Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Shiranee Tilakawardane, J. Leave to Appeal was granted by this Court on 14.10.2011 against the judgment of the High Court of the Western Province holden in Kalutara dated 03.11.2011, on the following questions of law as enumerated in paragraph 11 (i) - (ix) of the Petition dated 13.06.2011: (i) Did the Provincial High Court [exercising civil appellate jurisdiction] err in holding that the Learned District Judge had erred in arriving at the finding that a constructive trust had been created as a result of the transaction in P1 [i.e. Deed No. 7948 dated 15.07.1987] (ii) Did the Provincial High Court err in concluding that it cannot reasonably be inferred consistently with the attendant circumstances that the defendant did not intend to dispose of the beneficial interest of the property concerned? (iii) Did the Provincial High Court err in not even referring, leave aside evaluating, the attendant circumstances from which the Learned District Judge had concluded that the plaintiff was hold...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Shiranee Tilakawardane, J. Leave to Appeal was sought by the Plaintiff-Petitioner-Petitioner via the Petition dated 10.08.2010 in Application S.C. (CHC) CALA No. 266/10, in order to enable an Appeal against the Judgment in Case No. WP/HCCA/COL/111/2009/LA by the Provincial High Court of Civil Appeal of the Western Province. Having heard the submissions of the respective Counsel, this Court granted Leave to Appeal on 26.04.2011 on the questions of law set out in paragraph 14(i), 14(iii) of the Petition as modified as follows: 14(i). Does the Plaintiff-Petitioner-Petitioner have ex facie disclosed a prima facie case against the 1st Defendant-Respondent-Respondent? 14(iii). In any event and without prejudice to the aforesaid, does the passage quoted in paragraph 335 in page No. 329 of Law of Contracts by C. G. Weeramantry from Voet 18.5.16, have no application in the backdrop of development of Modern Law? Furthermore, Leave was also granted on the question of law set out in paragraph 14(i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Tilakawardane. J Special Leave to Appeal was sought by the Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner by the Petition dated 04.11.2011 in Application S.C. (Spl) LA No. 193/2011, in order to enable an Appeal against the judgment in case no. WP/HCCA/COL-12/2009[RA] by the High Court of Civil Appeals in Colombo. When the case was taken up for support before the Supreme Court on 10.07.2012, the Counsel for the Petitioner-Petitioner-Respondent raised the following preliminary objections: I. The Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner has suppressed the fact that the Commercial High Court has refused to grant an interim injunction to prevent the sale which is the subject matter of the present Application; II. The fact that an Appeal was made against the above order to the Supreme Court in S.C. H.C.L.A. 45/2006 and this Court has refused to grant relief was also suppressed; The Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner submitted that none of the material referred to above appear from the plea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Shiranee Tilakawardane, J. Special Leave to Appeal was sought by the Petitioner-Petitioner [hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner] by way of Application No. 296/2009 in order to enable an Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 09.11.2009. Special Leave to Appeal was granted on 21.05.2010 on the following questions of law as enumerated in paragraph 47 (a) and (c) of the Petition dated 17.12.2009: 1. Did the Court of Appeal err in law in failing to consider that Section 13 of the Stamp Duty (Special Provisions) Act No. 12 of 2006 mandates that where there is an inconsistency between it and the Stamp Duty Act No. 43 of 1982, the Stamp Duty (Special Provisions) Act No. 12 of 2006 prevails? 2. Did the Court of Appeal err in law in ignoring the canons of interpretation of taxing statutes when it sought to apply the definition of œvalue? in the Stamp Duty Act No. 43 of 1982 when interpreting the œaggregate value of such number? of shares as appearing in the G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Shiranee Tilakawardane, J. This is a direct Appeal from the decision of the Trial-at-Bar dated 25.08.2011 whereby the Learned Judges found the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Accused-Appellants guilty on the following counts: Count (1): did conspire to abduct Muthuthanthri Bastiange Dinesh Tharanga Fernando in order that such person maybe murdered or put in danger of being murdered and as a result of the said conspiracy you did commit the offence of abduction punishable under Section 355 read with Section 113(a) and 102 of the Penal Code. Count (2): did conspire to abduct Goniamalimage Dhanushka Udayakantha Aponso in order that such person maybe murdered or put in danger of being murdered and as a result of the said conspiracy you did commit the offence of abduction punishable under Section 355 read with Section 113(a) and 102 of the Penal Code. Count (3): did conspire to murder Muthuthanthri Bastiange Dinesh Tharanga Fernando and as a result of the said conspiracy you did commit the offence of ...
Tag this Judgment!