Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Marsoof, J. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgement prepared by my brother Balapatabandi, J., in draft, and I regret that I cannot agree with his findings, for the reasons outlined below. This appeal is against the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 8th October 1999, holding that the Defendant-Respondent-Respondent-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as œthe Appellant?) is guilty of contempt of court, and imposing on him a sentence of 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500,000/- along with a further term of 6 months rigorous imprisonment upon default thereof. The said conviction and sentence arose from the alleged violation of an undertaking given by the Appellant in the context of a revision application filed by the Plaintiff-Petitioner-Petitioner-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as œthe Respondent?) in the Court of Appeal challenging an order of the District Court of Colombo refusing an interim injunction to restrain the Appellant, his agents ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Shiranee Tilakawardane, J. The Defendant-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellant") preferred this Appeal against the judgment entered in case No HC (CIVIL) 12/2001 (3) of the Commercial High Court of Colombo dated the 11th of September 2003 on the following grounds: i. Did the Learned High Court Judge err in holding that damages occurred to the Plaintiff- Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent") on the basis that the Respondent had economic rights to the photographs? ii. Did the Learned High Court Judge err in awarding damages to the Respondent in the sum of Rs. 1,000,000/-? iii. Did the Learned High Court Judge improperly rely on a Gazette submitted by the Respondent without notice to the Appellant? In considering these questions of law it is opportune to analyze the pleadings, documents and evidential facts relevant to the case. The Respondent filed action alleging that his intellectual property rights had been violated by the Appellant's publication of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
K. Sripavan, J. The Accused Appellant Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the œAppellant?) was indicted before the High Court of Hambantota on the following two counts : Count 1. That he did on the 28th of September, 1977 kidnap one Jayamunigedera Suramya from the lawful custody of her guardian Anulawathie thereby committing an offence contrary to Section 354 of the Penal Code. Count 2 That he did commit the offence of Rape on the said Jayamunigedera Suramya during the period 28th September 1997 and 26th October 1997 thereby committing an offence contrary to Section 364(2) of the Penal Code. The High Court found the Appellant guilty on both counts at the trial and sentenced him on 28.09.2005 as follows:- Count 1 Five years Rigorous Imprisonment. Count 2 Ten years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2500/= and an order for compensation in a sum of Rs. 5000/= with a default term of six months Rigorous Imprisonment. The Court further ordered that both sentences to run concur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Sripavan, J. The Petitioner by its Petition dated 21st April 2011, inter alia, moved Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to set aside the Order of the High Court dated 11th March 2011 and to declare that the said High Court did not have jurisdiction to have entertained proceedings in H.C. (ARB) No. 2404/2010 instituted by the Respondent. The facts relating to this application are briefly as follows:- The Petitioner is a foreign construction company which was engaged in construction work for the Respondent Authority. When disputes arose during the course of the works, the Petitioner referred the said disputes first to the Engineer and then to the Adjudicator in terms of the provisions of Clause 19.1 to 19.3 of the Conditions of Contract. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the Adjudicator, the Petitioner thereafter referred the said disputes to arbitration by its letter dated 10th December 2009 in terms of Clause 19.5. The Petitioner in its letter nominated the following thr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Saleem Marsoof J. This order pertains to certain preliminary objections taken up on behalf of the 11th and 12th Respondent-Respondents (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "11th and 12th Respondents") in regard to the maintainability of this application. Basic Facts By way of introduction, it may be useful to set out in outline the basic facts that give rise to the aforesaid objections. The President of Sri Lanka has made order on 12th January, 2013 in terms of Article 107(2) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka removing the Petitioner-Respondent from the post of Chief Justice pursuant to a resolution for her impeachment being passed by Parliament and the President addressing Parliament as contemplated by Article 107 of the Constitution. Prior to this development, the Petitioner-Respondent had filed an application dated 19th December 2012 in the Court of Appeal seeking inter alia a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the report of the Parliamentary Select Committee that found he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Shirani A. Bandaranayake, J. The petitioner, who was a Driver attached to the Sri Lanka State Plantation Corporation, had complained that his fundamental rights guaranteed in terms of Articles 11 and 13(1) of the Constitution were violated by the 1st respondent for which this Court had granted leave to proceed. The petitioners complaint, as submitted by him, albeit brief, is as follows: The petitioner had to report for work usually at the Head Office of the Sri Lanka Plantation Corporation situated at Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02 and as he was from Niyagama, Talgaswatta, for his convenience he had been staying with a family known to him at Park Avenue in Colombo 08. On 30.03.2007 after his work the petitioner had gone to Niyagama as the following Monday was also a holiday and on 02.04.2007, he had left his home at Niyagama to proceed to Colombo on 02.04.2007. He had come to the bus halt at Gallinda Junction around 5.00 p.m. to proceed to Elpitiya from where he could wait for a bus plyin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Dr. Shirani A.Bandaranayake, CJ: The petitioner was a student of Kalutara Balika National School, who sat for her General Certificate of Examination (Advanced Level), (hereinafter referred to as the Advanced Level Examination) for the second time in August 2008. She complained that, on the basis of her results at the said examination, she verily believed that she had attained a satisfactory Z score to follow the course of studies in Medicine. However, she had applied for her third attempt for the said Examination in 2009 prior to the release of the cut-off marks. The petitioner alleged that the respondents had arbitrarily reduced and /or had amended her Z score without any basis for such reduction and without giving any explanation for such reduction and thereafter had released a revised schedule of the Advanced Level results and thereby had decided that the petitioner has not been selected to a Faculty of Medicine. The petitioner accordingly complained that her fundamental rights guar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, J. The petitioner had filed this application in this Court alleging that his fundamental rights guaranteed in terms of Articles 11, 12(1), 13(1) and 13(2) of the Constitution were violated by the 1st and/or 2nd respondents. This Court had granted leave to proceed for the alleged infringement of Articles 11, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Constitution. The facts of this application, as submitted by the petitioner, are as follows: The petitioner had been an employee at Brown and Company from 1979 “ 1996 and thereafter was engaged in facilitating sales of vehicles. His wife is a retired teacher in English who was the Head of the English Division of the Advanced Technical Institute, Kandy. Their son Sahan, was 24 years of age at the time of this incident and was engaged in a mobile phone shop in Kandy. In 2005, the petitioner and his wife had learnt that Sahan was having an affair with a married woman. In the best interest of their son, the petitioner and his wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Saleem Marsoof J: In this appeal from the order of the High Court of the Western Province holden in Colombo exercising civil jurisdiction and hearing commercial matters (Commercial High Court) dated 10th June 2003, the only question that arises for decision is whether the said High Court had erred in refusing to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree entered by it against the Appellant on 31st August 2001. No question has been raised as regards the regularity of the appellate procedure followed in this case. At the hearing before this Court, learned Counsel for the Appellant emphasized that the Appellant, Consolidated Steel Industries (Pvt) Ltd., was a limited liability company incorporated in Sri Lanka, and that the default in appearance on the part of the Appellant had been caused by the failure to comply with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code Ordinance No. 12 of 1895, as subsequently amended, with respect to service of process on such corporate entities. He submitted th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, J: The petitioner was a Matron at the Seth Sevana State Elders Home at Mirigama and had commenced her duties on 15.10.1996. Consequent to a notice published in the Government Gazette of 08.12.2006 by the Secretary to the Provincial Public Service Commission of the Western Province (A), the petitioner had sat for the examination pertaining to the recruitment of Social Welfare Superintendent of the Department of Social Services of the Western Province. According to the petitioner she was placed 3rd in order of merit at that examination. However as there had been only two vacancies to be filled on the basis of the said examination, viz., at the Bellantara Specialized Childrens Home and the Gangodawila House of Detention, she could not be appointed as a Social Welfare Superintendent. Nevertheless, the petitioner had a legitimate expectation founded on the basis of paragraph 3 of the Gazette Notification dated 08.12.2006 (A), that she would be appointed to the ...
Tag this Judgment!