Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Suresh Chandra, J This is an appeal against the Order made by the Commercial High Court of Colombo granting an Interim Injunction restraining the Defendant - Appellant (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Defendant') from placing any person in possession or occupation in the mortgaged property. The summary of the facts which gave rise to this question are as follows: The Defendant who had gained ownership of the property described in the schedule to the Plaint by virtue of the Deeds of Transfer bearing No.1371 and No.1372 had become the owner of the contiguous allotment of land . The Defendant had intended to develop erect and construct on the said allotment of land a condominium building comprising residential apartments called "Palais Maharaj". The Plaintiff - Respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the Plaintiff') intended to purchase and the Defendant agreed to sell to the Plaintiff 17 apartments of the condominium at a price of Rs.7 million per apartment. The Plaintiff paid the Defend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Suresh Chandra, J This is an appeal against the Judgment of the Court of Appeal exercising its Writ Jurisdiction dismissing the Petitioner's Application seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of acquisition published in the Government Gazette No.46 dated 17th March 2004 made under clause (a) of the proviso to Section 38 of the Land Acquisition Act No.09 of 1950 and to quash the notices issued under S.2 and S.4 of the said Act. The application for special leave to appeal had been taken up by this Court on 10.02.2009 and leave had been granted on the following questions. 1) Has a public purpose been manifested and/or stated in the notice under S.2 of the Land Acquisition Act? 2) Do the facts and circumstances of this case warrant an order under clause (a) of the proviso to S.38 of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground of urgency? The Appellant in their application to the Court of Appeal had stated as follows. 'That the Appellant was a Regional Plantation Company established und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, CJ This is an appeal from the Order of the Civil Appellate High Court of the Western Province holden at Kalutara (hereinafter referred to as the High Court) dated 0107-2010. By that Order, the High Court had dismissed the leave to appeal application filed by the defendant-petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) and affirmed the Order of the District Court of Kalutara dated 0505-2009 granting the interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff-respondent- respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent). The appellant preferred an application before the Supreme Court against the said Order of the High Court on which leave to appeal, with consent of both parties, was granted on the following questions: 1. Did the High Court err in law in failing to recognize that the District Court Order was contrary to law and contrary to the evidence before Court? 2. Did the High Court err in law in holding that the respondent had a strong prima...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, CJ: This is an application filed by 16 students, who sat for the General Certificate of Education (Advanced Level) Examination (hereinafter referred to as the Advanced Level Examination) held in August 2011 and a Trade Union registered under the provisions of the Trade Union Ordinance, No.14 of 1935, as amended. The petitioners complained that the application of an erroneous and unjustifiable common formula to calculate the Z-Scores of the candidates of both New and Old Syllabi of the Advanced Level Examination in 2011, which resulted in the failure to rank the most suitable candidates for admission to Universities is arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, unjustifiable and is in violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 12 (1) of the Constitution. After hearing all learned Counsel this Court had granted leave to proceed for the said alleged infringement of Article 12 (1) of the Constitution. When this matter was taken up for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, CJ: The petitioners, who are the minor child and the father of the said child respectively, alleged that by failing to admit the 1st petitioner to Grade I of the Visakha Vidyalaya, Colombo 4 for the year 2011, the respondents have violated their fundamental rights guaranteed in terms of Article 12 (1) of the Constitution for which Leave to proceed was granted by this Court. The facts of this case, as submitted by the petitioner, albeit brief, are as follows: The 2nd petitioner had made an application, at the time applications were called for admissions of students to Grade I of the National Schools for the year 2011, for the admission of the 1st petitioner to Grade I of Visakha Vidyalaya, Colombo 4. The said application was made under the category of Chief Occupant's Children, whose parents were residing in close proximity to the school. The petitioners were called for the interview, which was held on 08-09-2010 and at the said interview, the 2nd petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, CJ This is an appeal from the Judgment of the Provincial High Court of the Western Province, holden in Colombo, (hereinafter referred to as the High Court) dated 22-06-2009. By that judgment the High Court had affirmed the Order of the Labour Tribunal dated 21-02-2007. The respondent-appellant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) came before this Court against the Order of the High Court on which this Court had granted Special Leave to Appeal. The facts of this appeal, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant, albeit brief, are as follows: The appellant being a Co-operative Society, incorporated under the Co-operative Societies Law, No. 5 of 1972, had recruited the applicant-respondent-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) as a clerk on 02-10-1972. She had been promoted to different Grades at various stages and by letter dated 22-03-2004, she was sent on retirement as she had passed the retirement age and had n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Suresh Chandra, J: This is an application for special leave to appeal in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka read with s.9 of the High Court of Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No.19 of 1990. When this application was taken up for support a preliminary objection was raised by Counsel for the Respondent as to the maintainability of the application in view of s.14(2) of the Maintenance Act No.37 of 1999 . Both parties made oral submissions and thereafter filed written submissions regarding the preliminary objection that was raised. The Respondent had made an application in the Magistrates Court of Marawila against the Petitioner seeking maintenance for herself in the sum of Rs. 20,000 per month. Thereafter she had amended her application and sought an increased amount of maintenance of Rs.60,000 per month. After inquiry by the learned Magistrate, the Petitioner was ordered to pay Rs.5,000 per month as maintenance. Thereafter the Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Suresh Chandra, J This is an appeal against the judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court of Kegalle rejecting the Notice of Appeal and the Petition of Appeal filed by the Appellant against the judgment of the District Court of Mawanella. The Respondent had instituted action in the District Court of Mawanella seeking a declaration of title in respect of the land described in the second Schedule to the plaint, ejectment of the Appellant and for damages. The Appellant filed answer denying the averments in the plaint and sought a dismissal of the action. The District Court entered judgment in favour of the Respondent. Thereafter the Respondent being aggrieved by the said judgment of the District Court preferred an appeal to the Civil Appellate High Court of Kegalle. Both parties were required to file written submissions and consequently the Civil Appellate High Court delivered judgment dismissing the appeal of the Appellant on the ground that the Notice of Appeal was not valid as it had ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Suresh Chandra, J This is an appeal against the judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court of Kegalle rejecting the Notice of Appeal and the Petition of Appeal filed by the Appellant against the judgment of the District Court of Mawanella. The Appellant had instituted action in the District Court of Mawanella seeking a declaration of title in respect of the land described in the second Schedule to the plaint. The Respondents filed answer denying the averments in the plaint. The District Court entered judgment in favour of the Respondents. Thereafter the Appellant being aggrieved by the said judgment of the District Court preferred an appeal to the Civil Appellate High Court of Kegalle. Both parties were required to file written submissions after they had made their oral submissions and consequently the Civil Appellate High Court delivered judgment dismissing the appeal of the Appellant on the ground that the Notice of Appeal was not valid as it had not been addressed to the original Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Suresh Chandra, J: This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal which affirmed the judgment of the District Court of Kegalle. The Appellant instituted action in the District Court of Kegalle to partition the land called Apullannage Watta alias Udaha Apullannage Pallehawatte containing in extent one Pela of paddy sowing situated in Rukulagama. The Plaintiff in her plaint which was subsequently amended set out the devolution of title to the said land and stated that the manner in which the shares should be devolved on the parties. The 1st Respondent filed a statement of claim agreeing with the devolution of title set out in the plaint and claimed his share on the basis set out in the plaint. The 2nd Respondent filed a statement of claim and set out the devolution of title as claimed by him. The parties agreed that the corpus sought to be partitioned was depicted in the Preliminary Plan No.869 which was drawn on a commission issued by Court. The Appellant as well as the 2nd ...
Tag this Judgment!