Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Shiranee Tilakawardane, J: The Petitioner was granted special leave to proceed on 1st October 2009 on the questions of Law set out in paragraph P15 (a), (b) and (c) of the Amended Petition dated 14th September 2009. The Applicant-Appellant-Respondent (hereinafter, the œRespondent?) filed an application in the Labour Tribunal seeking relief on the premise that his services were constructively terminated by the Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner Company (hereinafter, the œPetitioner?) and praying, inter alia, for the reinstatement of his services. The Petitioner emphatically denied and actively terminating the Respondent, asserting instead that the Petitioner had no choice but to deem the Respondent terminated from its employ as a result of the Respondent having vacated his post. The dispute over the appropriate characterization of the severance of the relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent which is the issue this court has to determine necessitates a careful review...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Shiranee Tilakawardane, J: The Defendant “ Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) has preferred this appeal to set aside the order of the Commercial High Court dated 12.11.2010, whereby the learned judge of the High Court allowed the Plaintiff “ Respondents (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) application for a writ pending appeal. The Application made by the Petitioner objecting the issuance of writ pending the appeal, was refused consequent to the Petitioners failure to establish substantial losses that is likely to incur if the writ is allowed. Admittedly on or about the 9th December 1996 the Petitioner had placed an order with the Respondent (a state trading corporation of India carrying out imports and exports) for 100 metric tons of dried chillies at the price of US$ 1,300/= per metric ton by container or break bulk vessel. The shipment was made from Tuticorin to Colombo. The transaction was marked X1, the Respondent affirmed that X1 did not spe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Shiranee Tilakawardane, J: Leave was granted on 25.10.2010 to the Petitioner-Respondent-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) specifically on the two following questions of law: a) Has the District Court erred in law in granting the interim injunction against the Appellant b) Did the last will in favour of the 1st Respondent not devise soil rights to her, The Appeal is lodged against an order dated 03.02.2010 made by the Civil Appellate High Court holden at Mt. Lavinia (marked as P26) and was contained in the brief. The Civil Appellate High Court by its order affirmed the order dated 16.03.2009 (marked P17) made by the District Court granting an interim injunction, in the case bearing No: District Court Mt. Lavinia 1272/T. It is important to note at this stage, that this case was filed in the District Court by the Petitioner seeking probate, which was stated on the last will bearing no. 653 attested by Samarapala Liyanage Notary Public dated 14.12.1984 marked as P1. His ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Shiranee Tilakawardane J: The Applicant-Appellant-Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) was originally an employee of the Sri Lanka State Plantations Corporation from October 1975 .Consequent to the privatization of the plantations from 22nd June 1992 the Petitioners contract of employment was vested with the Respondent - Respondent -Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent). As specified in the terms and conditions of the gazette notification, bearing No720/2 and dated 22nd of June 1992 the Petitioner continued to be in the service of the Respondent without a break in service. His past service under the Sri Lanka State Plantation Corporation was counted for his service period under the Respondent. On or about 9th January 1995, the Respondent served a charge sheet on the Petitioner which consisted of 16 charges, all relating to serious acts of misconduct. Thereupon, after a domestic inquiry and upon being found guilty of charges 5, 8(c), 8(d), 9, 10(a), 10...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Saleem Marsoof, J:The Petitioners in these applications are scientists who have served in the Institute of Fundamental Studies (IFS) at various points of time. At the time of filing these applications, the 1st Petitioner in SC FR Application No. 73/07 was an Associate Research Professor and the 2nd Petitioner to the said application as well as the Petitioner in SC FR Application No. 371/2009 had served as Senior Research Fellows at IFS. The Petitioner in SC FR Application No. 413/2009 was a very distinguished scientist who had functioned as the Director of IFS from 6th May 1998 up to 5th May 2008. They were all employed at the IFS on contract basis, and in their petitions filed in this Court in terms of Article 126(1) of the Constitution, they complain of violations of their respective fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 12(1) of the Constitution, through certain decisions taken by the Institute pertaining to the continuity of their contracts of service at IFS. When the first of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Sripavan. J: The Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) instituted action in the District Court of Kalmunai against both the Defendants-Appellants-Respondents (hereinafter referred to as the Respondents) for declaration of title to the land morefully described in the schedule to the Plaint, ejectment of the Respondents, together with others who claim through the Respondents from the said land, for damages and costs. The Respondents in their answer admitted their residence and the situation of the land as averred in the Plaint but denied that any cause of action has arisen for the Appellant to sue them. In paragraph 4 of the answer, the Respondents stated that the land is the same as described in the schedule to the Plaint, but described in the answer according to their deed. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned District Judge, by his judgment dated 07.05.2002 granted reliefs as prayed for in the Plaint. On an appeal preferred by the Respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Sripavan. J: The 1A substituted-Applicant- Petitioner-1st Respondent-Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the œPetitioner?) in this application seeks to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 29th May 2009, on the basis that the Court misconstrued certain provisions of the Urban Development Authority Law No. 41 of 1978 as amended. Special Leave was granted by this Court on 21st October 2009 on the questions of law set out in paragraphs 11(i), 11(ii) and 11(iii) of the amended petition dated 29th September 2009. At the hearing before us, all Counsel agreed to restrict their argument to the following two questions of law only : (i) Did the Court of Appeal err in Law in interpreting Section 23(5) and 28(A)(3) of the Urban Development Authority Law as amended by Act No. 4 of 1982? (ii) Did the Court of Appeal misconstrue the provisions of the Urban Development Authority Act No. 4 of 1982? On 1st July 2005, the Petitioner instituted an action in the Magistrates Court of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, CJ. Learned Judge of the Civil Appellate High Court of the North Central Province sitting at Anuradhapura acting under Article 125 of the Constitution, sought a clarification on the jurisdiction of the Civil Appellate High Court (hereinafter referred to as the High Court) in terms of Article 154 P (4) (b) and whether the said High Court is competent to grant relief prayed for in the petition to issue a writ of certiorari against the Divisional Secretary. The petitioner before the High Court is a permit holder, which had been issued in terms of Section 19(2) of the Land Development Ordinance (as amended). The petitioner had stated before the High Court that the Divisional Secretary, who is the respondent in that application, had taken steps to alter the boundaries of the land allocated under the permit. The petitioner therefore claimed that the conduct of the respondent is illegal and is a violation of the Rules of Natural Justice and therefore the decision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, CJ: This is an application filed by the 20th defendant-appellant-petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) against the Judgment of the High Court of the Sabaragamuwa Province holden at Kegalle (hereinafter referred to as the High Court) dated 13.10.2009. By that judgment the High Court had rejected the appeal of the appellant. The appellant came before this Court seeking leave to appeal against the said judgment, for which this Court had granted leave to appeal on 05.02.2010. The parties thereafter had moved for time to consider a settlement; this appeal was not fixed for hearing, but was mentioned on two (02) occasions. On 09.06.2010 when this matter was considered in open Court, the 6th defendant-respondent-respondent-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 6th respondent) had informed Court that 16a defendant-respondent is deceased and therefore the appellant had moved for time to take steps for substitution. At the same time th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
S.I. Imam. J The Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant (henceforth sometimes referred to as the œAppellant?) has tendered this Special Leave to Appeal Application seeking inter alia to set aside the Order of the Provincial High Court of Civil Appeal of the Western Province of Colombo dated 16.7.2007 (P10) amongst other reliefs prayed for. This Court having heard submissions of both Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondent on 4.12.2007 decided to grant Special Leave to Appeal to the Petitioner in terms of the questions set out in paragraph 18 (b), (c) and (d) of the Petitioners Petition dated 24.8.2007, which stated as follows, namely, whether the High Court of Civil Appeals (b) has not addressed its mind to the question of the refusal of a Commission sought by the Defendant at the trial, (c) has misdirected itself to make its conclusion with regard to the marking of documents but not in respect of issuing a Commission, (d) has failed to consider the proviso to Section 175 (2) and i...
Tag this Judgment!