The following article was published on April 28 with inaccuracies which we now correct.

The Court of Appeal on April 25 ordered that the Supreme Court hear petitions for the winding-up of Lord and Lady, Kay Mart, Public Supermarket and Topaz Investments, brought by businessman Raju Khemlani.

In making the order, the Court of Appeal set aside a November 2006 ruling by Justice Marva McIntosh, who ordered that the petitions be removed from the files of proceedings,

The Court of Appeal's ruling came three years after Khemlani first signalled his intention in 2005 to have the companies wound-up.

This move to shutter the establishments was contested by his brother, Suresh Khemlani, who has a 50 per cent stake in the companies. Raju Khemlani is also registered as the holder of 50 per cent of the shares in the companies.

Raju Khemlani had applied to the Supreme Court to wind up the companies, three of which are located at the Manor Centre Mall in Constant Spring, St Andrew, which is owned by Topaz Investments Ltd.

Raju Khemlani had argued that Suresh Khemlani, since becoming managing director in 1997, had not "produced or disclosed any satisfactory financial statements".

Raju Khemlani also said that he never received any information from which he could ascertain the "true state of the companies" regarding their liabilities or profitability.

He further stated that since 1997, there have been no annual general meetings, no directors' meetings, that no dividends have been declared and that Suresh Khemlani and his family members employed to the companies were the only ones benefiting financially. Suresh Khemlani, however, charged in his affidavit in 2006 that prior to him becoming managing director of the company in 1997, Raju Khemlani administered the affairs of the companies poorly, which resulted in the establishments going into receivership.

In 2006, Justice McIntosh refused further proceedings on Raju Khemlani's winding-up petitions, while faulting his action - his instructing the National Commercial Bank not to honour any cheques without his signature - that, she said, resulted in the companies being indebted to creditors.

She said in her judgment then that Raju Khemlani's motive was to "bring pressure to bear on the companies so that he could be in a management capacity in these companies and pursue his own objectives, prevent enquiries in relation to the dissipation of company assets and force payments for shares to which it is questionable or difficult that he has any beneficial entitlement".

Raju Khemlani, however, appealed the 2006 ruling. The appeal was heard on March 10 and 11 of this year, when judgment was reserved.

After handing down their decision on April 25 that the petitions be restored for hearing in the Supreme Court, the court promised to state in writing the reasons for its ruling.

'What was I thinking?' Chris Brown speaks out

Fashion Saturday

Colourful Coif