Limited were issued incorrectly and were annulled. The said Order has been appealed by Multivision and the Hettiarachchi Group and is currently pending in the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka.
Chalmway Proprietary Limited of Australia took control of Multivision in July 2005 pursuant to an Enjoining Order obtained by Chalmway claiming that a new Board of Directors have been appointed and the Board of Directors controlled by the Hettiarachchi Group has ceased to exist.
Australian citizen, James Scobie and others representing Chalmway filed the said action with case number 7284 SPL in the Colombo District Court on the 27th of April 2005 stating that since the shares that were issued to Osni Lanka were annulled by the Commercial High Court Order, the remaining two shareholders, namely, Chalmway and the Southern Development Authority have passed a Special Resolution to amend the Articles of Multivision, thereby removed the Hettiarachchi Group from control of Mulitivision.
Defendants in the case, the Hettiarachchi Group, claimed that the said James Scobie has sworn to an affidavit as the Managing Director of Multivision whereas he has been working illegally in Sri Lanka on a Tourist Visa and that the matter in hand is a commercial matter hence the District Court has no jurisdiction along with their objections.
whilst dismissing the said claims, the Additional District Judge G. A. D. Ganepola held that the Enjoining Order against the Hettiarahchi Group should be dismissed with costs against the Plaintiffs. In his Order, Judge Ganepola has stated that the problem as to whether the appointment of new Directors has been duly done by amending the relevant section of the constitution of the company arises.
If the appointment of the said new Directors were not dully done, it cannot be accepted that there exists prima facie case to obtain relief prayed for in the plaint by the Plaintiffs.
In such circumstances, it is clear that by the issue of the Interim Injunction will cause a grater loss to the Defendants than the loss that may cause to the Plaintiffs by the non-issue of the Interim Injunction prayed for by the Plaintiffs.
By way of a Further Order Judge has stated that 'the relevant amendment of the Multivision constitution and all steps such as appointment of new Directors has been done based on the Final Order of the Commercial High Court case. However, the Plaintiffs have not disclosed to Court up to this moment that the Defendants have preferred an Appeal against the said Final Order of the Commercial High Court.
From this it appears that the aforesaid Order of the Commercial High Court on which the Plaintiff's case is based, is not a Final Order. Therefore, if an Interim Injunction is issued as prayed for by the Plaintiff it would result in acting on a decision which is still subjected to argument and where a final decision is not given by Court up to now.
If acted so, it may be a violation of the rights of the defendants (Hettiarachchi Group). Furthermore, on account of the said Appeal, the right of the Plaintiffs to act as Directors of Multivision is still being debated.
Therefore, I am not satisfied prima facie with regard to the legal right of the Plaintiffs to have and maintain this case and I conclude that the application of the Plaintiffs for Interim Injunction should be dismissed.
Accordingly, as it appears that the duty and the responsibility of disclosing essential and important matters have been neglected by the party of the Plaintiffs and for that reason, too, I hereby conclude that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to obtain and Interim Injunction."
S. A. Parathalingam, President's Counsel and M. U. M. Ali Sabry, Attorney-at-Law instructed by Paul Ratnayake Associates appeared on behalf of the Defendants, the Hettiarachchi Group. K. Kanagiswaran, President's Counsel and Avindra Rodrigo and Manoj Bandara, Attorneys-at-Law instructed by F. J. and G. de Saram appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs.
Nihal Hettiarachchi, Chairman of Multivision stated that "soon after the order of the Court, we visited the Multivision premises to resume duties, but we were restrained by certain people who are currently occupying the premises including one Gerald Junkeer. Said Gerald Junkeer is not even a Director or a shareholder of Multivision, but simply a thug who has been hired by the Australians to oust us from the Company by using methods other than legal.
These people have been spending the shareholders' money of an Australian Public Company by making the shareholders believe that their Company have ownership in Multivision without informing them of the ground situation. Now the shareholders are taking action against them in Australia", he added.
It is learnt that there was a minor confrontation when Hettiarachchi and his staff attempted to move in and take control of the Company as he was entitled by the Order of the Court.
"We were threatened and a weapon was pointed at me by the thugs who were in control of the Multivision premises", Hettiarachchi added. At a previous occasion on 16th December 2004 a hand grenade was thrown at the residence of Hettiarachchi in connection to this dispute and an inquiry is still being held in this regard.
"We acquired Multivision from its ultimate owner in Canada back in 2001 when the Company was faced with a winding up action and most of the pay television channels were disconnected for non payment. In 2004, the same people who sold Multivision to us have arranged to sell the same company under its fully owned subsidiary, Chalmway, when we have made it a profitable venture and thereby defrauded our investment.
It was the new claimant for Multivision. HLT Limited of Australia, who appeared as Chalmway and filed the cases in Sri Lanka", Hettiarachchi explained to the Daily News.
"It was disheartening to see some Sri Lankans helping these Australian swindlers outside of legal procedures to defraud us, simply for a profit out of the dispute", stated Mr. Hettiarachchi who went on to say that "it is not the Australians who are not letting us go back into Multivision, but those Sri Lankans including Gerad Junkeer, who has no investment or any position whatsoever."
Currently there is another case which has been field by the Hettiarachchi Group in the Commercial High Court with the case number HC (Civil) 246/2005 (1) seeking certain reliefs including an order of court directing Rystar and Chalmway to transfer all their shares held in Multivision to the Hettiarachchi Group controlled Osni Lanka; and a permanent injunction preventing Rystar and Chalmway and/or their servants, agents and all those acting under and through them from in any way dealing and/or voting on the said shares.
The Hettiarachchi Group has filed the said action based on certain Convertible Secured Promissory Notes and corresponding Securities Pledge agreements that were issued by Rystar Communications Limited of Canada at the time of acquiring Multivision from Rystar back in 2001.
The Hettiarachchi Group has complained that Rystar and Chalmway are attempting to transfer the shares they own in Multivision to the said HLT Limited of Australia and since those shares should only be owned by Osni Lanka, the Hettiarachchi Group has requested the Court to maintain the status quo until the final determination of the matter.
Last of the OLD newspaper articles I have.
Hope these series of articles have cleared up somewhat convulted history of Ruhuna 2001 Multivision
When business cultures clash
Conflicts of interest can cover a multitude of sins, but when it becomes a battle of control for a profitable company by two parties from different cultures it can get nasty. It is therefore inevitable that the case will go before the courts. But even then, the delay and appeal mechanism can frustrate to the point of giving up: but in this case both parties are only interested in winning.
The plot involves an Australian company, Chalmway Proprietary Ltd, taking over a failing Canadian firm, Rystar, that ran Ruhuna 2001 Multivision, the operator of a cable TV network, in 1997. Chalmway held 90 percent and invested $12 million in the venture, where its 10 percent partner, Southern Development Authority (SDA), provided the licence. Or did it …?
The point here is that it all depends on who you listen to. On one side we have the above paragraph, yet from the other the role of Chalmway and Rystar are reversed.
But at the time, in a bid to get local business or individuals involved to look after the administrative side of the cable company, Nihal Hettiarachchi’s Osni Lanka, a joint-venture company that exports coir and also invests in stocks and shares, was brought on board by Chalmway. An agreement was reached by the shareholders and the Hettiarachchi Group during this time for the latter to invest $500,000 (Rs 50 million) in Rystar.
The problem here is that Rystar was a failing company due to bad performances and a lack of bill-paying to cable companies. The Hettiarachchi Group say they were invited to buy a majority share in Rystar, hence the $500,000. But as Rystar was delisted from the Canadian stock exchange, the shares couldn’t be bought; so promissory notes and securities pledge agreements were issued. Hence the family “technically” had board control of Rystar, and that if the Canadian company didn’t comply with promissory notes, the collateral shares would automatically be owned by the Hettiarachchi Group, according to Mr. Hettiarachchi.
In February 2004, Chalmway was bought by HLT Ltd, an Australian company, and to the former’s surprise found out that it didn’t hold what it assumed to be a majority share, due to the Hettiarachchi Group claiming ownership to 51 percent, according to James Scobie, the current Managing Director of Multivision. So with no other option to get what it paid for, Chalmway felt the need to go to court to decide the matter – and so the legal tussle began, and is still going on.
From records seen, Chalmway has the company as far as the Commercial High Court is concerned, but this position is hotly contested by the Hettiarachchi Group, as they believe they have a majority share in Rystar, they own the company. So presently things are pending a Supreme Court decision.
What comes to light now is the accusations of intimidation from both sides, with the police playing spectator, despite complaints being put forward in numbers. On the Chalmway side there are alleged death threats, while on the Hettiarachchi side there is alleged thug mentality and threatening behaviour with firearms – with each party claiming the other is not arguing the law but taking it into their own hands.
Claims and counter claims of “dishonest” behaviour are being flung around, and influence peddling at high levels of successive administrations. According to Mr Scobie the company has sought the intervention of the Australian High Commission in Colombo, where matters have even gone all the way to Canberra, where the Australian government sits.
The reason for this is the intimidation that Mr. Scobie says he and his associates have had to deal with, not to mention the worries the Multivision staff has had to go though over the months, including the brief closure of the premises for safety purposes.
But Mr. Hettiarachchi denies this, saying that there are motives behind the dispute that concern people who first invited him on to the board, but now want Multivision back as he and his associates have turned the company around to a profit making venture.
Matters took on a new twist on March 10th and then again on the 15th, as they were caught on close-circuit TV cameras. The CCTV film, supplied by Mr. Scobie and seen by this newspaper, shows two events that take place outside Multivision’s premises. The nature of the people captured on film seem rather obvious, where large numbers of men turn up outside Multivision, now run by the Australians. Again Mr. Hettiarachchi says the first visit on the10th was to get his staff back in, in accordance with the lifting of a restraining order.
The second footage, on March 15 at around 7.30pm, shows a rather nastier picture, as they show a number of men carrying guns. Mr. Hettiarachchi says he doesn’t know who those people were and asks the pertinent question: as there were policemen around “why wasn’t anyone arrested?”
Mr. Scobie says: “Certain orders come from higher up”, but does not elaborate.
Chalmway has won the important cases, and after the Commercial High Court on April 21, 2005 confirmed that Chalmway did own 90 percent, with the rest held by the SDA. Even though the court didn’t remove members of the Hettiarachchi family from the board, a shareholder meeting in Australia removed the Hettiarachchi group (directors) and chose new ones.
Chalmway is in the driving seat at the moment and running the business – but at a cost, according to Mr. Scobie. Other than the continuing legal fees, the company keeps up to 40 security guards on the premises. And then you have Mr Hettiarachchi and his associates, who would like to see the fruition of their $500,000 investment.
TV LANKA owners of the sattelite channel has bought over the controlling interest of Comet Cable it was announced at a press briefing held at Ratmalana.
They will be utilizing the NSS6 sattelite which they already utilizes for there sattelite feed to roll out the digital platform in early 2008.
Untill such time they will continue with the present sey up and they have reached an understanding with TRC to use the exsisting technology for a further period
Is this another 'red herring' planted by someone with a hidden agenda ?
When was the press briefing held ?
There is no mention of any such development in any of today's newspapers
... or maybe it is an early April Fools Joke !!!
There are a few mistakes in the 5th comment information:-
1> NSS 6 is not utilized by TV Lanka at all. Illegal?
2> SLT and Dialog will not let TRC do this. If the frequencies are not cleared by June, no WiMAX until next year. NO WAY!
3> How did they buy out the shares if SDA does not allow it. Bribery? Courruption?
This is probably an April Fools Joke!
WE ARE NOT FOOLED BY SUCH NONSENSE
B A C Abeywardena chairman of TV Lanka talking to the press has confirmed that the digital launch of Comet cable will take place in the early half of 2008.He emphasized that they will be having over 30 international channels and all the local channels with the launch.TV Lanka being the pioneer sattelite operator in the country will utilize the availble resources within the company and have signed up with conax for encryption software.The transmission will originate from there site in Ratmalana.
Untill the DTH platform is made availble the analog transmission will continue on the allocated freequenzies with the aproval of TRC.
The argument tv lanka is will launch dth on nSS6 is rubusih.
NSS 6 all transponders full with DISH tv india @ DD direct. this story is crap . Comet you are going down.
what is the source of the information of the press conference ?
Looks like someone out there is trying desperately to pull some wool over the eyes of Comet Customers.
Could this be an attempt by Multivision to allay our fears so that we will not upset their apple-cart before 1st June ?
I would take Comet if they go Digital. They would offer some good channels. But not if they are taken over by TV Lanka!
TV Lanka is shit. How could they be "pioneer sattelite operator" in Sri Lanka?
If TRC allows Comet to continue using those frequencies, then WiMAX will be delayed. This will be pushing back the development of the country for an outdated television system. Typical Sri Lankan crooks.
The purpoted buy over of Comet by B A C Abeywardena has fallen off due to numerous legal and logistical problems coupled with the refusal by TRC to extend the use of frequnzies presently used by comet,Mr.Abeywardena has sounded his wilingness start his own DTH platform in the near future.
It was widely speculated that the cometcable operation is to be transfered to satnet,who will use the currently avilable network to service the clientale of comet.
TVLanka already started testing DTH platform on ST1 satellite with two TPs & 1+7 channels are on so far.ST1 signal is far better than IS12.TVLanka left NSS6 in dec 2006.
well, lets not forget that BAC Abeywardene has enough of money.. thanx to his call termination gizmo. And he already successfully runs two international pay tv channels. thats money + experience, unlike dtv. sure hope they can give some competition to the industry.
well, still no response from comet. has anybody got into contact with the press over this issue? Sunday leader should be able to come up with a good investigative article. contacts anyone? whats going to happen people, is comet going down the drain? I still have not seen any of the purpoted press briefings or any articles thereof in any of the newspapers or in the elctronic media. its all shit! Comet cable, please respond to your viewers, its about time. guys, lets work on our paper articles, shall we, and try to get a statement from the hettiarchchi group as well. If anyone knows chamil, ask him to post a comment. that would be interesting!!!
In case anyone is really interested in raising the Multivision issue with some newspapers, here are the email addresses of some key journals.
editor.dailynews@lakehouse.lk
prabath@unl.upali.lk (The Island)
mirror@dailymirror.wnl.lk
editor@thesundayleader.lk
Best of luck
RIP
Multivision a.k.a. Comet Cable
1999 - 2007
"We are not sorry that the Comet disappeared from our skies!"
Multivision - Wrong Name!
Moneyvision - Only think about gaining money
Novision - No vision for development
Unclearvision - Unclear picture quality
Boruvision - Lying to customers
Outdatedvision - Outdated broadcasting technology
Tallvision - Very tall antennas required
Analogvision - Analog like our backward local tv stations
Troubledvision - Always some trouble inside the management
Goodbye, Multivision! Farewell.
http://www.cineinfolanka.blogspot.com/
Regards,
Cine Info Lanka
the home of entertainment
guys, is COMET showing the matches ?
Comet is showing some matches. showed all sri lanka matches excpet the ireland one
They will be showing the semi-finals & final Live too just as LBN
I need some desperate help! Can somebody please help me. Its a bit private, so i have to send you the details in private.
E-mail me at qwerty_6@myway.com
Fast please! Lives can be saved here!
All MULTI VISION Customers Can Get 30% Off On Their DTV Connections Call Mohamed On 777 338099 For Further Details
THEFUTURE TODAY
Latest updates
+ ABHISHEK BACHCHAN & AISHWARYA RAI marriage photos
+ Starlet arrested for attempting suicide at Abhishek's gate. Exclusive VIDEO
http://cineinfolanka.blogspot.com
Real Interview with LBN Engineer
Only at http://lbnsucks.blogspot.com
For those who do not know an old daily news artice regarding the battle for comet
Link
http://www.dailynews.lk/2005/08/02/news30.htm
Multivision MD's Complaints : Hettiarachchi Group explains
Chamil Hettiarachchi Chief Operating Officer of Ruhuna 2001 Multivision (Private) Limited has sent the following in clarification to the news item that appeared in the Daily News on Thursday the 28th July 2005 titled "Multivision MD makes three complaints".
Ruhuna 2001 Multivision (Private) Limited is currently entangled in a shareholder dispute which arose following an investment of Rs. 50 million into the company by the Hettiarachchi Group in lieu of obtaining the controlling interest in the company and to prevent the company from being wound up by its creditors back in June 2001.
There are several cases pending in the High Courts of Sri Lanka and in Australia pertaining to this dispute and however, one commercial High Court decision had annulled all the shares issued thus reverting the position back to the two (2) subscriber shares as at incorporation and had removed certain Directors from the Board including Chamil Hettiarachchi. The order has been challenged by the Hettiarachchi Group in the Supreme Court and is yet to be determined.
However, Nihal Hettiarachchi, Chairman of Multivision and Sahida Hettiarachchi were not removed as Directors of Multivision by any order of Court. But pursuant to an alleged Special Resolution passed by the two subscriber shareholders after the said High Court Order, Mr. and Mrs. Hettiarachchi were removed from the Board of Multivision and a new board of directors was appointed to Multivision.
Chamil Hettiarachchi stated that "the appointment of the new Board of Directors has been challenged in Case Number HC (Civil) 88/2005(1) wherein the Plaintiffs have prayed for a Declaration that the purported Special Resolution passed on behalf of Multivision is ab initio void in law and the appointment of James Scobie and five others is void in law; for a Declaration that James Scobie and five others are not Directors of Multivision; for a declaration that James Scobie and five others are not entitled in law to represent to be Directors of Multivision and or interfere in the administration or affairs of Multivision in any manner whatsoever and or to interfere in any manner whatsoever with Mr. and Mrs. Hettiarachchi's rights to act as Directors of Multivision; for a Permanent Injunction restraining James Scobie and five others from representing to be Directors of Multivision; and for an Interim Injunction restraining James Scobie and five others from representing to be Directors of Multivision until the hearing and determination of the action, and the case is fixed for enquiry on the 13th of September 2005.
Also, Chamil Hettiarachchi explained that James Scobie has misled the public by stating that he had taken over the company pursuant to a Supreme Court Order. The said Supreme Court Order was only an appeal made by the Hettiarachchi Group pertaining to the enjoining order obtained by the Hettiarachchi Group against James Scobie and others being suspended on the grounds that an enjoining order can not be obtained on an exparte basis as Multivision is a B. O. I. company.
With regards to the allegation made relating to Shanaka Suriyaaratchi, Head of Engineering, the vehicle provided for him by the company for his use, Chamil Hettiarachchi stated that since the forceful take over by James Scobie and others, Mr. Suriyaaratchi has not been allowed to enter the office nor has been formally informed that his services have been terminated by the company.
However, since James Scobie is purporting to act as a director, the said police complaint has been made by one Sisira Kumara Yapa, acting as the Transport Officer of Multivision with no authority whatsoever.
Nihal Hettiarachchi complained to the police that at an earlier occasion, on the 29th of April 2005, James Scobie, Gerald Junkeer and Shanaka Jude De Silva, forcefully entered the premises of Multivision again with the assistance of armed personnel. Accordingly, Nihal Hettiarachchi as the Chairman of Multivision filed an action for criminal trespass in the Magistrate's Court of Mt. Lavinia bearing case number 14988.
The matter was called for hearing on the 28th July 2005 and a warrant was issued on Shanaka Jude De Silva and Summons reissued on Gerald Junkeer. Chamil Hettiarachchi stated that following the removal of the said James Scobie and his team from the possession of the company by an order of Court on 9th May 2005 in the Case Number HC (Civil) 88/2005(1), certain items had been found missing from the Company premises and a complaint to this effect had been lodged at the Bambalapitiya Police Station.
Further, the then managers of the company namely, David Charles, Denzil Ismail, Chandith Palawinna, Chandima Wijegunawardane and Zihar Zuhair had immediately resigned from Multivision without handing over the items in their custody and this too had been complained to the Police on the 12th May 2005.
Later it was discovered that James Scobie has informed the public that a new Multivision office had been established at Canal Road and it is believed that he had been attempting to relocate the staff and certain material from the office premises at 21, Anderson Road to the said new location. On a later occasion the security officers at Multivision found an employee of the company named Chinthaka Weligama attempting to remove certain computer equipment including a hard disk containing subscriber information from the premises and was handed over to the police. He was remanded until such time James Scobie had allegedly bailed the said employee out claiming to be the Managing Director of Multivision.
Chamil in his final comments stated that "the matter is not yet resolved and that there are several cases pending both on Sri Lanka and Australia since Alston Koch, Brayan Bartholomeusz, Roger Davy and Ivan Brookfield invited the Hettiarachchi Group to take over the company for an investment of US$ 5,00,000 back in 2001 when the company was to be wound-up by it creditors and they are now acting contrary to their undertakings and representations.
They had allegedly come to an arrangement to sell Multivision to another Australian company controlled by Ivan Brookfield named HLT Limited. James Scobie is only employee of the said HLT Limited and had allegedly been appointed to Multivision as the Managing Director, which is challenged in the aforementioned case.
Further to the pending cases, we are considering legal action against James Scobie on the statements made by him in the news item appeared in the Daily News on the 28th July 2005".
Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:33:00 PM
Anonymous said...
Another old Newspaper article regarding comet saga I havent got the link for this particular article
James Scobie, HLT Limited Chief Operating Officer, released on bail
Mt. Lavinia Magistrate Court Judge Vikum Kaluarachchi released James George Scobie,Chief Operating Officer of HLT Limited, formerly Healthpoint Technologies Limited) an Australian Public company, on cash and surety bail for criminal trespass on Friday, June 24, 2005 subsequent to a plaint (Case No.14988) filed under Section 134 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code Act, No.15 of 1979. HLT Limited is currently involved in numerous cases in Sri Lanka Challenging for the sharehold control of Ruhuna 2001 Multivisiön (Private) Limited (Multivision), a Sri Lankan company which was given a sate-owned media license with an implied value of US $36.6 million.
The criminal conduct on trial is in relation to the registered premises of Multivision. The Magistrate also ordered to summon Gerald Ignatius Junkeer, another Australian Citizen, and known associate of Mr. Scobie, to Court for the next hearing.
The same Scobie and Junkeer were earlier investigated by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of Sri Lanka in relation to a grenade attack on the family home of Nihal Hettiarachchi. Meanwhile, Shanaka Jude De Silva, an emplyee of the said Australian Company was granted bail hearing for the same offence. The next hearing is scheduled for July 28, 2005.
Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:08:00 PM
Anonymous said...
Another !OLD! newspaper article
Colombo District Court reinstates Hettiarachchi Group at Multi-vision
COLOMBO: The Colombo District Judge G. A. D. Ganepola lifted the enjoining order against the Hettiarachchi Group on Friday March 10 which was obtained on June 13 last year on an ex parte basis by Chalmway Proprietary Ltd one of the shareholders of Ruhuna 2001 Multivision (Pvt.) Ltd.
The case:
Chalmway filed an action under the sections 210 and 211 of the Companies Act with the case number HC (Civil) 2/2004 (2) on the 24th of March 2004 against Multivision naming it the 1st Respondent and making all the shareholders and the directors respondents.
On the 21st April 2005 the Commercial High Court Judge A. W. A. Sallam held that the shares issued to Osni Lanka Company (Private) Limited were issued incorrectly and were annulled. The said Order has been appealed by Multivision and the Hettiarachchi Group and is currently pending in the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka.
Chalmway Proprietary Limited of Australia took control of Multivision in July 2005 pursuant to an Enjoining Order obtained by Chalmway claiming that a new Board of Directors have been appointed and the Board of Directors controlled by the Hettiarachchi Group has ceased to exist.
Australian citizen, James Scobie and others representing Chalmway filed the said action with case number 7284 SPL in the Colombo District Court on the 27th of April 2005 stating that since the shares that were issued to Osni Lanka were annulled by the Commercial High Court Order, the remaining two shareholders, namely, Chalmway and the Southern Development Authority have passed a Special Resolution to amend the Articles of Multivision, thereby removed the Hettiarachchi Group from control of Mulitivision.
Defendants in the case, the Hettiarachchi Group, claimed that the said James Scobie has sworn to an affidavit as the Managing Director of Multivision whereas he has been working illegally in Sri Lanka on a Tourist Visa and that the matter in hand is a commercial matter hence the District Court has no jurisdiction along with their objections.
whilst dismissing the said claims, the Additional District Judge G. A. D. Ganepola held that the Enjoining Order against the Hettiarahchi Group should be dismissed with costs against the Plaintiffs. In his Order, Judge Ganepola has stated that the problem as to whether the appointment of new Directors has been duly done by amending the relevant section of the constitution of the company arises.
If the appointment of the said new Directors were not dully done, it cannot be accepted that there exists prima facie case to obtain relief prayed for in the plaint by the Plaintiffs.
In such circumstances, it is clear that by the issue of the Interim Injunction will cause a grater loss to the Defendants than the loss that may cause to the Plaintiffs by the non-issue of the Interim Injunction prayed for by the Plaintiffs.
By way of a Further Order Judge has stated that 'the relevant amendment of the Multivision constitution and all steps such as appointment of new Directors has been done based on the Final Order of the Commercial High Court case. However, the Plaintiffs have not disclosed to Court up to this moment that the Defendants have preferred an Appeal against the said Final Order of the Commercial High Court.
From this it appears that the aforesaid Order of the Commercial High Court on which the Plaintiff's case is based, is not a Final Order. Therefore, if an Interim Injunction is issued as prayed for by the Plaintiff it would result in acting on a decision which is still subjected to argument and where a final decision is not given by Court up to now.
If acted so, it may be a violation of the rights of the defendants (Hettiarachchi Group). Furthermore, on account of the said Appeal, the right of the Plaintiffs to act as Directors of Multivision is still being debated.
Therefore, I am not satisfied prima facie with regard to the legal right of the Plaintiffs to have and maintain this case and I conclude that the application of the Plaintiffs for Interim Injunction should be dismissed.
Accordingly, as it appears that the duty and the responsibility of disclosing essential and important matters have been neglected by the party of the Plaintiffs and for that reason, too, I hereby conclude that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to obtain and Interim Injunction."
S. A. Parathalingam, President's Counsel and M. U. M. Ali Sabry, Attorney-at-Law instructed by Paul Ratnayake Associates appeared on behalf of the Defendants, the Hettiarachchi Group. K. Kanagiswaran, President's Counsel and Avindra Rodrigo and Manoj Bandara, Attorneys-at-Law instructed by F. J. and G. de Saram appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs.
Nihal Hettiarachchi, Chairman of Multivision stated that "soon after the order of the Court, we visited the Multivision premises to resume duties, but we were restrained by certain people who are currently occupying the premises including one Gerald Junkeer. Said Gerald Junkeer is not even a Director or a shareholder of Multivision, but simply a thug who has been hired by the Australians to oust us from the Company by using methods other than legal.
These people have been spending the shareholders' money of an Australian Public Company by making the shareholders believe that their Company have ownership in Multivision without informing them of the ground situation. Now the shareholders are taking action against them in Australia", he added.
It is learnt that there was a minor confrontation when Hettiarachchi and his staff attempted to move in and take control of the Company as he was entitled by the Order of the Court.
"We were threatened and a weapon was pointed at me by the thugs who were in control of the Multivision premises", Hettiarachchi added. At a previous occasion on 16th December 2004 a hand grenade was thrown at the residence of Hettiarachchi in connection to this dispute and an inquiry is still being held in this regard.
"We acquired Multivision from its ultimate owner in Canada back in 2001 when the Company was faced with a winding up action and most of the pay television channels were disconnected for non payment. In 2004, the same people who sold Multivision to us have arranged to sell the same company under its fully owned subsidiary, Chalmway, when we have made it a profitable venture and thereby defrauded our investment.
It was the new claimant for Multivision. HLT Limited of Australia, who appeared as Chalmway and filed the cases in Sri Lanka", Hettiarachchi explained to the Daily News.
"It was disheartening to see some Sri Lankans helping these Australian swindlers outside of legal procedures to defraud us, simply for a profit out of the dispute", stated Mr. Hettiarachchi who went on to say that "it is not the Australians who are not letting us go back into Multivision, but those Sri Lankans including Gerad Junkeer, who has no investment or any position whatsoever."
Currently there is another case which has been field by the Hettiarachchi Group in the Commercial High Court with the case number HC (Civil) 246/2005 (1) seeking certain reliefs including an order of court directing Rystar and Chalmway to transfer all their shares held in Multivision to the Hettiarachchi Group controlled Osni Lanka; and a permanent injunction preventing Rystar and Chalmway and/or their servants, agents and all those acting under and through them from in any way dealing and/or voting on the said shares.
The Hettiarachchi Group has filed the said action based on certain Convertible Secured Promissory Notes and corresponding Securities Pledge agreements that were issued by Rystar Communications Limited of Canada at the time of acquiring Multivision from Rystar back in 2001.
The Hettiarachchi Group has complained that Rystar and Chalmway are attempting to transfer the shares they own in Multivision to the said HLT Limited of Australia and since those shares should only be owned by Osni Lanka, the Hettiarachchi Group has requested the Court to maintain the status quo until the final determination of the matter.
For those who do not know an old daily news artice regarding the battle for comet
Link
http://www.dailynews.lk/2005/08/02/news30.htm
Multivision MD's Complaints : Hettiarachchi Group explains
Chamil Hettiarachchi Chief Operating Officer of Ruhuna 2001 Multivision (Private) Limited has sent the following in clarification to the news item that appeared in the Daily News on Thursday the 28th July 2005 titled "Multivision MD makes three complaints".
Ruhuna 2001 Multivision (Private) Limited is currently entangled in a shareholder dispute which arose following an investment of Rs. 50 million into the company by the Hettiarachchi Group in lieu of obtaining the controlling interest in the company and to prevent the company from being wound up by its creditors back in June 2001.
There are several cases pending in the High Courts of Sri Lanka and in Australia pertaining to this dispute and however, one commercial High Court decision had annulled all the shares issued thus reverting the position back to the two (2) subscriber shares as at incorporation and had removed certain Directors from the Board including Chamil Hettiarachchi. The order has been challenged by the Hettiarachchi Group in the Supreme Court and is yet to be determined.
However, Nihal Hettiarachchi, Chairman of Multivision and Sahida Hettiarachchi were not removed as Directors of Multivision by any order of Court. But pursuant to an alleged Special Resolution passed by the two subscriber shareholders after the said High Court Order, Mr. and Mrs. Hettiarachchi were removed from the Board of Multivision and a new board of directors was appointed to Multivision.
Chamil Hettiarachchi stated that "the appointment of the new Board of Directors has been challenged in Case Number HC (Civil) 88/2005(1) wherein the Plaintiffs have prayed for a Declaration that the purported Special Resolution passed on behalf of Multivision is ab initio void in law and the appointment of James Scobie and five others is void in law; for a Declaration that James Scobie and five others are not Directors of Multivision; for a declaration that James Scobie and five others are not entitled in law to represent to be Directors of Multivision and or interfere in the administration or affairs of Multivision in any manner whatsoever and or to interfere in any manner whatsoever with Mr. and Mrs. Hettiarachchi's rights to act as Directors of Multivision; for a Permanent Injunction restraining James Scobie and five others from representing to be Directors of Multivision; and for an Interim Injunction restraining James Scobie and five others from representing to be Directors of Multivision until the hearing and determination of the action, and the case is fixed for enquiry on the 13th of September 2005.
Also, Chamil Hettiarachchi explained that James Scobie has misled the public by stating that he had taken over the company pursuant to a Supreme Court Order. The said Supreme Court Order was only an appeal made by the Hettiarachchi Group pertaining to the enjoining order obtained by the Hettiarachchi Group against James Scobie and others being suspended on the grounds that an enjoining order can not be obtained on an exparte basis as Multivision is a B. O. I. company.
With regards to the allegation made relating to Shanaka Suriyaaratchi, Head of Engineering, the vehicle provided for him by the company for his use, Chamil Hettiarachchi stated that since the forceful take over by James Scobie and others, Mr. Suriyaaratchi has not been allowed to enter the office nor has been formally informed that his services have been terminated by the company.
However, since James Scobie is purporting to act as a director, the said police complaint has been made by one Sisira Kumara Yapa, acting as the Transport Officer of Multivision with no authority whatsoever.
Nihal Hettiarachchi complained to the police that at an earlier occasion, on the 29th of April 2005, James Scobie, Gerald Junkeer and Shanaka Jude De Silva, forcefully entered the premises of Multivision again with the assistance of armed personnel. Accordingly, Nihal Hettiarachchi as the Chairman of Multivision filed an action for criminal trespass in the Magistrate's Court of Mt. Lavinia bearing case number 14988.
The matter was called for hearing on the 28th July 2005 and a warrant was issued on Shanaka Jude De Silva and Summons reissued on Gerald Junkeer. Chamil Hettiarachchi stated that following the removal of the said James Scobie and his team from the possession of the company by an order of Court on 9th May 2005 in the Case Number HC (Civil) 88/2005(1), certain items had been found missing from the Company premises and a complaint to this effect had been lodged at the Bambalapitiya Police Station.
Further, the then managers of the company namely, David Charles, Denzil Ismail, Chandith Palawinna, Chandima Wijegunawardane and Zihar Zuhair had immediately resigned from Multivision without handing over the items in their custody and this too had been complained to the Police on the 12th May 2005.
Later it was discovered that James Scobie has informed the public that a new Multivision office had been established at Canal Road and it is believed that he had been attempting to relocate the staff and certain material from the office premises at 21, Anderson Road to the said new location. On a later occasion the security officers at Multivision found an employee of the company named Chinthaka Weligama attempting to remove certain computer equipment including a hard disk containing subscriber information from the premises and was handed over to the police. He was remanded until such time James Scobie had allegedly bailed the said employee out claiming to be the Managing Director of Multivision.
Chamil in his final comments stated that "the matter is not yet resolved and that there are several cases pending both on Sri Lanka and Australia since Alston Koch, Brayan Bartholomeusz, Roger Davy and Ivan Brookfield invited the Hettiarachchi Group to take over the company for an investment of US$ 5,00,000 back in 2001 when the company was to be wound-up by it creditors and they are now acting contrary to their undertakings and representations.
They had allegedly come to an arrangement to sell Multivision to another Australian company controlled by Ivan Brookfield named HLT Limited. James Scobie is only employee of the said HLT Limited and had allegedly been appointed to Multivision as the Managing Director, which is challenged in the aforementioned case.
Further to the pending cases, we are considering legal action against James Scobie on the statements made by him in the news item appeared in the Daily News on the 28th July 2005".
Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:33:00 PM
Anonymous said...
Another old Newspaper article regarding comet saga I havent got the link for this particular article
James Scobie, HLT Limited Chief Operating Officer, released on bail
Mt. Lavinia Magistrate Court Judge Vikum Kaluarachchi released James George Scobie,Chief Operating Officer of HLT Limited, formerly Healthpoint Technologies Limited) an Australian Public company, on cash and surety bail for criminal trespass on Friday, June 24, 2005 subsequent to a plaint (Case No.14988) filed under Section 134 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code Act, No.15 of 1979. HLT Limited is currently involved in numerous cases in Sri Lanka Challenging for the sharehold control of Ruhuna 2001 Multivisiön (Private) Limited (Multivision), a Sri Lankan company which was given a sate-owned media license with an implied value of US $36.6 million.
The criminal conduct on trial is in relation to the registered premises of Multivision. The Magistrate also ordered to summon Gerald Ignatius Junkeer, another Australian Citizen, and known associate of Mr. Scobie, to Court for the next hearing.
The same Scobie and Junkeer were earlier investigated by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of Sri Lanka in relation to a grenade attack on the family home of Nihal Hettiarachchi. Meanwhile, Shanaka Jude De Silva, an emplyee of the said Australian Company was granted bail hearing for the same offence. The next hearing is scheduled for July 28, 2005.
Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:08:00 PM
Anonymous said...
Another !OLD! newspaper article
Colombo District Court reinstates Hettiarachchi Group at Multi-vision
COLOMBO: The Colombo District Judge G. A. D. Ganepola lifted the enjoining order against the Hettiarachchi Group on Friday March 10 which was obtained on June 13 last year on an ex parte basis by Chalmway Proprietary Ltd one of the shareholders of Ruhuna 2001 Multivision (Pvt.) Ltd.
The case:
Chalmway filed an action under the sections 210 and 211 of the Companies Act with the case number HC (Civil) 2/2004 (2) on the 24th of March 2004 against Multivision naming it the 1st Respondent and making all the shareholders and the directors respondents.
On the 21st April 2005 the Commercial High Court Judge A. W. A. Sallam held that the shares issued to Osni Lanka Company (Private) Limited were issued incorrectly and were annulled. The said Order has been appealed by Multivision and the Hettiarachchi Group and is currently pending in the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka.
Chalmway Proprietary Limited of Australia took control of Multivision in July 2005 pursuant to an Enjoining Order obtained by Chalmway claiming that a new Board of Directors have been appointed and the Board of Directors controlled by the Hettiarachchi Group has ceased to exist.
Australian citizen, James Scobie and others representing Chalmway filed the said action with case number 7284 SPL in the Colombo District Court on the 27th of April 2005 stating that since the shares that were issued to Osni Lanka were annulled by the Commercial High Court Order, the remaining two shareholders, namely, Chalmway and the Southern Development Authority have passed a Special Resolution to amend the Articles of Multivision, thereby removed the Hettiarachchi Group from control of Mulitivision.
Defendants in the case, the Hettiarachchi Group, claimed that the said James Scobie has sworn to an affidavit as the Managing Director of Multivision whereas he has been working illegally in Sri Lanka on a Tourist Visa and that the matter in hand is a commercial matter hence the District Court has no jurisdiction along with their objections.
whilst dismissing the said claims, the Additional District Judge G. A. D. Ganepola held that the Enjoining Order against the Hettiarahchi Group should be dismissed with costs against the Plaintiffs. In his Order, Judge Ganepola has stated that the problem as to whether the appointment of new Directors has been duly done by amending the relevant section of the constitution of the company arises.
If the appointment of the said new Directors were not dully done, it cannot be accepted that there exists prima facie case to obtain relief prayed for in the plaint by the Plaintiffs.
In such circumstances, it is clear that by the issue of the Interim Injunction will cause a grater loss to the Defendants than the loss that may cause to the Plaintiffs by the non-issue of the Interim Injunction prayed for by the Plaintiffs.
By way of a Further Order Judge has stated that 'the relevant amendment of the Multivision constitution and all steps such as appointment of new Directors has been done based on the Final Order of the Commercial High Court case. However, the Plaintiffs have not disclosed to Court up to this moment that the Defendants have preferred an Appeal against the said Final Order of the Commercial High Court.
From this it appears that the aforesaid Order of the Commercial High Court on which the Plaintiff's case is based, is not a Final Order. Therefore, if an Interim Injunction is issued as prayed for by the Plaintiff it would result in acting on a decision which is still subjected to argument and where a final decision is not given by Court up to now.
If acted so, it may be a violation of the rights of the defendants (Hettiarachchi Group). Furthermore, on account of the said Appeal, the right of the Plaintiffs to act as Directors of Multivision is still being debated.
Therefore, I am not satisfied prima facie with regard to the legal right of the Plaintiffs to have and maintain this case and I conclude that the application of the Plaintiffs for Interim Injunction should be dismissed.
Accordingly, as it appears that the duty and the responsibility of disclosing essential and important matters have been neglected by the party of the Plaintiffs and for that reason, too, I hereby conclude that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to obtain and Interim Injunction."
S. A. Parathalingam, President's Counsel and M. U. M. Ali Sabry, Attorney-at-Law instructed by Paul Ratnayake Associates appeared on behalf of the Defendants, the Hettiarachchi Group. K. Kanagiswaran, President's Counsel and Avindra Rodrigo and Manoj Bandara, Attorneys-at-Law instructed by F. J. and G. de Saram appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs.
Nihal Hettiarachchi, Chairman of Multivision stated that "soon after the order of the Court, we visited the Multivision premises to resume duties, but we were restrained by certain people who are currently occupying the premises including one Gerald Junkeer. Said Gerald Junkeer is not even a Director or a shareholder of Multivision, but simply a thug who has been hired by the Australians to oust us from the Company by using methods other than legal.
These people have been spending the shareholders' money of an Australian Public Company by making the shareholders believe that their Company have ownership in Multivision without informing them of the ground situation. Now the shareholders are taking action against them in Australia", he added.
It is learnt that there was a minor confrontation when Hettiarachchi and his staff attempted to move in and take control of the Company as he was entitled by the Order of the Court.
"We were threatened and a weapon was pointed at me by the thugs who were in control of the Multivision premises", Hettiarachchi added. At a previous occasion on 16th December 2004 a hand grenade was thrown at the residence of Hettiarachchi in connection to this dispute and an inquiry is still being held in this regard.
"We acquired Multivision from its ultimate owner in Canada back in 2001 when the Company was faced with a winding up action and most of the pay television channels were disconnected for non payment. In 2004, the same people who sold Multivision to us have arranged to sell the same company under its fully owned subsidiary, Chalmway, when we have made it a profitable venture and thereby defrauded our investment.
It was the new claimant for Multivision. HLT Limited of Australia, who appeared as Chalmway and filed the cases in Sri Lanka", Hettiarachchi explained to the Daily News.
"It was disheartening to see some Sri Lankans helping these Australian swindlers outside of legal procedures to defraud us, simply for a profit out of the dispute", stated Mr. Hettiarachchi who went on to say that "it is not the Australians who are not letting us go back into Multivision, but those Sri Lankans including Gerad Junkeer, who has no investment or any position whatsoever."
Currently there is another case which has been field by the Hettiarachchi Group in the Commercial High Court with the case number HC (Civil) 246/2005 (1) seeking certain reliefs including an order of court directing Rystar and Chalmway to transfer all their shares held in Multivision to the Hettiarachchi Group controlled Osni Lanka; and a permanent injunction preventing Rystar and Chalmway and/or their servants, agents and all those acting under and through them from in any way dealing and/or voting on the said shares.
The Hettiarachchi Group has filed the said action based on certain Convertible Secured Promissory Notes and corresponding Securities Pledge agreements that were issued by Rystar Communications Limited of Canada at the time of acquiring Multivision from Rystar back in 2001.
The Hettiarachchi Group has complained that Rystar and Chalmway are attempting to transfer the shares they own in Multivision to the said HLT Limited of Australia and since those shares should only be owned by Osni Lanka, the Hettiarachchi Group has requested the Court to maintain the status quo until the final determination of the matter.
For those who do not know an old daily news artice regarding the battle for comet
Link
http://www.dailynews.lk/2005/08/02/news30.htm
Multivision MD's Complaints : Hettiarachchi Group explains
Chamil Hettiarachchi Chief Operating Officer of Ruhuna 2001 Multivision (Private) Limited has sent the following in clarification to the news item that appeared in the Daily News on Thursday the 28th July 2005 titled "Multivision MD makes three complaints".
Ruhuna 2001 Multivision (Private) Limited is currently entangled in a shareholder dispute which arose following an investment of Rs. 50 million into the company by the Hettiarachchi Group in lieu of obtaining the controlling interest in the company and to prevent the company from being wound up by its creditors back in June 2001.
There are several cases pending in the High Courts of Sri Lanka and in Australia pertaining to this dispute and however, one commercial High Court decision had annulled all the shares issued thus reverting the position back to the two (2) subscriber shares as at incorporation and had removed certain Directors from the Board including Chamil Hettiarachchi. The order has been challenged by the Hettiarachchi Group in the Supreme Court and is yet to be determined.
However, Nihal Hettiarachchi, Chairman of Multivision and Sahida Hettiarachchi were not removed as Directors of Multivision by any order of Court. But pursuant to an alleged Special Resolution passed by the two subscriber shareholders after the said High Court Order, Mr. and Mrs. Hettiarachchi were removed from the Board of Multivision and a new board of directors was appointed to Multivision.
Chamil Hettiarachchi stated that "the appointment of the new Board of Directors has been challenged in Case Number HC (Civil) 88/2005(1) wherein the Plaintiffs have prayed for a Declaration that the purported Special Resolution passed on behalf of Multivision is ab initio void in law and the appointment of James Scobie and five others is void in law; for a Declaration that James Scobie and five others are not Directors of Multivision; for a declaration that James Scobie and five others are not entitled in law to represent to be Directors of Multivision and or interfere in the administration or affairs of Multivision in any manner whatsoever and or to interfere in any manner whatsoever with Mr. and Mrs. Hettiarachchi's rights to act as Directors of Multivision; for a Permanent Injunction restraining James Scobie and five others from representing to be Directors of Multivision; and for an Interim Injunction restraining James Scobie and five others from representing to be Directors of Multivision until the hearing and determination of the action, and the case is fixed for enquiry on the 13th of September 2005.
Also, Chamil Hettiarachchi explained that James Scobie has misled the public by stating that he had taken over the company pursuant to a Supreme Court Order. The said Supreme Court Order was only an appeal made by the Hettiarachchi Group pertaining to the enjoining order obtained by the Hettiarachchi Group against James Scobie and others being suspended on the grounds that an enjoining order can not be obtained on an exparte basis as Multivision is a B. O. I. company.
With regards to the allegation made relating to Shanaka Suriyaaratchi, Head of Engineering, the vehicle provided for him by the company for his use, Chamil Hettiarachchi stated that since the forceful take over by James Scobie and others, Mr. Suriyaaratchi has not been allowed to enter the office nor has been formally informed that his services have been terminated by the company.
However, since James Scobie is purporting to act as a director, the said police complaint has been made by one Sisira Kumara Yapa, acting as the Transport Officer of Multivision with no authority whatsoever.
Nihal Hettiarachchi complained to the police that at an earlier occasion, on the 29th of April 2005, James Scobie, Gerald Junkeer and Shanaka Jude De Silva, forcefully entered the premises of Multivision again with the assistance of armed personnel. Accordingly, Nihal Hettiarachchi as the Chairman of Multivision filed an action for criminal trespass in the Magistrate's Court of Mt. Lavinia bearing case number 14988.
The matter was called for hearing on the 28th July 2005 and a warrant was issued on Shanaka Jude De Silva and Summons reissued on Gerald Junkeer. Chamil Hettiarachchi stated that following the removal of the said James Scobie and his team from the possession of the company by an order of Court on 9th May 2005 in the Case Number HC (Civil) 88/2005(1), certain items had been found missing from the Company premises and a complaint to this effect had been lodged at the Bambalapitiya Police Station.
Further, the then managers of the company namely, David Charles, Denzil Ismail, Chandith Palawinna, Chandima Wijegunawardane and Zihar Zuhair had immediately resigned from Multivision without handing over the items in their custody and this too had been complained to the Police on the 12th May 2005.
Later it was discovered that James Scobie has informed the public that a new Multivision office had been established at Canal Road and it is believed that he had been attempting to relocate the staff and certain material from the office premises at 21, Anderson Road to the said new location. On a later occasion the security officers at Multivision found an employee of the company named Chinthaka Weligama attempting to remove certain computer equipment including a hard disk containing subscriber information from the premises and was handed over to the police. He was remanded until such time James Scobie had allegedly bailed the said employee out claiming to be the Managing Director of Multivision.
Chamil in his final comments stated that "the matter is not yet resolved and that there are several cases pending both on Sri Lanka and Australia since Alston Koch, Brayan Bartholomeusz, Roger Davy and Ivan Brookfield invited the Hettiarachchi Group to take over the company for an investment of US$ 5,00,000 back in 2001 when the company was to be wound-up by it creditors and they are now acting contrary to their undertakings and representations.
They had allegedly come to an arrangement to sell Multivision to another Australian company controlled by Ivan Brookfield named HLT Limited. James Scobie is only employee of the said HLT Limited and had allegedly been appointed to Multivision as the Managing Director, which is challenged in the aforementioned case.
Further to the pending cases, we are considering legal action against James Scobie on the statements made by him in the news item appeared in the Daily News on the 28th July 2005".
Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:33:00 PM
Anonymous said...
Another old Newspaper article regarding comet saga I havent got the link for this particular article
James Scobie, HLT Limited Chief Operating Officer, released on bail
Mt. Lavinia Magistrate Court Judge Vikum Kaluarachchi released James George Scobie,Chief Operating Officer of HLT Limited, formerly Healthpoint Technologies Limited) an Australian Public company, on cash and surety bail for criminal trespass on Friday, June 24, 2005 subsequent to a plaint (Case No.14988) filed under Section 134 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code Act, No.15 of 1979. HLT Limited is currently involved in numerous cases in Sri Lanka Challenging for the sharehold control of Ruhuna 2001 Multivisiön (Private) Limited (Multivision), a Sri Lankan company which was given a sate-owned media license with an implied value of US $36.6 million.
The criminal conduct on trial is in relation to the registered premises of Multivision. The Magistrate also ordered to summon Gerald Ignatius Junkeer, another Australian Citizen, and known associate of Mr. Scobie, to Court for the next hearing.
The same Scobie and Junkeer were earlier investigated by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of Sri Lanka in relation to a grenade attack on the family home of Nihal Hettiarachchi. Meanwhile, Shanaka Jude De Silva, an emplyee of the said Australian Company was granted bail hearing for the same offence. The next hearing is scheduled for July 28, 2005.
Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:08:00 PM
Anonymous said...
Another !OLD! newspaper article
Colombo District Court reinstates Hettiarachchi Group at Multi-vision
COLOMBO: The Colombo District Judge G. A. D. Ganepola lifted the enjoining order against the Hettiarachchi Group on Friday March 10 which was obtained on June 13 last year on an ex parte basis by Chalmway Proprietary Ltd one of the shareholders of Ruhuna 2001 Multivision (Pvt.) Ltd.
The case:
Chalmway filed an action under the sections 210 and 211 of the Companies Act with the case number HC (Civil) 2/2004 (2) on the 24th of March 2004 against Multivision naming it the 1st Respondent and making all the shareholders and the directors respondents.
On the 21st April 2005 the Commercial High Court Judge A. W. A. Sallam held that the shares issued to Osni Lanka Company (Private) Limited were issued incorrectly and were annulled. The said Order has been appealed by Multivision and the Hettiarachchi Group and is currently pending in the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka.
Chalmway Proprietary Limited of Australia took control of Multivision in July 2005 pursuant to an Enjoining Order obtained by Chalmway claiming that a new Board of Directors have been appointed and the Board of Directors controlled by the Hettiarachchi Group has ceased to exist.
Australian citizen, James Scobie and others representing Chalmway filed the said action with case number 7284 SPL in the Colombo District Court on the 27th of April 2005 stating that since the shares that were issued to Osni Lanka were annulled by the Commercial High Court Order, the remaining two shareholders, namely, Chalmway and the Southern Development Authority have passed a Special Resolution to amend the Articles of Multivision, thereby removed the Hettiarachchi Group from control of Mulitivision.
Defendants in the case, the Hettiarachchi Group, claimed that the said James Scobie has sworn to an affidavit as the Managing Director of Multivision whereas he has been working illegally in Sri Lanka on a Tourist Visa and that the matter in hand is a commercial matter hence the District Court has no jurisdiction along with their objections.
whilst dismissing the said claims, the Additional District Judge G. A. D. Ganepola held that the Enjoining Order against the Hettiarahchi Group should be dismissed with costs against the Plaintiffs. In his Order, Judge Ganepola has stated that the problem as to whether the appointment of new Directors has been duly done by amending the relevant section of the constitution of the company arises.
If the appointment of the said new Directors were not dully done, it cannot be accepted that there exists prima facie case to obtain relief prayed for in the plaint by the Plaintiffs.
In such circumstances, it is clear that by the issue of the Interim Injunction will cause a grater loss to the Defendants than the loss that may cause to the Plaintiffs by the non-issue of the Interim Injunction prayed for by the Plaintiffs.
By way of a Further Order Judge has stated that 'the relevant amendment of the Multivision constitution and all steps such as appointment of new Directors has been done based on the Final Order of the Commercial High Court case. However, the Plaintiffs have not disclosed to Court up to this moment that the Defendants have preferred an Appeal against the said Final Order of the Commercial High Court.
From this it appears that the aforesaid Order of the Commercial High Court on which the Plaintiff's case is based, is not a Final Order. Therefore, if an Interim Injunction is issued as prayed for by the Plaintiff it would result in acting on a decision which is still subjected to argument and where a final decision is not given by Court up to now.
If acted so, it may be a violation of the rights of the defendants (Hettiarachchi Group). Furthermore, on account of the said Appeal, the right of the Plaintiffs to act as Directors of Multivision is still being debated.
Therefore, I am not satisfied prima facie with regard to the legal right of the Plaintiffs to have and maintain this case and I conclude that the application of the Plaintiffs for Interim Injunction should be dismissed.
Accordingly, as it appears that the duty and the responsibility of disclosing essential and important matters have been neglected by the party of the Plaintiffs and for that reason, too, I hereby conclude that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to obtain and Interim Injunction."
S. A. Parathalingam, President's Counsel and M. U. M. Ali Sabry, Attorney-at-Law instructed by Paul Ratnayake Associates appeared on behalf of the Defendants, the Hettiarachchi Group. K. Kanagiswaran, President's Counsel and Avindra Rodrigo and Manoj Bandara, Attorneys-at-Law instructed by F. J. and G. de Saram appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs.
Nihal Hettiarachchi, Chairman of Multivision stated that "soon after the order of the Court, we visited the Multivision premises to resume duties, but we were restrained by certain people who are currently occupying the premises including one Gerald Junkeer. Said Gerald Junkeer is not even a Director or a shareholder of Multivision, but simply a thug who has been hired by the Australians to oust us from the Company by using methods other than legal.
These people have been spending the shareholders' money of an Australian Public Company by making the shareholders believe that their Company have ownership in Multivision without informing them of the ground situation. Now the shareholders are taking action against them in Australia", he added.
It is learnt that there was a minor confrontation when Hettiarachchi and his staff attempted to move in and take control of the Company as he was entitled by the Order of the Court.
"We were threatened and a weapon was pointed at me by the thugs who were in control of the Multivision premises", Hettiarachchi added. At a previous occasion on 16th December 2004 a hand grenade was thrown at the residence of Hettiarachchi in connection to this dispute and an inquiry is still being held in this regard.
"We acquired Multivision from its ultimate owner in Canada back in 2001 when the Company was faced with a winding up action and most of the pay television channels were disconnected for non payment. In 2004, the same people who sold Multivision to us have arranged to sell the same company under its fully owned subsidiary, Chalmway, when we have made it a profitable venture and thereby defrauded our investment.
It was the new claimant for Multivision. HLT Limited of Australia, who appeared as Chalmway and filed the cases in Sri Lanka", Hettiarachchi explained to the Daily News.
"It was disheartening to see some Sri Lankans helping these Australian swindlers outside of legal procedures to defraud us, simply for a profit out of the dispute", stated Mr. Hettiarachchi who went on to say that "it is not the Australians who are not letting us go back into Multivision, but those Sri Lankans including Gerad Junkeer, who has no investment or any position whatsoever."
Currently there is another case which has been field by the Hettiarachchi Group in the Commercial High Court with the case number HC (Civil) 246/2005 (1) seeking certain reliefs including an order of court directing Rystar and Chalmway to transfer all their shares held in Multivision to the Hettiarachchi Group controlled Osni Lanka; and a permanent injunction preventing Rystar and Chalmway and/or their servants, agents and all those acting under and through them from in any way dealing and/or voting on the said shares.
The Hettiarachchi Group has filed the said action based on certain Convertible Secured Promissory Notes and corresponding Securities Pledge agreements that were issued by Rystar Communications Limited of Canada at the time of acquiring Multivision from Rystar back in 2001.
The Hettiarachchi Group has complained that Rystar and Chalmway are attempting to transfer the shares they own in Multivision to the said HLT Limited of Australia and since those shares should only be owned by Osni Lanka, the Hettiarachchi Group has requested the Court to maintain the status quo until the final determination of the matter.
For those who do not know an old daily news artice regarding the battle for comet
Link
http://www.dailynews.lk/2005/08/02/news30.htm
Multivision MD's Complaints : Hettiarachchi Group explains
Chamil Hettiarachchi Chief Operating Officer of Ruhuna 2001 Multivision (Private) Limited has sent the following in clarification to the news item that appeared in the Daily News on Thursday the 28th July 2005 titled "Multivision MD makes three complaints".
Ruhuna 2001 Multivision (Private) Limited is currently entangled in a shareholder dispute which arose following an investment of Rs. 50 million into the company by the Hettiarachchi Group in lieu of obtaining the controlling interest in the company and to prevent the company from being wound up by its creditors back in June 2001.
There are several cases pending in the High Courts of Sri Lanka and in Australia pertaining to this dispute and however, one commercial High Court decision had annulled all the shares issued thus reverting the position back to the two (2) subscriber shares as at incorporation and had removed certain Directors from the Board including Chamil Hettiarachchi. The order has been challenged by the Hettiarachchi Group in the Supreme Court and is yet to be determined.
However, Nihal Hettiarachchi, Chairman of Multivision and Sahida Hettiarachchi were not removed as Directors of Multivision by any order of Court. But pursuant to an alleged Special Resolution passed by the two subscriber shareholders after the said High Court Order, Mr. and Mrs. Hettiarachchi were removed from the Board of Multivision and a new board of directors was appointed to Multivision.
Chamil Hettiarachchi stated that "the appointment of the new Board of Directors has been challenged in Case Number HC (Civil) 88/2005(1) wherein the Plaintiffs have prayed for a Declaration that the purported Special Resolution passed on behalf of Multivision is ab initio void in law and the appointment of James Scobie and five others is void in law; for a Declaration that James Scobie and five others are not Directors of Multivision; for a declaration that James Scobie and five others are not entitled in law to represent to be Directors of Multivision and or interfere in the administration or affairs of Multivision in any manner whatsoever and or to interfere in any manner whatsoever with Mr. and Mrs. Hettiarachchi's rights to act as Directors of Multivision; for a Permanent Injunction restraining James Scobie and five others from representing to be Directors of Multivision; and for an Interim Injunction restraining James Scobie and five others from representing to be Directors of Multivision until the hearing and determination of the action, and the case is fixed for enquiry on the 13th of September 2005.
Also, Chamil Hettiarachchi explained that James Scobie has misled the public by stating that he had taken over the company pursuant to a Supreme Court Order. The said Supreme Court Order was only an appeal made by the Hettiarachchi Group pertaining to the enjoining order obtained by the Hettiarachchi Group against James Scobie and others being suspended on the grounds that an enjoining order can not be obtained on an exparte basis as Multivision is a B. O. I. company.
With regards to the allegation made relating to Shanaka Suriyaaratchi, Head of Engineering, the vehicle provided for him by the company for his use, Chamil Hettiarachchi stated that since the forceful take over by James Scobie and others, Mr. Suriyaaratchi has not been allowed to enter the office nor has been formally informed that his services have been terminated by the company.
However, since James Scobie is purporting to act as a director, the said police complaint has been made by one Sisira Kumara Yapa, acting as the Transport Officer of Multivision with no authority whatsoever.
Nihal Hettiarachchi complained to the police that at an earlier occasion, on the 29th of April 2005, James Scobie, Gerald Junkeer and Shanaka Jude De Silva, forcefully entered the premises of Multivision again with the assistance of armed personnel. Accordingly, Nihal Hettiarachchi as the Chairman of Multivision filed an action for criminal trespass in the Magistrate's Court of Mt. Lavinia bearing case number 14988.
The matter was called for hearing on the 28th July 2005 and a warrant was issued on Shanaka Jude De Silva and Summons reissued on Gerald Junkeer. Chamil Hettiarachchi stated that following the removal of the said James Scobie and his team from the possession of the company by an order of Court on 9th May 2005 in the Case Number HC (Civil) 88/2005(1), certain items had been found missing from the Company premises and a complaint to this effect had been lodged at the Bambalapitiya Police Station.
Further, the then managers of the company namely, David Charles, Denzil Ismail, Chandith Palawinna, Chandima Wijegunawardane and Zihar Zuhair had immediately resigned from Multivision without handing over the items in their custody and this too had been complained to the Police on the 12th May 2005.
Later it was discovered that James Scobie has informed the public that a new Multivision office had been established at Canal Road and it is believed that he had been attempting to relocate the staff and certain material from the office premises at 21, Anderson Road to the said new location. On a later occasion the security officers at Multivision found an employee of the company named Chinthaka Weligama attempting to remove certain computer equipment including a hard disk containing subscriber information from the premises and was handed over to the police. He was remanded until such time James Scobie had allegedly bailed the said employee out claiming to be the Managing Director of Multivision.
Chamil in his final comments stated that "the matter is not yet resolved and that there are several cases pending both on Sri Lanka and Australia since Alston Koch, Brayan Bartholomeusz, Roger Davy and Ivan Brookfield invited the Hettiarachchi Group to take over the company for an investment of US$ 5,00,000 back in 2001 when the company was to be wound-up by it creditors and they are now acting contrary to their undertakings and representations.
They had allegedly come to an arrangement to sell Multivision to another Australian company controlled by Ivan Brookfield named HLT Limited. James Scobie is only employee of the said HLT Limited and had allegedly been appointed to Multivision as the Managing Director, which is challenged in the aforementioned case.
Further to the pending cases, we are considering legal action against James Scobie on the statements made by him in the news item appeared in the Daily News on the 28th July 2005".
Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:33:00 PM
Anonymous said...
Another old Newspaper article regarding comet saga I havent got the link for this particular article
James Scobie, HLT Limited Chief Operating Officer, released on bail
Mt. Lavinia Magistrate Court Judge Vikum Kaluarachchi released James George Scobie,Chief Operating Officer of HLT Limited, formerly Healthpoint Technologies Limited) an Australian Public company, on cash and surety bail for criminal trespass on Friday, June 24, 2005 subsequent to a plaint (Case No.14988) filed under Section 134 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code Act, No.15 of 1979. HLT Limited is currently involved in numerous cases in Sri Lanka Challenging for the sharehold control of Ruhuna 2001 Multivisiön (Private) Limited (Multivision), a Sri Lankan company which was given a sate-owned media license with an implied value of US $36.6 million.
The criminal conduct on trial is in relation to the registered premises of Multivision. The Magistrate also ordered to summon Gerald Ignatius Junkeer, another Australian Citizen, and known associate of Mr. Scobie, to Court for the next hearing.
The same Scobie and Junkeer were earlier investigated by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of Sri Lanka in relation to a grenade attack on the family home of Nihal Hettiarachchi. Meanwhile, Shanaka Jude De Silva, an emplyee of the said Australian Company was granted bail hearing for the same offence. The next hearing is scheduled for July 28, 2005.
Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:08:00 PM
Anonymous said...
Another !OLD! newspaper article
Colombo District Court reinstates Hettiarachchi Group at Multi-vision
COLOMBO: The Colombo District Judge G. A. D. Ganepola lifted the enjoining order against the Hettiarachchi Group on Friday March 10 which was obtained on June 13 last year on an ex parte basis by Chalmway Proprietary Ltd one of the shareholders of Ruhuna 2001 Multivision (Pvt.) Ltd.
The case:
Chalmway filed an action under the sections 210 and 211 of the Companies Act with the case number HC (Civil) 2/2004 (2) on the 24th of March 2004 against Multivision naming it the 1st Respondent and making all the shareholders and the directors respondents.
On the 21st April 2005 the Commercial High Court Judge A. W. A. Sallam held that the shares issued to Osni Lanka Company (Private) Limited were issued incorrectly and were annulled. The said Order has been appealed by Multivision and the Hettiarachchi Group and is currently pending in the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka.
Chalmway Proprietary Limited of Australia took control of Multivision in July 2005 pursuant to an Enjoining Order obtained by Chalmway claiming that a new Board of Directors have been appointed and the Board of Directors controlled by the Hettiarachchi Group has ceased to exist.
Australian citizen, James Scobie and others representing Chalmway filed the said action with case number 7284 SPL in the Colombo District Court on the 27th of April 2005 stating that since the shares that were issued to Osni Lanka were annulled by the Commercial High Court Order, the remaining two shareholders, namely, Chalmway and the Southern Development Authority have passed a Special Resolution to amend the Articles of Multivision, thereby removed the Hettiarachchi Group from control of Mulitivision.
Defendants in the case, the Hettiarachchi Group, claimed that the said James Scobie has sworn to an affidavit as the Managing Director of Multivision whereas he has been working illegally in Sri Lanka on a Tourist Visa and that the matter in hand is a commercial matter hence the District Court has no jurisdiction along with their objections.
whilst dismissing the said claims, the Additional District Judge G. A. D. Ganepola held that the Enjoining Order against the Hettiarahchi Group should be dismissed with costs against the Plaintiffs. In his Order, Judge Ganepola has stated that the problem as to whether the appointment of new Directors has been duly done by amending the relevant section of the constitution of the company arises.
If the appointment of the said new Directors were not dully done, it cannot be accepted that there exists prima facie case to obtain relief prayed for in the plaint by the Plaintiffs.
In such circumstances, it is clear that by the issue of the Interim Injunction will cause a grater loss to the Defendants than the loss that may cause to the Plaintiffs by the non-issue of the Interim Injunction prayed for by the Plaintiffs.
By way of a Further Order Judge has stated that 'the relevant amendment of the Multivision constitution and all steps such as appointment of new Directors has been done based on the Final Order of the Commercial High Court case. However, the Plaintiffs have not disclosed to Court up to this moment that the Defendants have preferred an Appeal against the said Final Order of the Commercial High Court.
From this it appears that the aforesaid Order of the Commercial High Court on which the Plaintiff's case is based, is not a Final Order. Therefore, if an Interim Injunction is issued as prayed for by the Plaintiff it would result in acting on a decision which is still subjected to argument and where a final decision is not given by Court up to now.
If acted so, it may be a violation of the rights of the defendants (Hettiarachchi Group). Furthermore, on account of the said Appeal, the right of the Plaintiffs to act as Directors of Multivision is still being debated.
Therefore, I am not satisfied prima facie with regard to the legal right of the Plaintiffs to have and maintain this case and I conclude that the application of the Plaintiffs for Interim Injunction should be dismissed.
Accordingly, as it appears that the duty and the responsibility of disclosing essential and important matters have been neglected by the party of the Plaintiffs and for that reason, too, I hereby conclude that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to obtain and Interim Injunction."
S. A. Parathalingam, President's Counsel and M. U. M. Ali Sabry, Attorney-at-Law instructed by Paul Ratnayake Associates appeared on behalf of the Defendants, the Hettiarachchi Group. K. Kanagiswaran, President's Counsel and Avindra Rodrigo and Manoj Bandara, Attorneys-at-Law instructed by F. J. and G. de Saram appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs.
Nihal Hettiarachchi, Chairman of Multivision stated that "soon after the order of the Court, we visited the Multivision premises to resume duties, but we were restrained by certain people who are currently occupying the premises including one Gerald Junkeer. Said Gerald Junkeer is not even a Director or a shareholder of Multivision, but simply a thug who has been hired by the Australians to oust us from the Company by using methods other than legal.
These people have been spending the shareholders' money of an Australian Public Company by making the shareholders believe that their Company have ownership in Multivision without informing them of the ground situation. Now the shareholders are taking action against them in Australia", he added.
It is learnt that there was a minor confrontation when Hettiarachchi and his staff attempted to move in and take control of the Company as he was entitled by the Order of the Court.
"We were threatened and a weapon was pointed at me by the thugs who were in control of the Multivision premises", Hettiarachchi added. At a previous occasion on 16th December 2004 a hand grenade was thrown at the residence of Hettiarachchi in connection to this dispute and an inquiry is still being held in this regard.
"We acquired Multivision from its ultimate owner in Canada back in 2001 when the Company was faced with a winding up action and most of the pay television channels were disconnected for non payment. In 2004, the same people who sold Multivision to us have arranged to sell the same company under its fully owned subsidiary, Chalmway, when we have made it a profitable venture and thereby defrauded our investment.
It was the new claimant for Multivision. HLT Limited of Australia, who appeared as Chalmway and filed the cases in Sri Lanka", Hettiarachchi explained to the Daily News.
"It was disheartening to see some Sri Lankans helping these Australian swindlers outside of legal procedures to defraud us, simply for a profit out of the dispute", stated Mr. Hettiarachchi who went on to say that "it is not the Australians who are not letting us go back into Multivision, but those Sri Lankans including Gerad Junkeer, who has no investment or any position whatsoever."
Currently there is another case which has been field by the Hettiarachchi Group in the Commercial High Court with the case number HC (Civil) 246/2005 (1) seeking certain reliefs including an order of court directing Rystar and Chalmway to transfer all their shares held in Multivision to the Hettiarachchi Group controlled Osni Lanka; and a permanent injunction preventing Rystar and Chalmway and/or their servants, agents and all those acting under and through them from in any way dealing and/or voting on the said shares.
The Hettiarachchi Group has filed the said action based on certain Convertible Secured Promissory Notes and corresponding Securities Pledge agreements that were issued by Rystar Communications Limited of Canada at the time of acquiring Multivision from Rystar back in 2001.
The Hettiarachchi Group has complained that Rystar and Chalmway are attempting to transfer the shares they own in Multivision to the said HLT Limited of Australia and since those shares should only be owned by Osni Lanka, the Hettiarachchi Group has requested the Court to maintain the status quo until the final determination of the matter.
For those who do not know an old daily news artice regarding the battle for comet
Link
http://www.dailynews.lk/2005/08/02/news30.htm
Multivision MD's Complaints : Hettiarachchi Group explains
Chamil Hettiarachchi Chief Operating Officer of Ruhuna 2001 Multivision (Private) Limited has sent the following in clarification to the news item that appeared in the Daily News on Thursday the 28th July 2005 titled "Multivision MD makes three complaints".
Ruhuna 2001 Multivision (Private) Limited is currently entangled in a shareholder dispute which arose following an investment of Rs. 50 million into the company by the Hettiarachchi Group in lieu of obtaining the controlling interest in the company and to prevent the company from being wound up by its creditors back in June 2001.
There are several cases pending in the High Courts of Sri Lanka and in Australia pertaining to this dispute and however, one commercial High Court decision had annulled all the shares issued thus reverting the position back to the two (2) subscriber shares as at incorporation and had removed certain Directors from the Board including Chamil Hettiarachchi. The order has been challenged by the Hettiarachchi Group in the Supreme Court and is yet to be determined.
However, Nihal Hettiarachchi, Chairman of Multivision and Sahida Hettiarachchi were not removed as Directors of Multivision by any order of Court. But pursuant to an alleged Special Resolution passed by the two subscriber shareholders after the said High Court Order, Mr. and Mrs. Hettiarachchi were removed from the Board of Multivision and a new board of directors was appointed to Multivision.
Chamil Hettiarachchi stated that "the appointment of the new Board of Directors has been challenged in Case Number HC (Civil) 88/2005(1) wherein the Plaintiffs have prayed for a Declaration that the purported Special Resolution passed on behalf of Multivision is ab initio void in law and the appointment of James Scobie and five others is void in law; for a Declaration that James Scobie and five others are not Directors of Multivision; for a declaration that James Scobie and five others are not entitled in law to represent to be Directors of Multivision and or interfere in the administration or affairs of Multivision in any manner whatsoever and or to interfere in any manner whatsoever with Mr. and Mrs. Hettiarachchi's rights to act as Directors of Multivision; for a Permanent Injunction restraining James Scobie and five others from representing to be Directors of Multivision; and for an Interim Injunction restraining James Scobie and five others from representing to be Directors of Multivision until the hearing and determination of the action, and the case is fixed for enquiry on the 13th of September 2005.
Also, Chamil Hettiarachchi explained that James Scobie has misled the public by stating that he had taken over the company pursuant to a Supreme Court Order. The said Supreme Court Order was only an appeal made by the Hettiarachchi Group pertaining to the enjoining order obtained by the Hettiarachchi Group against James Scobie and others being suspended on the grounds that an enjoining order can not be obtained on an exparte basis as Multivision is a B. O. I. company.
With regards to the allegation made relating to Shanaka Suriyaaratchi, Head of Engineering, the vehicle provided for him by the company for his use, Chamil Hettiarachchi stated that since the forceful take over by James Scobie and others, Mr. Suriyaaratchi has not been allowed to enter the office nor has been formally informed that his services have been terminated by the company.
However, since James Scobie is purporting to act as a director, the said police complaint has been made by one Sisira Kumara Yapa, acting as the Transport Officer of Multivision with no authority whatsoever.
Nihal Hettiarachchi complained to the police that at an earlier occasion, on the 29th of April 2005, James Scobie, Gerald Junkeer and Shanaka Jude De Silva, forcefully entered the premises of Multivision again with the assistance of armed personnel. Accordingly, Nihal Hettiarachchi as the Chairman of Multivision filed an action for criminal trespass in the Magistrate's Court of Mt. Lavinia bearing case number 14988.
The matter was called for hearing on the 28th July 2005 and a warrant was issued on Shanaka Jude De Silva and Summons reissued on Gerald Junkeer. Chamil Hettiarachchi stated that following the removal of the said James Scobie and his team from the possession of the company by an order of Court on 9th May 2005 in the Case Number HC (Civil) 88/2005(1), certain items had been found missing from the Company premises and a complaint to this effect had been lodged at the Bambalapitiya Police Station.
Further, the then managers of the company namely, David Charles, Denzil Ismail, Chandith Palawinna, Chandima Wijegunawardane and Zihar Zuhair had immediately resigned from Multivision without handing over the items in their custody and this too had been complained to the Police on the 12th May 2005.
Later it was discovered that James Scobie has informed the public that a new Multivision office had been established at Canal Road and it is believed that he had been attempting to relocate the staff and certain material from the office premises at 21, Anderson Road to the said new location. On a later occasion the security officers at Multivision found an employee of the company named Chinthaka Weligama attempting to remove certain computer equipment including a hard disk containing subscriber information from the premises and was handed over to the police. He was remanded until such time James Scobie had allegedly bailed the said employee out claiming to be the Managing Director of Multivision.
Chamil in his final comments stated that "the matter is not yet resolved and that there are several cases pending both on Sri Lanka and Australia since Alston Koch, Brayan Bartholomeusz, Roger Davy and Ivan Brookfield invited the Hettiarachchi Group to take over the company for an investment of US$ 5,00,000 back in 2001 when the company was to be wound-up by it creditors and they are now acting contrary to their undertakings and representations.
They had allegedly come to an arrangement to sell Multivision to another Australian company controlled by Ivan Brookfield named HLT Limited. James Scobie is only employee of the said HLT Limited and had allegedly been appointed to Multivision as the Managing Director, which is challenged in the aforementioned case.
Further to the pending cases, we are considering legal action against James Scobie on the statements made by him in the news item appeared in the Daily News on the 28th July 2005".
Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:33:00 PM
Anonymous said...
Another old Newspaper article regarding comet saga I havent got the link for this particular article
James Scobie, HLT Limited Chief Operating Officer, released on bail
Mt. Lavinia Magistrate Court Judge Vikum Kaluarachchi released James George Scobie,Chief Operating Officer of HLT Limited, formerly Healthpoint Technologies Limited) an Australian Public company, on cash and surety bail for criminal trespass on Friday, June 24, 2005 subsequent to a plaint (Case No.14988) filed under Section 134 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code Act, No.15 of 1979. HLT Limited is currently involved in numerous cases in Sri Lanka Challenging for the sharehold control of Ruhuna 2001 Multivisiön (Private) Limited (Multivision), a Sri Lankan company which was given a sate-owned media license with an implied value of US $36.6 million.
The criminal conduct on trial is in relation to the registered premises of Multivision. The Magistrate also ordered to summon Gerald Ignatius Junkeer, another Australian Citizen, and known associate of Mr. Scobie, to Court for the next hearing.
The same Scobie and Junkeer were earlier investigated by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of Sri Lanka in relation to a grenade attack on the family home of Nihal Hettiarachchi. Meanwhile, Shanaka Jude De Silva, an emplyee of the said Australian Company was granted bail hearing for the same offence. The next hearing is scheduled for July 28, 2005.
Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:08:00 PM
Anonymous said...
Another !OLD! newspaper article
Colombo District Court reinstates Hettiarachchi Group at Multi-vision
COLOMBO: The Colombo District Judge G. A. D. Ganepola lifted the enjoining order against the Hettiarachchi Group on Friday March 10 which was obtained on June 13 last year on an ex parte basis by Chalmway Proprietary Ltd one of the shareholders of Ruhuna 2001 Multivision (Pvt.) Ltd.
The case:
Chalmway filed an action under the sections 210 and 211 of the Companies Act with the case number HC (Civil) 2/2004 (2) on the 24th of March 2004 against Multivision naming it the 1st Respondent and making all the shareholders and the directors respondents.
On the 21st April 2005 the Commercial High Court Judge A. W. A. Sallam held that the shares issued to Osni Lanka Company (Private) Limited were issued incorrectly and were annulled. The said Order has been appealed by Multivision and the Hettiarachchi Group and is currently pending in the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka.
Chalmway Proprietary Limited of Australia took control of Multivision in July 2005 pursuant to an Enjoining Order obtained by Chalmway claiming that a new Board of Directors have been appointed and the Board of Directors controlled by the Hettiarachchi Group has ceased to exist.
Australian citizen, James Scobie and others representing Chalmway filed the said action with case number 7284 SPL in the Colombo District Court on the 27th of April 2005 stating that since the shares that were issued to Osni Lanka were annulled by the Commercial High Court Order, the remaining two shareholders, namely, Chalmway and the Southern Development Authority have passed a Special Resolution to amend the Articles of Multivision, thereby removed the Hettiarachchi Group from control of Mulitivision.
Defendants in the case, the Hettiarachchi Group, claimed that the said James Scobie has sworn to an affidavit as the Managing Director of Multivision whereas he has been working illegally in Sri Lanka on a Tourist Visa and that the matter in hand is a commercial matter hence the District Court has no jurisdiction along with their objections.
whilst dismissing the said claims, the Additional District Judge G. A. D. Ganepola held that the Enjoining Order against the Hettiarahchi Group should be dismissed with costs against the Plaintiffs. In his Order, Judge Ganepola has stated that the problem as to whether the appointment of new Directors has been duly done by amending the relevant section of the constitution of the company arises.
If the appointment of the said new Directors were not dully done, it cannot be accepted that there exists prima facie case to obtain relief prayed for in the plaint by the Plaintiffs.
In such circumstances, it is clear that by the issue of the Interim Injunction will cause a grater loss to the Defendants than the loss that may cause to the Plaintiffs by the non-issue of the Interim Injunction prayed for by the Plaintiffs.
By way of a Further Order Judge has stated that 'the relevant amendment of the Multivision constitution and all steps such as appointment of new Directors has been done based on the Final Order of the Commercial High Court case. However, the Plaintiffs have not disclosed to Court up to this moment that the Defendants have preferred an Appeal against the said Final Order of the Commercial High Court.
From this it appears that the aforesaid Order of the Commercial High Court on which the Plaintiff's case is based, is not a Final Order. Therefore, if an Interim Injunction is issued as prayed for by the Plaintiff it would result in acting on a decision which is still subjected to argument and where a final decision is not given by Court up to now.
If acted so, it may be a violation of the rights of the defendants (Hettiarachchi Group). Furthermore, on account of the said Appeal, the right of the Plaintiffs to act as Directors of Multivision is still being debated.
Therefore, I am not satisfied prima facie with regard to the legal right of the Plaintiffs to have and maintain this case and I conclude that the application of the Plaintiffs for Interim Injunction should be dismissed.
Accordingly, as it appears that the duty and the responsibility of disclosing essential and important matters have been neglected by the party of the Plaintiffs and for that reason, too, I hereby conclude that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to obtain and Interim Injunction."
S. A. Parathalingam, President's Counsel and M. U. M. Ali Sabry, Attorney-at-Law instructed by Paul Ratnayake Associates appeared on behalf of the Defendants, the Hettiarachchi Group. K. Kanagiswaran, President's Counsel and Avindra Rodrigo and Manoj Bandara, Attorneys-at-Law instructed by F. J. and G. de Saram appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs.
Nihal Hettiarachchi, Chairman of Multivision stated that "soon after the order of the Court, we visited the Multivision premises to resume duties, but we were restrained by certain people who are currently occupying the premises including one Gerald Junkeer. Said Gerald Junkeer is not even a Director or a shareholder of Multivision, but simply a thug who has been hired by the Australians to oust us from the Company by using methods other than legal.
These people have been spending the shareholders' money of an Australian Public Company by making the shareholders believe that their Company have ownership in Multivision without informing them of the ground situation. Now the shareholders are taking action against them in Australia", he added.
It is learnt that there was a minor confrontation when Hettiarachchi and his staff attempted to move in and take control of the Company as he was entitled by the Order of the Court.
"We were threatened and a weapon was pointed at me by the thugs who were in control of the Multivision premises", Hettiarachchi added. At a previous occasion on 16th December 2004 a hand grenade was thrown at the residence of Hettiarachchi in connection to this dispute and an inquiry is still being held in this regard.
"We acquired Multivision from its ultimate owner in Canada back in 2001 when the Company was faced with a winding up action and most of the pay television channels were disconnected for non payment. In 2004, the same people who sold Multivision to us have arranged to sell the same company under its fully owned subsidiary, Chalmway, when we have made it a profitable venture and thereby defrauded our investment.
It was the new claimant for Multivision. HLT Limited of Australia, who appeared as Chalmway and filed the cases in Sri Lanka", Hettiarachchi explained to the Daily News.
"It was disheartening to see some Sri Lankans helping these Australian swindlers outside of legal procedures to defraud us, simply for a profit out of the dispute", stated Mr. Hettiarachchi who went on to say that "it is not the Australians who are not letting us go back into Multivision, but those Sri Lankans including Gerad Junkeer, who has no investment or any position whatsoever."
Currently there is another case which has been field by the Hettiarachchi Group in the Commercial High Court with the case number HC (Civil) 246/2005 (1) seeking certain reliefs including an order of court directing Rystar and Chalmway to transfer all their shares held in Multivision to the Hettiarachchi Group controlled Osni Lanka; and a permanent injunction preventing Rystar and Chalmway and/or their servants, agents and all those acting under and through them from in any way dealing and/or voting on the said shares.
The Hettiarachchi Group has filed the said action based on certain Convertible Secured Promissory Notes and corresponding Securities Pledge agreements that were issued by Rystar Communications Limited of Canada at the time of acquiring Multivision from Rystar back in 2001.
The Hettiarachchi Group has complained that Rystar and Chalmway are attempting to transfer the shares they own in Multivision to the said HLT Limited of Australia and since those shares should only be owned by Osni Lanka, the Hettiarachchi Group has requested the Court to maintain the status quo until the final determination of the matter.
For those who do not know an old daily news artice regarding the battle for comet
Link
http://www.dailynews.lk/2005/08/02/news30.htm
Multivision MD's Complaints : Hettiarachchi Group explains
Chamil Hettiarachchi Chief Operating Officer of Ruhuna 2001 Multivision (Private) Limited has sent the following in clarification to the news item that appeared in the Daily News on Thursday the 28th July 2005 titled "Multivision MD makes three complaints".
Ruhuna 2001 Multivision (Private) Limited is currently entangled in a shareholder dispute which arose following an investment of Rs. 50 million into the company by the Hettiarachchi Group in lieu of obtaining the controlling interest in the company and to prevent the company from being wound up by its creditors back in June 2001.
There are several cases pending in the High Courts of Sri Lanka and in Australia pertaining to this dispute and however, one commercial High Court decision had annulled all the shares issued thus reverting the position back to the two (2) subscriber shares as at incorporation and had removed certain Directors from the Board including Chamil Hettiarachchi. The order has been challenged by the Hettiarachchi Group in the Supreme Court and is yet to be determined.
However, Nihal Hettiarachchi, Chairman of Multivision and Sahida Hettiarachchi were not removed as Directors of Multivision by any order of Court. But pursuant to an alleged Special Resolution passed by the two subscriber shareholders after the said High Court Order, Mr. and Mrs. Hettiarachchi were removed from the Board of Multivision and a new board of directors was appointed to Multivision.
Chamil Hettiarachchi stated that "the appointment of the new Board of Directors has been challenged in Case Number HC (Civil) 88/2005(1) wherein the Plaintiffs have prayed for a Declaration that the purported Special Resolution passed on behalf of Multivision is ab initio void in law and the appointment of James Scobie and five others is void in law; for a Declaration that James Scobie and five others are not Directors of Multivision; for a declaration that James Scobie and five others are not entitled in law to represent to be Directors of Multivision and or interfere in the administration or affairs of Multivision in any manner whatsoever and or to interfere in any manner whatsoever with Mr. and Mrs. Hettiarachchi's rights to act as Directors of Multivision; for a Permanent Injunction restraining James Scobie and five others from representing to be Directors of Multivision; and for an Interim Injunction restraining James Scobie and five others from representing to be Directors of Multivision until the hearing and determination of the action, and the case is fixed for enquiry on the 13th of September 2005.
Also, Chamil Hettiarachchi explained that James Scobie has misled the public by stating that he had taken over the company pursuant to a Supreme Court Order. The said Supreme Court Order was only an appeal made by the Hettiarachchi Group pertaining to the enjoining order obtained by the Hettiarachchi Group against James Scobie and others being suspended on the grounds that an enjoining order can not be obtained on an exparte basis as Multivision is a B. O. I. company.
With regards to the allegation made relating to Shanaka Suriyaaratchi, Head of Engineering, the vehicle provided for him by the company for his use, Chamil Hettiarachchi stated that since the forceful take over by James Scobie and others, Mr. Suriyaaratchi has not been allowed to enter the office nor has been formally informed that his services have been terminated by the company.
However, since James Scobie is purporting to act as a director, the said police complaint has been made by one Sisira Kumara Yapa, acting as the Transport Officer of Multivision with no authority whatsoever.
Nihal Hettiarachchi complained to the police that at an earlier occasion, on the 29th of April 2005, James Scobie, Gerald Junkeer and Shanaka Jude De Silva, forcefully entered the premises of Multivision again with the assistance of armed personnel. Accordingly, Nihal Hettiarachchi as the Chairman of Multivision filed an action for criminal trespass in the Magistrate's Court of Mt. Lavinia bearing case number 14988.
The matter was called for hearing on the 28th July 2005 and a warrant was issued on Shanaka Jude De Silva and Summons reissued on Gerald Junkeer. Chamil Hettiarachchi stated that following the removal of the said James Scobie and his team from the possession of the company by an order of Court on 9th May 2005 in the Case Number HC (Civil) 88/2005(1), certain items had been found missing from the Company premises and a complaint to this effect had been lodged at the Bambalapitiya Police Station.
Further, the then managers of the company namely, David Charles, Denzil Ismail, Chandith Palawinna, Chandima Wijegunawardane and Zihar Zuhair had immediately resigned from Multivision without handing over the items in their custody and this too had been complained to the Police on the 12th May 2005.
Later it was discovered that James Scobie has informed the public that a new Multivision office had been established at Canal Road and it is believed that he had been attempting to relocate the staff and certain material from the office premises at 21, Anderson Road to the said new location. On a later occasion the security officers at Multivision found an employee of the company named Chinthaka Weligama attempting to remove certain computer equipment including a hard disk containing subscriber information from the premises and was handed over to the police. He was remanded until such time James Scobie had allegedly bailed the said employee out claiming to be the Managing Director of Multivision.
Chamil in his final comments stated that "the matter is not yet resolved and that there are several cases pending both on Sri Lanka and Australia since Alston Koch, Brayan Bartholomeusz, Roger Davy and Ivan Brookfield invited the Hettiarachchi Group to take over the company for an investment of US$ 5,00,000 back in 2001 when the company was to be wound-up by it creditors and they are now acting contrary to their undertakings and representations.
They had allegedly come to an arrangement to sell Multivision to another Australian company controlled by Ivan Brookfield named HLT Limited. James Scobie is only employee of the said HLT Limited and had allegedly been appointed to Multivision as the Managing Director, which is challenged in the aforementioned case.
Further to the pending cases, we are considering legal action against James Scobie on the statements made by him in the news item appeared in the Daily News on the 28th July 2005".
Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:33:00 PM
Anonymous said...
Another old Newspaper article regarding comet saga I havent got the link for this particular article
James Scobie, HLT Limited Chief Operating Officer, released on bail
Mt. Lavinia Magistrate Court Judge Vikum Kaluarachchi released James George Scobie,Chief Operating Officer of HLT Limited, formerly Healthpoint Technologies Limited) an Australian Public company, on cash and surety bail for criminal trespass on Friday, June 24, 2005 subsequent to a plaint (Case No.14988) filed under Section 134 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code Act, No.15 of 1979. HLT Limited is currently involved in numerous cases in Sri Lanka Challenging for the sharehold control of Ruhuna 2001 Multivisiön (Private) Limited (Multivision), a Sri Lankan company which was given a sate-owned media license with an implied value of US $36.6 million.
The criminal conduct on trial is in relation to the registered premises of Multivision. The Magistrate also ordered to summon Gerald Ignatius Junkeer, another Australian Citizen, and known associate of Mr. Scobie, to Court for the next hearing.
The same Scobie and Junkeer were earlier investigated by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of Sri Lanka in relation to a grenade attack on the family home of Nihal Hettiarachchi. Meanwhile, Shanaka Jude De Silva, an emplyee of the said Australian Company was granted bail hearing for the same offence. The next hearing is scheduled for July 28, 2005.
Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:08:00 PM
Anonymous said...
Another !OLD! newspaper article
Colombo District Court reinstates Hettiarachchi Group at Multi-vision
COLOMBO: The Colombo District Judge G. A. D. Ganepola lifted the enjoining order against the Hettiarachchi Group on Friday March 10 which was obtained on June 13 last year on an ex parte basis by Chalmway Proprietary Ltd one of the shareholders of Ruhuna 2001 Multivision (Pvt.) Ltd.
The case:
Chalmway filed an action under the sections 210 and 211 of the Companies Act with the case number HC (Civil) 2/2004 (2) on the 24th of March 2004 against Multivision naming it the 1st Respondent and making all the shareholders and the directors respondents.
On the 21st April 2005 the Commercial High Court Judge A. W. A. Sallam held that the shares issued to Osni Lanka Company (Private) Limited were issued incorrectly and were annulled. The said Order has been appealed by Multivision and the Hettiarachchi Group and is currently pending in the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka.
Chalmway Proprietary Limited of Australia took control of Multivision in July 2005 pursuant to an Enjoining Order obtained by Chalmway claiming that a new Board of Directors have been appointed and the Board of Directors controlled by the Hettiarachchi Group has ceased to exist.
Australian citizen, James Scobie and others representing Chalmway filed the said action with case number 7284 SPL in the Colombo District Court on the 27th of April 2005 stating that since the shares that were issued to Osni Lanka were annulled by the Commercial High Court Order, the remaining two shareholders, namely, Chalmway and the Southern Development Authority have passed a Special Resolution to amend the Articles of Multivision, thereby removed the Hettiarachchi Group from control of Mulitivision.
Defendants in the case, the Hettiarachchi Group, claimed that the said James Scobie has sworn to an affidavit as the Managing Director of Multivision whereas he has been working illegally in Sri Lanka on a Tourist Visa and that the matter in hand is a commercial matter hence the District Court has no jurisdiction along with their objections.
whilst dismissing the said claims, the Additional District Judge G. A. D. Ganepola held that the Enjoining Order against the Hettiarahchi Group should be dismissed with costs against the Plaintiffs. In his Order, Judge Ganepola has stated that the problem as to whether the appointment of new Directors has been duly done by amending the relevant section of the constitution of the company arises.
If the appointment of the said new Directors were not dully done, it cannot be accepted that there exists prima facie case to obtain relief prayed for in the plaint by the Plaintiffs.
In such circumstances, it is clear that by the issue of the Interim Injunction will cause a grater loss to the Defendants than the loss that may cause to the Plaintiffs by the non-issue of the Interim Injunction prayed for by the Plaintiffs.
By way of a Further Order Judge has stated that 'the relevant amendment of the Multivision constitution and all steps such as appointment of new Directors has been done based on the Final Order of the Commercial High Court case. However, the Plaintiffs have not disclosed to Court up to this moment that the Defendants have preferred an Appeal against the said Final Order of the Commercial High Court.
From this it appears that the aforesaid Order of the Commercial High Court on which the Plaintiff's case is based, is not a Final Order. Therefore, if an Interim Injunction is issued as prayed for by the Plaintiff it would result in acting on a decision which is still subjected to argument and where a final decision is not given by Court up to now.
If acted so, it may be a violation of the rights of the defendants (Hettiarachchi Group). Furthermore, on account of the said Appeal, the right of the Plaintiffs to act as Directors of Multivision is still being debated.
Therefore, I am not satisfied prima facie with regard to the legal right of the Plaintiffs to have and maintain this case and I conclude that the application of the Plaintiffs for Interim Injunction should be dismissed.
Accordingly, as it appears that the duty and the responsibility of disclosing essential and important matters have been neglected by the party of the Plaintiffs and for that reason, too, I hereby conclude that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to obtain and Interim Injunction."
S. A. Parathalingam, President's Counsel and M. U. M. Ali Sabry, Attorney-at-Law instructed by Paul Ratnayake Associates appeared on behalf of the Defendants, the Hettiarachchi Group. K. Kanagiswaran, President's Counsel and Avindra Rodrigo and Manoj Bandara, Attorneys-at-Law instructed by F. J. and G. de Saram appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs.
Nihal Hettiarachchi, Chairman of Multivision stated that "soon after the order of the Court, we visited the Multivision premises to resume duties, but we were restrained by certain people who are currently occupying the premises including one Gerald Junkeer. Said Gerald Junkeer is not even a Director or a shareholder of Multivision, but simply a thug who has been hired by the Australians to oust us from the Company by using methods other than legal.
These people have been spending the shareholders' money of an Australian Public Company by making the shareholders believe that their Company have ownership in Multivision without informing them of the ground situation. Now the shareholders are taking action against them in Australia", he added.
It is learnt that there was a minor confrontation when Hettiarachchi and his staff attempted to move in and take control of the Company as he was entitled by the Order of the Court.
"We were threatened and a weapon was pointed at me by the thugs who were in control of the Multivision premises", Hettiarachchi added. At a previous occasion on 16th December 2004 a hand grenade was thrown at the residence of Hettiarachchi in connection to this dispute and an inquiry is still being held in this regard.
"We acquired Multivision from its ultimate owner in Canada back in 2001 when the Company was faced with a winding up action and most of the pay television channels were disconnected for non payment. In 2004, the same people who sold Multivision to us have arranged to sell the same company under its fully owned subsidiary, Chalmway, when we have made it a profitable venture and thereby defrauded our investment.
It was the new claimant for Multivision. HLT Limited of Australia, who appeared as Chalmway and filed the cases in Sri Lanka", Hettiarachchi explained to the Daily News.
"It was disheartening to see some Sri Lankans helping these Australian swindlers outside of legal procedures to defraud us, simply for a profit out of the dispute", stated Mr. Hettiarachchi who went on to say that "it is not the Australians who are not letting us go back into Multivision, but those Sri Lankans including Gerad Junkeer, who has no investment or any position whatsoever."
Currently there is another case which has been field by the Hettiarachchi Group in the Commercial High Court with the case number HC (Civil) 246/2005 (1) seeking certain reliefs including an order of court directing Rystar and Chalmway to transfer all their shares held in Multivision to the Hettiarachchi Group controlled Osni Lanka; and a permanent injunction preventing Rystar and Chalmway and/or their servants, agents and all those acting under and through them from in any way dealing and/or voting on the said shares.
The Hettiarachchi Group has filed the said action based on certain Convertible Secured Promissory Notes and corresponding Securities Pledge agreements that were issued by Rystar Communications Limited of Canada at the time of acquiring Multivision from Rystar back in 2001.
The Hettiarachchi Group has complained that Rystar and Chalmway are attempting to transfer the shares they own in Multivision to the said HLT Limited of Australia and since those shares should only be owned by Osni Lanka, the Hettiarachchi Group has requested the Court to maintain the status quo until the final determination of the matter.
What the hell is Anonymous trying to achieve by bombarding us with all the historical information about the troubles at Multivision ? Is he trying to stifle our voices ?
Why does he not do some investigation and inform us as to what is in store for Multivision customers after 01st June 2007 ?
can u tell me which page that article is in, are u sure its in the daily news ?
To all bloggers:
PLEASE STOP POSTING FALSE NEWS ARTICLES AND MISLEADING PEOPLE.
ADMIN - CAN U DO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS ?
Warning to all bloggers.
Please note that false information deliberately targeted at misleading the public will not be tolerated.
Please do not post comments containing old of date information too.
Comment moderation or registration will be made a requirement if this continues.
Admin
@amd,
why you are getting tensed all connections are bullshit. Fuck dialog tv, i am suffering with it
@ arnold,
1st of all, have respect for this blog and refrain from using slang.
If u are suffering with it, get something else.
Im asking all these questions for the sake of comet customers, unlike u i dont go around finding fault with the service and scolding them in flith, instead lets try to talk about it and find solutions to the problems.
@amd
first of all tell what connection you got???? and from when you have this connection ??
Dont speak without knowing others probelms......
I hav CBN SAT from June last year, jus before it closed down. One of my neighbours have DISH TV and COMET. So i know about all the services.
AMD Lokuda??
THIS CABLE NETWORK HAS LARGE PAYMENT DUE AND LIABLE FOR DISCONNECTION this message popup in comet few channels around 8 PM Star movies, star world, Star plus.. is this mean end of comet ??
I also saw this notice on Star Plus yersterday on comet
ADMIN :
Do u have any news with regard to comet cable ?
@amd
The better person to ask this question is rahdus. He is the only person who do not have any work other than to peep into others network.
And steal other people name
HI Admin:
Whats the latest on Comet Cable ?
Is no news "good news"? Or is it looking bad?
Program guides have been received by customers for the month of May.
looks like life is indeed going on... But come June 1st,.Whats going to happen admin? You get the latest news, So please update us.
Thanks.
Nothing will happpend on june 1st!
Dont worry!
Post a Comment