Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
P.A. Ratnayake, J. The Petitioner in this appeal is seeking to set aside the judgment of the High Court of Colombo by which its application for enforcement of an Arbitral award was dismissed. The Petitioner is a Company by the name of Trico Maritime (Pvt) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as Trico Maritime) which had an insurance policy with the Respondent by the name of Ceylinco Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Ceylinco Insurance). The sum insured by the said policy at the relevant date was Rs. 58 million. In April 1999, the Petitioner submitted a claim to the Respondent for a loss that occurred due to the premises going under water. The Ceylinco Insurance paid a sum of Rs. 10 million to Trico Maritime in respect of the claim but Trico Maritime referred the matter for Arbitration in terms of the Arbitration Clause in the policy as Ceylinco Insurance has not met his entire claim. After inquiry two out of the three arbitrators delivered a joint award on 22nd October 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
S. Tilakawardane, J. The Petitioner was granted leave to proceed on 03/02/2009 on the alleged infringement of Article 12(1) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka. The minor Petitioner who appeared by her father Don Kapila Dhamminda Wijayaweera, contended that her fundamental right to equality has been violated by the failure of the Respondents to offer her admission to Grade 1 of Visakha Vidyalaya. The Petitioner had preferred two separate applications under the categories of œProximate Residence? and œBrother/Sister currently attending the same school? (hereinafter referred to as the sister category), in terms of the Circular No 2008/21 dated 16/05/08 on the Admission of Children to Grade 1 of Government Schools issued by the Secretary, Ministry of Education marked P1. The Petitioner argues that she would be qualified for admission to the said school under both categories. In her application under the œproximate residence? category, the Petitioner claimed that they have b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
S. Tilakawardane. J. An application for Special Leave was preferred by the Defendant-Petitioner-Petitioners-Petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioners) against the decision of the Provincial High Court of Civil Appeal of the Western Province dated 13.02.2008. This Court granted Special Leave to Appeal on 25.07.2008 on the question of law set out in paragraph 12 (c) of the Petition, namely whether the action to revoke a deed of gift based on gross ingratitude would survive, upon the death of the original Defendant (donee) before the conclusion of the case The Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) instituted action bearing No. 349/98/SPL, in the District Court of Mount Lavinia, against the deceased Defendant praying, inter alia, that the Deed of Gift bearing No.1909 dated 07.08.1992, made by the Respondent to the deceased Defendant be canceled, on the ground of alleged gross ingratitude by the Defendant. The deceased Defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
S. Tilakawardane. J: An application for Special Leave was preferred by the Respondent Petitioner Appellant, the Attorney General, (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) against the Judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 30/05/2008 wherein the conviction and the sentence imposed against the Accused Appellant Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) was set aside. This Court granted Special Leave to Appeal on 18/09/08 on the following questions of law. 1. Did the Court of Appeal err in law by holding that œthere was no reason to reject the evidence of the defence witness Matilda?? 2. Did the Court of Appeal err in law by holding that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt without considering the prosecution evidence? 3. Did the Court of Appeal err in law by the failure to evaluate and consider the prosecution evidence and or the submissions made on behalf of the prosecution (State) in the Court of Appeal? 4. Did the Court of Appeal err by r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
S. Tilakawardane. J. The petitioner has been granted leave to proceed on 19.2.2008 on an alleged violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution. The petitioner was appointed to the police force originally on 20.01.1985. At the time of his appointment, he was admittedly informed that it was a transferable post. The petitioner claimed, that whilst he was functioning as the Officer-in-Charge of the Assets Investigation Division of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption (hereinafter referred to as the Bribery Commission) he was transferred to the Ampara Division and demoted in rank, by document dated 15.11.2007 (marked P4). Though the petitioner adverts to the fact that he was an Assistant Superintendent of Police (hereinafter referred to as ASP) at the time of his transfer on 15.11.2007, it was conceded during arguments, that he had signed his letters dated 27.11.2007 (marked P7) and 27.11.2007 (marked P8) as a Chief Inspector of Police. Documents reveal that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Sripavan. J: When this appeal was taken up for hearing on 9th February 2010, Learned Counsel for the substituted-Plaintiff-Appellants-Respondents (hereinafter referred to as the Respondents) took up a preliminary objection to the effect that the Defendants-Respondents “Appellants (hereinafter referred to as the Appellants) had failed to serve a copy of their written submissions on the Respondents as required by Rule No. 30(6) of the Supreme Courts Rules 1990 and that the Appellants appeal should be dismissed in limine in terms of Rule 34 thereof. It is not in dispute that five copies of the Appellants written submissions were duly lodged in the Registry of this Court on 4th August 2009, in terms of Rule 30(1), read with Rule 30(6). However, the only matter to be considered is whether the Appellants failure to serve the said written submissions on the Respondents would amount to a failure to exercise due diligence as provided in Rule 34. It is a well known principle in the constru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Marsoof, J: The Petitioners are Class II-Jailors of the Department of Prisons, falling within the purview of the Ministry of Justice and Law Reforms, and have in this application under Article 17 read with Article 126 of the Constitution, sought to challenge the promotions of the 16th to 23rd Respondents to the post of Class I-Jailor in the said Department and the failure to promote the Petitioners to the said post. The Petitioners, who are all senior jailors in Class II of the service, claim that their fundamental right to equality enshrined in Article 12(1) of the Constitution has been violated by the actions of the 1st to 15th Respondents or any one or more of them, which have resulted in the 16th to 23rd Respondents who are more junior in the service being promoted over the Petitioners, who even otherwise are more qualified than the said Respondents. By way of relief, the Petitioners have prayed for a declaration that their fundamental right to equality has been violated by executi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, J: This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court (Commercial) of Colombo dated 28.03.2000. By that judgment the High Court had granted relief in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) in terms of prayers a, b and c of the Plaint. The defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) appealed to this Court in terms of High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act, No. 10 of 1996 read with Section 756 of the Civil Procedure Code and the said appeal was fixed for hearing. When this matter was taken up for hearing Additional Solicitor General for the appellant, learned Presidents Counsel for the 1st respondent and learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent agreed that the appeal could be considered on the following question: œWhether the undertaking of the Secretary to the Treasury contained in clauses 9 and 10 of the Agreement marked P7, binds the State.? The facts of this appeal, as sub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Jan De Silva, CJ: This is an appeal from a judgment of the commercial High Court of the western province. It concerns a transaction between the appellant bank and the defendant who is a customer of the said bank involving a certain export bill of exchange. The appellant alleges that the defendant had neglected to pay certain sums owing to the plaintiff bank. The learned High Court judge had with the consent of the parties heard issues 14 and 16 as preliminary issues. Namely, 14. is the plaintiff`s cause of action prescribed in law in terms of the provisions of the prescription ordinance? 16. Is the defendant estopped in law from claiming any benefit on the plea of prescription as the defendant has already admitted paragraphs 1, 2,3,5,6 and 8 of the plaint and documents marked œP2? and œP4?? It was the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the learned judge had erred in hearing the said issues as a preliminary issue. Section 147 of the civil procedure code reads t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Marsoof, J: This is an appeal from a decision of the Commercial High Court of Colombo dated 22nd October 1999 dismissing the action filed by the Plaintiff-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the œAppellant?), seeking inter alia to remove from the register maintained by the Registrar of Trade Mark under the now repealed Code of Intellectual Property Act No. 52 of 1979, as subsequently amended, the trade mark bearing No. 12307 registered in the name of the 1st Defendant-Respondent, Brooke Bond Group Ltd of Watergate, London, United Kingdom, and currently licensed to the 2nd Defendant-Respondent, Brooke Bond (Ceylon) Pvt Ltd. It is common ground that Brooke Bond Group Ltd is a company duly incorporated in the United Kingdom and was previously named and known as Brooke Bond Liebig Ltd. and Brooke Bond Group PLC respectively. It is also an admitted fact that Brooke Bond (Ceylon) Pvt Ltd. was, on the date the original action was filed, a wholly owned subsidiary of Brooke Bond Group L...
Tag this Judgment!