Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
R.K.S. Suresh Chandra J: This is an appeal from the judgment of The Commercial High Court, Colombo in respect of an appeal filed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff in her Plaint filed in the District Court of Colombo which was later transferred to the Commercial High Court, Colombo averred that her husband was the late Mr. C.T Fernando that the said Mr. C.T. Fernando, had done a musical composition for the song œPinsuduwanne? and was its singer as well. The Defendant had included the said song in a teledrama titled œMal Kekulak? without the Plaintiffs permission and had telecast it for a commercial purpose. The Plaintiff claimed the intellectual property rights to the œtune? of the said song as the widow of late Mr. C.T. Fernando in terms of section 19(1) of the Code of Intellectual Property Act No. 52 of 1979 and averred that the Defendant had breached the Plaintiffs rights under the Code of Intellectual Property. She prayed for a declaration to the effect that the tune...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Tilakawardane, J: The Accused-Petitioner-Petitioner-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) has sought Leave to Appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal dated the 11th November 2008 whereby the Court of Appeal upheld the Judgment of the High Court of Chilaw. This Court granted Special Leave to Appeal on 3rd March 2009 on the following two questions of law. (i) Was the Order dated 11th September 2002 given by the Magistrates Court of Marawila in Case No. 60172 under Section 186 of the Criminal Procedure Code or under the proviso thereof? (ii) If the said Order was made in terms of the proviso to Section 186 is that tantamount to acquittal in terms of Section 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act? On 24th October 2001, charges of cheating, criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust in terms of sections 403, 386 and 389 of the Penal Code respectively, were filed against the Appellant in the Magistrates Court of Marawila. Employed at Ceylinco Insurance Company a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Amaratunga J: The petitioner, by her application dated 22.10.2008, has sought relief for the alleged violation of her fundamental right by the 2nd and the 3rd respondents by not allowing her to perform the duties and functions of the Secretary of the Elpitiya Pradesheeya Saba, a post to which the petitioner was appointed by the Southern Province Public Service Commission. This Court has granted leave to proceed for the alleged violation of the petitioners fundamental right guaranteed by Article 12(1) of the Constitution. According to the averments set out in the petition, the petitioner joined the Public Service in 1993 as a Class 11 (b) Officer of the Government General Clerical Service. In 1996, on the results of an examination she was promoted to Class 11 (a) of the same service. She was absorbed in to the Provincial Public Service of the Southern Province with effect from 19.6.2001. She was absorbed into a Class (II) post in the Southern Province Management Assistants Service from ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
J.A.N. de Silva CJ: This is an appeal from an order of the Commercial High Court of Colombo. The 2nd Respondent- Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) seeks to set aside the order of the learned High Court Judge dated 11th May 2009. This order was challenged in all three cases, this court decided to amalgamate all three cases together to deliver judgment. The facts of this case in so far as they are relevant to this application are as follows. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Petitioner-Respondents instituted two actions before the Commercial High Court on the same day in terms of section 226 of the Companies Act no 7 of 2007. Perusal of the trial record indicates that court was informed of the death of the 3rd petitioner-Respondent on the 15th of October 2008, which was the date fixed for the filing of objections by the Appellant and the Respondent-Respondents. It is at this point that controversy arose as to the direction with which the action should proceed thenceforth. The learn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
J.A.N. De Silva, CJ: S.C. (FR) Applications 297/08 and 578/08 were taken up together with the agreement of parties as the main issues to be decided were similar. S.C. (FR) 297/08 dealt with alleged acts or omissions committed by H.E. the President who is cited as the 1st Respondent with regard to the non appointment of the Constitutional Council in terms of the former Article 41A of the Constitution and SC. (FR) 578/08 dealt with the appointment of the 4th Respondent as Attorney General of Sri Lanka in the said case by H.E. the President who is cited as the 2nd Respondent allegedly without following the procedure laid down and without obtaining the approval of the Constitutional Council in terms of the former Article 41C of the Constitution. Prior to the objections being filed by the Respondents, both applications were taken up for argument based on preliminary objections raised on behalf of the Respondents regarding the maintainability of both applications due to the Provisions contai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Saleem Marsoof, J. The Petitioner-Petitioner-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as œBrown and Co.?), is a Company incorporated in Sri Lanka with the corporate name of Brown and Company (Pvt.) Ltd., which name has since been changed to Brown and Company PLC. The 4th to 6th Respondent- Respondent-Respondents (hereinafter referred to as the œrelevant employees?) were originally employed as Engineering Executives in the Engineering Division of Brown and Co. They were transferred to the 7th Respondent-Respondent-Respondent Browns Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Browns Engineering) with effect from 1st January 1992, and their services were subsequently terminated by the letters dated 23rd November 1994 consequent to a decision taken by the management of Browns Engineering to close its business. Even prior to the said closure of business and termination of the services of the relevant employees, they had apprised the management of Browns Engineering as well...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, J: This is an application for leave to appeal from the order of the Provincial High Court of the Southern Province Holden in Galle, dated 24.03.2010. By that order the learned Judges of the High Court dismissed the application made by the respondents-petitioners-petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners). The petitioners had thereafter preferred an application for leave to appeal to this Court. When this application was taken for support for leave to appeal, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-judgment creditor-respondent-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) took up a preliminary objection stating that the petitioners had not complied with rule 8(3) of the Supreme Court Rules 1990 and therefore the leave to appeal application filed by the petitioners should be dismissed in limine. The facts relevant to the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent, as submitted by him, albeit brief, are as follows:...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
P.A. Ratnayake, J: The Petitioner in this case who was an officer of the Sri Lanka Educational Administrative Service retired from Service on 01.12.2004 upon reaching 60 years of age, which is the age of compulsory retirement in the public service. Meanwhile based on the budget proposals of 2005, the Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs issued Circular No. 09/2004 dated 27th December 2004 (P3). This Circular seeks to provide different benefits to pensioners “ 1) who retired on or before 01-12-2004 (Clause 10.1); and 2) who retired having served on 01-12-2004 (Clause 10.2). The relevant Governmental Authorities, ie Director of Pensions (6th Respondent) and Director of Establishments (8th Respondent), have taken up the position that the Petitioner is entitled to the benefits conferred on the first category mentioned above, ie a category of pensioners falling under Clause 10.1 of the Circular (P3), and accordingly he does not become entitled to benefits conferred on th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Tilakawardane, J: Special leave to appeal was granted on the application by the Applicant-Appellant-Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) for Special Leave to Appeal dated 24th October 2008 on the following questions of law: 1. Did the learned President of the Labour Tribunal and the learned High Court Judge err in law in failing to consider the evidence of the Appellant in light of the fact that certain documents produced by the Respondent were essentially based on recordings containing several discrepancies? 2. Did the learned President of the Labour Tribunal and the learned High Court Judge err in law by failing to consider that the Respondent, in seeking to establish the charges against the Appellant, had based its case on presumptions and not on actual evidence? 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent suggested two further questions of law which read as follows: A. Was the finding of the learned President of the Labour Tribunal supported by the evidence? B. If so, is...
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!