Sued Immigration
Consultant B. Sharma
to file counterclaim Sharma
disclosed this in his Affidavit of Defence which he filed in the
Supreme Court Registry in answer to the claim by the woman that he had
not been frank with her. Justice
Claudette La Bennett heard the Ex Parte application by way of an
affidavit for an interim injunction prepared by Attorney-at-law, Miss
Gaumattie Singh, on behalf of the applicant. Judge
La Bennett had ordered the Canadian-based Guyanese, who wanted to
leave the country, to lodge US$2,000 with the Registrar before leaving
Guyana. The order was complied with and
the action is pending. In
his affidavit of defence, Sharma said,
“I have never represented to anyone and more specifically Ms. Shaw,
the Plaintiff herein, that I will obtain a visa for her at a price or
within a specific time, as the general period I informed the clients
for the processing of their application is from nine months to twelve
months. “The
money paid to me was never to provide the Plaintiff with a visa but,
as a registered professional immigration consultant
with the Canadian authorities, to deal with the Plaintiff’s
application for the purpose of obtaining from the immigration
authorities, if they are satisfied with the details and requirements,
a visa. “On
several occasions, I requested of the plaintiff to give further
information as requested by the authorities, but to no avail.” Sharma’s
affidavit in defence went on to state, “I am advised by counsel and
verily believe that I have a good and valid defence to the entire
claim filed herein and that the Plaintiff does owe me outstanding sums
of money for work done by me for which I intend to file a counter
claim as advised by my Attorney-at-law. “In
the circumstance, I am asking the Honourable Court for leave to defend
this matter with further pleadings.” The
affidavit on behalf of Sharma
was drawn up by Attorneys-at-law, Mr. Jailall Tiwari Kissoon, Miss Renée
R. Kissoon, S. Kissoon and Mr. Rishi R. Kissoon. Attorney-at-Law,
Miss Gaumattie Singh, for the Plaintiff, is objecting to the filing of
further pleadings. Thursday,
August 25, 2005
|