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
Eva Wanasundera, PC. J. This Court has granted Leave to Appeal on the questions set out in paragraphs 16 (a) and (b) of the petition dated 20th July 2011. They are; 16(a)-Whether the order of Provincial High Court for compensation is excessive and/or erroneous in law . (b) Whether the Provincial High Court erred in law in the evaluation of evidence and has made order without a consideration of the totality of the evidence. The facts of this case are as follows:- The Respondent-Respondent- Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) is the Peoples Bank who employed the Applicant-Appellant-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) as the Manager. The Respondent filed an application in the Labour Tribunal seeking relief that he was denied of the full term of his second extension amounting to a constructive term of his services. He asked for reinstatement of his services and/or compensation from the Labour Tribunal. The Learned President of the Labour Tribunal made ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
K. Sripavan, J. When this application was taken up for support, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Attorney-General objected to leave to proceed being granted and in addition, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the application on the basis that it has been filed outside the time limit prescribed by Article 126(2) of the Constitution. In the instant application, the Petitioner impugns, inter alia, the failure and/or neglect and / or refusal on the part of all or any one or more of the 1st to 25th respondents to grant the Petitioner's retirement benefits. In paragraph 21 of the petition, the Petitioner alleges that 5 years and 5 months have lapsed from the time of retirement. The Petitioner in paragraph 17 of the petition states that the Respondents refused and/or failed or / neglected to honour the said findings or/recommendations of the Human Rights Commission as well and reasserted its purported position that since the Petitioner had tende...
Tag this Judgment!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!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Eva Wanasundera, PC. J. This Court granted Special Leave to Appeal to the Substituted Defendants-Appellants- Petitioners-Appellants (hereinafter referred to as the œAppellant?) on the following question of law:- œDid the Court of Appeal err in law when it decided that a re-listing application of a final appeal could only be made by the Registered Attorney in the District Court?? Written submissions were filed by both parties according to the Supreme Court Rules and it was argued and concluded on the 7th of February 2014. The subject matter of this case in the District Court was œland?. When judgment was pronounced in the District Court on 18.11.1998 in favour of the Plaintiff, the Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal, on 15.10.2009, affirmed the judgment of the District Court. The Fiscal of the District Court of Akkaraipattu executed writ on 29.04.2010 and the Plaintiff took possession of the land after 28 years of litigation which commenced ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Eva Wanasundera, Pc. J. This appeal arises from the Provisions in the Thesawalamai Pre-Emption Ordinance No. 59 of 1947 which is an Ordinance to amend and consolidate the law of Pre-Emption relating to lands affected by the œThesawalamai?. Section 4 of the said Ordinance reads:- œThe right of pre-emption shall not be exercised except in a case where the property which is to be sold consists of an undivided share and interest in immovable property, and shall in no case be permitted where such property is held in sole ownership by the intending vendor?. Section 2 [1] of the said Ordinance explains that the right of pre-emption over any immovable property subject to the Thesawalamai means œthe right in preference to all other persons whomsoever to buy the property for the price proposed or at the market value?, given to a class of persons specifically mentioned in that Section. It is a preferential right to buy a property when another person is wanting to sell his or her...
Tag this Judgment!