3G Technologies Ltd v Savatry Ramsaran, Supervisor of Insolvency Appointed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act 2007

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Mr. Justice Robin N. Mohammed
• Judgment Date: 16 December 2024
• Neutral Citation: TT 2024 HC 318
• Docket Number: Claim No. CV2015-01018
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)

In the Matter of Judicial Review Act Ch 7:08

and

In the Matter of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act 2007

and

In the Matter of a Decision of the Supervisor of Insolvency, Savatry Ramsaran Granting a Trustee Licence to One Rudranand Maharaj under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act 2007

and

In the Matter of an Application by the Applicant to Apply for Judicial Review of the said Decision of the said Supervisor of Insolvency

Between

3G Technologies Limited

Applicant

and

Savatry Ramsaran, Supervisor of Insolvency Appointed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act 2007

Respondent

Before

THE HONOURABLE Mr. Justice Robin N. Mohammed

Claim No. CV2015-01018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Appearances:

Mr Donald Seecharan instructed by Riaz Seecharan for the Applicant

Mr Stephen Singh instructed by Ms Ashleigh Jardine for the Respondent

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1 By ex parte application filed on 31 March 2015, the Applicant sought leave of the Court to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Respondent, the Supervisor of Insolvency (‘SOI’), to issue a trustee licence on 25 February 2015 to Mr Rudranand Maharaj pursuant to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act 2007, Chap. 9:07 (‘BIA’). The application was filed by Mr Riaz Seecharan supported by the affidavit of Mr Donald Seecharan filed on 31 March 2015 and a Supplemental affidavit of 28 April 2015.

2 It is the Applicant's contention that the decision was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the BIA as the Respondent, in the face of several pending complaints and Court proceedings challenging Mr Maharaj's appointment as a Receiver of the Applicant company, she improperly considered him “to be a fit and proper person” to be appointed as a licensed trustee under the Act.

3 The Applicant thus sought orders that: (i) the Respondent's decision be declared illegal, null and void and of no legal effect; (ii) the decision be quashed and the licence be expunged from the SOI's record of licences; (iii) damages including aggravated and/or exemplary damages; and (iv) costs. The Applicant also sought an interim injunction restraining and suspending the decision of the Respondent to issue the licence to Mr Maharaj pending the determination of this matter, a review of the decision by the Respondent, and an Order pursuant to Section 10 of the Judicial Review Act that the Respondent do provide to the Applicant certain information requested by letter dated 6 ^th February 2015.

4 At the first hearing of the application for leave on 7 May 2015, Counsel for the Applicant, Mr Donald Seecharan, alleged that the Respondent was in contempt of Court for issuing the trustee licence to Mr Maharaj and publishing the said appointment on the SOI's website notwithstanding the pending High Court proceedings.

5 This allegation was followed by a formal application for an Order of Contempt filed on 12 June 2015 seeking to restrain the Respondent from publishing and or causing or permitting to be published on the SOI's website any grant of licence to Mr Maharaj. The Applicant alleged that the publication was calculated to interfere with the administration of justice and was intended to prejudice the fair trial of a related High Court matter.

6 On 27 May 2015, the Respondent filed her affidavit in response to the Claim.

7 At a subsequent hearing on 29 June 2015, the Court ordered the parties to file and exchange written submissions on or before 30 September 2015 addressing two preliminary issues raised, namely:

• i. Whether Mr Donald Seecharan, counsel for the Applicant, can effectively represent the Claimant having deposed to affidavits in his capacity as, and on behalf of, the Applicant; and

• ii. Whether the Respondent is in contempt as alleged in the proceedings filed on 12 June 2015.

8 On 30 September 2015, both parties filed submissions. However, the Applicant's submissions were limited to the first preliminary issue of Mr Donald Seecharan's capacity. It is noted that subsequently, on 9 October 2015, in contravention of the Court's Order, the Applicant filed submissions on the issue of contempt of Court.

9 On 4 November 2015, the Respondent filed a Supplemental affidavit indicating that she received correspondence from the ICATT dated 12 October 2015 wherein she was advised that they will not be pursuing any action against Mr Maharaj.

10 At a further hearing of the application, on 5 November 2015, the Applicant challenged the Respondent's Counsel, Mr Singh's ability to represent her in the matter as it was alleged that Mr Singh and his firm, Johnson, Camacho & Singh represented Mr Maharaj in his capacity as Receiver of a company, Atlas Engineering Ltd. The Court thus ordered the parties to file affidavits on that matter and submissions on same were subsequently filed by the parties.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

11 On 14 November 2013, Mr Maharaj was appointed as the Receiver of the Applicant Company by Scotiabank Trinidad and Tobago Limited (“the Bank”) under the powers contained in a debenture issued by the Applicant to the Bank. Following his appointment, Mr Maharaj took control of the company's assets and froze its accounts thereby denying access to the Applicant and its directors, Donald Seecharan and Fariza Seecharan, to the same.

12 On 7 August 2014, the Applicant and its directors instituted High Court proceedings CV2014-02872 (“the High Court matter”) against Mr Maharaj challenging his appointment as the receiver on the basis that it was illegal.

13 Thereafter on 9 December 2014, the Applicant filed criminal complaints against Mr Maharaj (No. 25059–60 of 2014) before the Magistrates' Court alleging that his appointment was in contravention of the BIA and the Companies Act.

14 By letter dated 8 August 2014, the Applicant wrote to the Respondent informing her of the High Court matter and subsequently filed a summons for her to appear as a witness in the magisterial proceedings.

15 The Applicant by letter dated 17 December 2014, further complained of the illegalities surrounding Mr Maharaj's appointment alleging that the registration of his appointment as receiver was fraudulent and that Mr Maharaj was statutorily disqualified from applying for a trustee licence. As such, the Respondent was prohibited from appointing him as a licensed trustee.

16 On 5 January 2015, the Applicant filed a complaint to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Trinidad and Tobago (“ICATT”) against Mr Maharaj alleging breaches and contraventions of the BIA and Companies Act and the rules of the ICATT.

17 In response to the Applicant's letter, the Respondent by letter dated 8 January 2015 informed the Applicant that the grant of the licence to Mr Maharaj was a private matter and disclosed no further details or views on the allegations. Upon receipt of this response, the Applicant requested a meeting with the Respondent which was refused.

18 On 25 February 2015, the Respondent issued a trustee licence to Mr Maharaj.

19 It is the Claimant's contention that in order for Mr Maharaj to satisfy the requirements of the BIA for the grant of the trustee licence he was required to meet the minimum requirement as a fit and proper person and show that he was not subject to any current disciplinary action by any professional organization of which he was a member. However, there was an undetermined disciplinary complaint against him which was filed by the Applicant at the time the Respondent made her determination as well as proceedings before the High Court and Magistrates' Court.

20 The Applicant thus argued that the Respondent acted arbitrarily and in a high-handed manner and her decision was contrary to the law, in excess of jurisdiction, in breach of natural justice and the Applicant's legitimate expectation and in disobedience to the conditions and procedures of the law. It is alleged that the Respondent deliberately failed to carry out her duties and abide by the procedures under the Act despite the complaints of the Applicant and the pending matters against Mr Maharaj.

21 On the other hand, it is the Respondent's position that there was no Order of the Magistrates' Court or the High Court which prevented her from carrying out her duties under the BIA. She believed on the advice of counsel that the proper course would have been for the Applicant to obtain an interim injunction restraining her from granting a trustee licence to Mr Maharaj.

22 The Respondent contended that the heart of the action stemmed from the Applicant's attempt to set aside the appointment of Mr Maharaj as the receiver of the Applicant company and she believed the [then] pending High Court matter provided the suitable alternative remedy for resolution of this issue. Further, the proceedings in the Magistrates' Court were collateral to the High Court matter.

23 The Respondent denied that she illegally issued a trustee licence to Mr Maharaj. She asserted that the licence was granted after consideration of the provisions of the BIA, and due investigation of Mr Maharaj's application and confirmation that there was no adverse determination in disciplinary proceedings against him by ICATT or by any of the courts. The Respondent also sought legal advice and ultimately concluded that there was no legally compelling reason to not issue the licence to Mr Maharaj.

III. ISSUES

24 The issues which fall to be determined are as follows:

• [1] Whether Mr. Donald Seecharan, (hereinafter called ‘Mr Seecharan’) having filed affidavits in this application for leave to apply for judicial review can effectively represent the Applicant in these matters which include the application for contempt.

• [2] Whether Ms. Savatry Ramsaran is in Contempt of Court for publishing on a website that Mr. Rudranand Maharaj was appointed an individual licensed trustee and whether the Respondent could be heard by this Honourable Court.

• [3] Whether there is a conflict of...