Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Tilakawardane. J. The Petitioner- Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) has sought Leave to Appeal from the decision of the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 23.08.2010 whereby the Court of Appeal refused an application made by the Petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari, and in the alternative, a writ of mandamus. This Court granted Special Leave to Appeal on the following questions of law: 1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider the acquisition as ab initio void for the reason that no purpose was disclosed in the Section 2 Notice warranting the acquisition. 2. Did the Learned Judges of the Court of Appeal err in law by upholding the acquisition on the basis that there was a supervening public purpose. 3. Did the Learned Judges of the Court of Appeal err on the facts by holding that the acquisition was warranted for the purpose of a subsequent public purpose 4. Did the Learned Judges of the Court of Appeal err in law by placing an unfair burden ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Wanasundera, PC.J. In this matter on 01.7.2011, leave to appeal was granted on the questions of law set out in paragraphs 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd' and 'f of the petition dated 22.11.2010. This Court added one more question of law as follows:- "In any event, whether the Civil Appellate High Court of Kegalle was justified in making an order for the restoration of the relevant property to the Defendant, without holding an inquiry into the complaint made by the Defendant with regard to 'forcible dispossession contrary to law". The Counsel of both parties, the Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff-Petitioner) and the Defendant-Petitioner- Petitioner-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant-Respondent), at the hearing on 22.3.2013 agreed that this Court should go into only the question of law which the Court suggested as aforementioned. The Plaintiff-Petitioner had filed action in the District Court claiming that he is the owner of the lan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Tilakawardane. J. Having heard the submissions of the respective Counsel in this case we see no reason to grant Special Leave to Appeal and the Application is accordingly dismissed. The next matter that requires consideration of this Court is the award of costs. There are several salient matters in this case which have been drawn to our attention during the arguments and the narrative that was unfolded by the respective Counsel. S.C (S.P.L) L.A No. 37/2012 (hereinafter referred to as the Present Supreme Court Case) was an Application for Special Leave that arose out of the decision by the Magistrate's Court of Nuwara Eliya in Case No. 99342, dated 16.06.2010. This Court finds it imperative to narrate the manner in which the Present Supreme Court Case developed out of the Judgment dated 16.06.2010 in Case No. 99342 in order to ascertain the costs to be awarded. This Case, heard by the Magistrate's Court of Nuwara Eliya, concerned an Order of Ejectment pursued by the Sri Lanka Broadcasti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Saleem Marsoof J: The only question that arises for decision in this order is whether the substitution of Malalage Gunadasa Peiris in place of the deceased original Petitioner to this fundamental rights application, which was effected by this Court on 27th July 2012 in terms of Rule 38 of the Supreme Court Rules 1990, is valid in law. Rule 38 provides as follows:- 38. Where at any time after the lodging of an application for an application under Article 126, the record becomes defective by reason of the death or change of status of a party to the proceedings, the Supreme Court may, on application in that behalf made by any person interested, or ex mero motu, require such the Petitioner to place before the Court sufficient materials to establish who is the proper person to be substituted or entered on the record in place of, or in addition to, the party who has died or undergone a change of status; Provided that where the party who has died or undergone a change of status is the Petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Wanasundera, PC.J. Leave to Appeal was granted by this Court, in order to enable an Appeal against the judgment of the Western Province Civil Appellate High Court Holden in Kalutara dated 10.09.2009, on 04.08.2010 on the following questions of law as enumerated in paragraph 21 (a), (b) and (c) of the Petition dated 13.10.2009: 1. Has the repairs made by the Defendant caused deterioration to the premises in question which would come under the purview of Section 22(1 )(d) of the Rent Act No. 7 of 1972 as amended? 2. Was the replacement of Sinhala tiles (half round tiles) with Asbestos sheets caused deterioration to the premises? 3. In the circumstances pleaded, is the Plaintiff entitled to reliefs prayed for? The Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent [hereinafter referred to as the Respondent] instituted Action by Plaint dated 20.12.1995 in the District Court of Panadura, seeking the ejectment of the tenant, Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner [hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner] from premis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Chandra Ekanayake, J. The 1st Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the 1st Defendant) by her petition dated 08.12.2011 (filed together with her affidavit) had sought inter alia, leave to appeal against the order of the High Court of Civil Appeal of Western Province (Holden in Colombo) dated 06. 12. 2011 (P20) in Application bearing No.WP/HCCA/Col/119 / 2011/LA, to set aside the said order and the order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 20.10.2011(P18) in D.C. Colombo case No.DRE-011/2011 and to order the learned Additional District Judge to dismiss the plaint of the Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the plaintiff), on the preliminary objections raised by her in sub paragraphs (a) to (c) and (e) of the said petition. Further by sub paragraph (d) of the prayer to the said petition the 1st Defendant-Appellant had sought to vacate the interim injunctions issued by the said order dated 20.10.2011 in terms of pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Saleem Marsoof J: This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of the Western Province holden in Colombo exercising civil jurisdiction and hearing actions of a commercial nature (hereinafter referred to as the Commercial High Court) dated 24th September, 2010. By the said judgment, the Commercial High Court upheld the claim of the Plaintiff-Respondent, Ceylinco Leasing Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Ceylinco Leasing") for the aggregate sum of Rs. 132,523,149.86, allegedly due on 12 causes of action, each of which was pleaded as a separate loan granted by it to the Defendant-Appellant, Lionair (Pvt) Ltd. (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Lionair") as prayed for in the plaint. Ceylinco Leasing sued Lionair to recover outstanding payments on loans allegedly granted by it to Lionair. In its plaint dated 3rd April 2008, Ceylinco Leasing referred to a Strategic Alliance Agreement (P-1) dated 24th September 2003 entered between Ceylinco Capital Invest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Saleem Marsoof J: In this application filed by the Petitioner against the Provincial Health Authorities of Sabaragamuwa Province, the Petitioner has alleged that his fundamental rights to equality guaranteed by Article 12 (1) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka has been violated by the 1st and /or 2nd and /or 5th Respondents. This Court granted leave to proceed to the Petitioners against the said Respondents for the alleged violation of his fundamental right to equality. The Petitioner has stated in his petition filed in this Court that he had tendered for the supply of certain food items for the year 2010 to certain hospitals including the Karawanella Base Hospital and the Kithulgala District Hospital, coming within the Sabaragamuwa Province. According to him, the tender conditions were contained in the Tender marked P2 and in the Instructions to Bidders and Additional Conditions marked P3. He further alleges in paragraph 2 of his petition that tenders closed on 4th November 2009 at 10 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Saleem Marsoof J: This appeal is in a way a sequel to the decisions of our appellate courts in Virasinghe v Virasinghe [2002] 1 SLR 1 (CA) and [2002] 1 SLR 264 (SC), and focuses on the consequences of the alleged delay in applying for delivery of possession of the corpus of a partition action, or part thereof, to which a person is entitled to by virtue of a final decree entered into, or a sale held, in terms of the Partition Law, No. 21 of 1977, as subsequently amended. The primary question on which this Court has granted the Plaintiff-Petitioner-Respondent-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellant") leave to appeal against the judgment of the Provincial High Court of the Western Province holden in Colombo (hereinafter referred to as the "Civil Appellate High Court") dated 26th August 2011, is- "Whether their Lordships of the Civil Appellate High Court have erred in law by failing to appreciate the fact that the twelve months time frame referred to in Section 52 of the Parti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Tilakawardane, J. The Plaintiff - Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant Bank) instituted action against the Defendant - Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) in the Commercial High Court of the Western province holden in Colombo in case No. 255/2002 seeking to recover a sum of US Rs. 347,972.72 and a sum of US Rs. 288,163.16 based on two Letters of Credit (marked as 'P3' and 'P6'). The Learned Judge of the Commercial High Court dismissed the Appellant Banks case by its judgment dated 10.06.2004. The Appellant Bank has now filed this appeal against the said judgment of the Commercial High Court, on the following questions of Law. 1. The Learned Judge of the Commercial High Court had erred in law in holding that in the case of non-payment of the monies granted to the Respondent, the Appellant Bank can have a right to recover the said monies only on the issuing bank. The Learned Judge of the Commercial High Court had misunderstood the action of the Appellant...
Tag this Judgment!