Archives

More depositors challenge cancellation of Pramuka Bank's licence

Two more cases were filed in the Appeal Court on Monday 20th 2003, by 227 depositors of Pramuka Bank, challenging the decision of the Monetary Board of the Central Bank to cancel the banking licence of Pramuka Savings and Development Bank. This follows a case filed last Thursday by six depositors.

They too allege that the cancellation has been made without resorting to the proper steps provided for by the Banking Act to protect the interests of depositors and creditors of the bank.

One of these cases has been filed by 225 desperate depositors seeking Court intervention, in what has become a huge crisis which has given rise to a big deterioration in public faith in the Central Bank's regulation of banking institutions and their stability. The case is to be supported by M. A. Samanthiran with Ms. Prasansini Bandaranayake and Rasika Balasuriya instructed by Samanthi Kumarasinghe.

The other case, filed by two other depositors, is to be supported by Viran Corea instructed by Dilka Hewage, setting out that the petitioners are also aware that apart from themselves, there are many depositors who are very harshly affected by the actions taken by the Monetary Board, as well as A. S. Jayawardene (Governor), P. M. Nagahawatte (Deputy Governor) and Mrs. P. P. Sirisena (Director Bank Supervision) of the Central Bank. Fourteen depositors are reported to have suffered strokes at the thought of being unable to recover their monies deposited in the 5th Respondent Bank.

Cited in that case, is a newspaper feature article published in the Daily Mirror of 14th January 2003 titled "Pramuka Bank's desperate depositors", which sets out the specific distress and harm caused to a few of the many thousands affected by the actions of the Central Bank.

It is argued in the petition, that in the given situation, any of the depositors and creditors of Pramuka are faced with grave financial hardships and constraints which prevent them from even obtaining proper assistance to bring their grievance to a Court, which in turn effectively prevents them from exercising their fundamental right to invoke the jurisdiction of Court to obtain redress.

Therefore, the petitioners in the second case argue that apart from themselves, the thousands of other depositors and creditors of Pramuka Bank are also legally entitled to the reliefs which are sought by the depositors.

Among the several reliefs sought by the Depositors, is an order to prevent the Central Bank from proceeding with the process of winding up of Pramuka consequent to the challenged cancellation and/or to stop any steps being taken based on the said cancellation.

They have also requested Court to issue a stay order restraining the Central Bank from proceeding with the process of winding up of Pramuka Bank consequent to the challenged cancellation. 

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager