The courts also barred the Central Bank from continuing with the liquidation process against Crane Bank and returned the status quo of Crane Bank to what it was before the main appeal, in which the Bank asked the court to block Sudhir from claiming, taking control, repossessing or in any way interfering with the management of the Bank.
The controversy between Crane Bank and Bank of Uganda seems to be coming to an end after businessman Sudhir Ruparelia secured an injunction against the Bank of Uganda’s move to place Crane Bank (in receivership) under liquidation.
The courts also barred the Central Bank from continuing with the liquidation process against Crane Bank and returned the status quo of Crane Bank to what it was before the main appeal, in which the Bank asked the court to block Sudhir from claiming, taking control, repossessing or in any way interfering with the management of the Bank.
In September 2021 the Bank of Uganda announced its intention to withdraw this appeal and committed to paying Ruparelia and co-respondent, Meera Investments, court costs. Earlier in August, the Supreme Court had dismissed an application by the Bank of Uganda to substitute Crane Bank (In Receivership) with Crane Bank (In Liquidation) in their appeal.
The ruling was based on the fact that the status of Crane Bank’s receivership still stood until the court ruled otherwise, and therefore could not be under liquidation. "The attempt at circumvention of the decision of the Court of Appeal by altering the status of the 1st respondent from Crane Bank in receivership to Crane Bank in liquidation, was in our view, aimed at preventing the course of justice before this court and the same amounted to contempt,” ruled the justices.
Under receivership, the new manager, in this case, BOU, takes over the management of the company in question and receives all revenues due, to pay any outstanding obligations. Liquidation is the last step in the winding up of the company.
Ruparelia has thus, succeeded in preventing the liquidation of Crane Bank, which was poised to follow the way of those gone before it, including the International Credit Bank, Teefe Bank, Greenland Bank, National Bank of Commerce and Global Trust Bank.
In all cases, the regulator argued that the entities were being mismanaged, had more liabilities than assets and put the deposits at risk. The bid to withdraw the main appeal, which is most likely to succeed, means the […]
