Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements - Seylan Bank
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements - Seylan Bank
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements - Seylan Bank
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
336 North Bound > <strong>Seylan</strong> <strong>Bank</strong> Annual Report 2011<br />
<strong>Notes</strong> <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Consolidated</strong> <strong>Financial</strong> <strong>Statements</strong><br />
42. Litigation and claims<br />
42.1 Cases Against <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bank</strong><br />
In <strong>the</strong> normal course of business, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bank</strong> is involved in various types of litigation with borrowers or o<strong>the</strong>rs<br />
who have asserted or threatened claims/counter claims against <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bank</strong>, including <strong>the</strong> following:<br />
1. Civil Cases<br />
(i) CA(Rev)1788/04 - Claim against <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bank</strong> with regard <strong>to</strong> a draft deposit <strong>to</strong> BCCI <strong>Bank</strong> at <strong>the</strong> time of<br />
<strong>Seylan</strong> <strong>Bank</strong> taking over <strong>the</strong> operations of BCCI <strong>Bank</strong>. (Draft value USD 500,000/-).<br />
(ii)<br />
CHC 157/2001(1), (SC01/2010) - Case filed by Lanka Milk Foods, with regard <strong>to</strong> dishonouring a<br />
Guarantee issued by BCCI <strong>Bank</strong> before taking over by <strong>Seylan</strong> <strong>Bank</strong> (Guarantee value USD 72,730.23<br />
and USD 56,732.25 ).<br />
(iii) SC CHC 20/2007 - 02 plaintiffs had filed H.C. (Civil) 137/99 (1) adding <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bank</strong> as a defendant praying<br />
judgment for a sum of Rs. 11,535,525/-. (equivalent <strong>to</strong> USD 161,381.15) – Judgment was delivered on<br />
22.02.07, in favour of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bank</strong>. The plaintiff made <strong>the</strong> above appeal <strong>to</strong> Supreme Court.<br />
(iv) DC Colombo 15958/M – Case filed claiming Rs. 200,000/- as damages from <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bank</strong> for wrongful<br />
honouring of a guarantee. The judgment given in favour of <strong>the</strong> plaintiff for Rs. 100,000/- with legal<br />
interest. The <strong>Bank</strong> has filed an appeal against <strong>the</strong> judgment and <strong>to</strong> be listed.<br />
(v)<br />
CHC 14/98(1) – Case filed for dishonouring cheques and a letter of credit. Claim Rs. 111.0 Mn. Judgment<br />
given in favour of <strong>the</strong> plaintiff but both parties have filed appeals against <strong>the</strong> said judgment and not yet<br />
listed.<br />
(vi) DC Mt. Lavinia 234/claim - Case was filed claiming damages for wrongful seizure (claim Rs. 2 Mn.)<br />
(vii) DC Ratnapura 23391/MR – Case was filed by <strong>the</strong> cus<strong>to</strong>mer for wrongful take over of machinery which<br />
is not mortgaged <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bank</strong>. (claim Rs. 23.0 Mn.)<br />
(viii) CHC 232/2002, CHC 320/2002, CHC 243/2002 - These claims are instituted with regard <strong>to</strong> sale of shares<br />
of Blue Diamond Jewellery Worldwide (BDJWWL) held as security for <strong>the</strong> facility of Gold Lada.<br />
(ix) 00367/DMR/09 - Damages claimed by <strong>the</strong> cus<strong>to</strong>mer claiming MLN Branch has wrongfully refused <strong>to</strong><br />
issue Dollars for travel purposes. Case transferred <strong>to</strong> CHC (559/10/MR and <strong>the</strong> case is fixed for filing<br />
affidavit evidence).<br />
(x)<br />
CHC Colombo 359/09 MR - Case filed by <strong>the</strong> cus<strong>to</strong>mer against <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bank</strong> stating that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bank</strong> charged<br />
default interest on <strong>the</strong> default facilities, while keeping FDs (Ceylinco Investment Co.) of Rs. 8.0 Mn. as<br />
securities for <strong>the</strong> said facilities.<br />
(xi) DC Colombo DMR/1605/11 - The plaintiff claims that as per <strong>the</strong> lease agreement <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bank</strong> did not<br />
vacate <strong>the</strong> premises on <strong>the</strong> due date causing him damages and loss of revenue (claim Rs. 2.4 Mn.).<br />
(xii) HC (Civil) 159/06 - Case filed by <strong>the</strong> cus<strong>to</strong>mer for wrongful take over of machinery which is not<br />
mortgaged <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bank</strong> (claim Rs. 23.0 Mn.).<br />
(xiii) DC Ratnapura 12734/M - <strong>Bank</strong> has filed a case against <strong>the</strong> borrower claiming for Rs. 226,687.95 and at<br />
<strong>the</strong> answer borrower cross claimed from <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bank</strong> for Rs. 2.5 Mn. as damages on <strong>the</strong> ground that <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Bank</strong> has wrongfully handled <strong>the</strong> relevant accounts. Case is at <strong>the</strong> trial stage.