Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Tilakawardane, J. The High Court of the Western Province (exercising Civil Jurisdiction) holden in Colombo, (hereinafter referred to as the Commercial High Court) in its judgment dated 9th October 2006 found in favour of the Respondent on all issues and granted relief accordingly. The Application was preferred to this Court on 07.12.2006 and appeal taken up on the 29.05.2012. Issues before the Court are as follows: 1. Whether there was evidence in support of the amounts claimed by the Plaintiff- Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) and whether the amounts claimed had been arrived at arbitrarily. Whether the Learned Judge had manifestly failed to asses and/ or evaluate the evidence before the Court. 2. Whether personal guarantees were sought from the 2nd Defendant - Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 2nd Defendant) and the 3rd Defendant - Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 3rd Defendant) at any stage. 3. Whether the Commercial High Court had jurisdiction ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Wanasundera, PC.J. This appeal was made by the substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellants (hereinafter referred to as Appellants) from a judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court of the Central Province holden in Kandy dated 18.12.2009. Leave was granted by this Court on 19.11.2010. The matter to be considered is whether the High Court has erred in setting aside the judgment of the District Court dated 05.3.2003 which was in favour of the Plaintiffs granting relief to eject the Defendants from the valuable business premises on the ground of subletting without the prior written consent of the landlord. The questions of law to be looked into are whether the High Court acted in excess of jurisdiction when it set aside the ex-parte judgment against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants in the District Court; whether the High Court erred in holding that the affidavit given by the 4th Defendant could not be used in evidence as it constituted heresay evidence and whether the High Court erred in d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Saleem Marsoof J. Rule dated 21st September 2011 was issued on the Respondent Attorney-at-Law (herein after referred to as the Respondent) to show cause why he should not be suspended from practice or be removed from office of Attorney-at-Law of the Supreme Court in terms of Section 42(2) of the Judicature Act No. 2 of 1978. This was a sequel to the conviction of the Respondent by the High Court of Colombo in case No. 2998/06 on four chargers relating to the preparation of four fraudulent deeds and the forgery of the signatures of Mahavidanalage Munidasa Charles Ferdinando, the then Chairman of the Board of Directors of the National Housing Development Authority (NHDA) and Liyanage Don Raja Gladis Samarasundara, who was at the relevant times a Member of the said Authority, and the imposition by the said Court on the Respondent on 23rd May 2008 of a sentence of 2 years rigorous imprisonment suspended for 5 years and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, with a default sentence of 6 months imprisonment,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Saleem Marsoof J. This order pertains to certain preliminary objections taken up on behalf of the 11th and 12th Respondent-Respondents (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "11th and 12th Respondents") in regard to the maintainability of this application. Basic Facts By way of introduction, it may be useful to set out in outline the basic facts that give rise to the aforesaid objections. The President of Sri Lanka has made order on 12th January, 2013 in terms of Article 107(2) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka removing the Petitioner-Respondent from the post of Chief Justice pursuant to a resolution for her impeachment being passed by Parliament and the President addressing Parliament as contemplated by Article 107 of the Constitution. Prior to this development, the Petitioner-Respondent had filed an application dated 19th December 2012 in the Court of Appeal seeking inter alia a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the report of the Parliamentary Select Committee that found he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Sripavan, J. The Complainant-Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner(hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioner") sought, inter alia, to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 10-01-12whereby the said Court set aside the judgment of the High Court of Colombo dated 26-09-06 which affirmed the Order of the Magistrate Court of Colombo dated 14-01-04.The Petitioner and the Respondent-Petitioner-Petitioner- Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent") conceded that the land which is the subject matter of the application is a "STATE LAND" falling within the ambit of the provisions of the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act No. 7 of 1979 as amended. This Court granted Special Leave to Appeal on 03-12-12 on the following questions :- (a) Has the Court of Appeal substantially erred by misinterpreting the provisions of the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act and its amendments and the specific definitions contained therein? (b) Can the document X1 be classified as a l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Saleem Marsoof J. These appeals were taken up for argument together as they relate to the same arbitral award dated 9th December 2003. In the High Court, the application of the Appellant, Hatton National Bank Ltd., (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "HNB") to have the said award set aside, and the application filed by the Respondents, who were carrying on business in partnership under the name, style and firm of 'Soul Entertainments', (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "SOUL"), for the enforcement of the same, were consolidated, and one judgment was pronounced. By its judgment dated 13th February 2006, the High Court refused HNB's application to have the award set aside, and ordered the enforcement of the award as contemplated by Section 31(6) of the Arbitration Act No. 11 of 1995. It may be useful at the outset to outline the material circumstances in which the aforesaid award dated 9th December 2003 was made. HNB, which is an incorporated banking company that also engages in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Saleem Marsoof J. The primary question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the 1st Respondent- Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "1st Respondent") had the authority to amend Public Administration Circular No.06/2006 dated 25th April 2006 (P5), which was issued by the 1st Respondent to implement a policy decision relating to the public service, by issuing the amending circular designated as Public Administration Circular No. 06/2006(1) dated 24th May 2006 (1R3). It may be useful at the outset to mention that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Petitioners - Appellants (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellants") are respectively, a trade union of Grama Niladharis, and its incumbent President and Secretary. The members of the 1st Appellant's trade union belong to the Grama Nildhari Service, which is an all-island service. The 1st Respondent is the Secretary to the Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs who is the appointing authority and the final disciplinary ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Sripavan, J. The Petitioners-Petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioners") acting in terms of Section 5(2) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 10 of 1996 read with Articles 127 and 128 of the Constitution sought, inter alia, Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court from an Order dated 16.07.2012 made by the Commercial High Court of Colombo in case bearing No. H.C. (Civil) 17/2012/CO. It is not in dispute that the Commercial High Court by its Order dated 16.07.2012 refused to grant the interim relief sought in terms of paragraphs(vii) and (viii) of the prayers to the Petition. When this matter was taken up for support, the learned President's Counsel for the Respondents-Respondents (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondents") took up a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the application on the basis that the Petitioners' application is out of time in view of the provisions of Sections 5(2) and (6) of the High Court of the Provinces (Spe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Wanasundera. PC. J. The Respondent - Appellant - Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant ) in this case has come before the Supreme Court being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of the Western Province established under Article 154P of the Constitution which had dismissed an appeal filed by him against the order of the Magistrate' Court of Mount Lavinia awarding maintenance for his wife, the Applicant - Respondent -Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) and the children.. The Appellant had also filed the Revision Application No. 168/2008 before the High Court against the same final order of the Magistrate's Court. Both the final appeal and the Revision Application were consolidated and taken up for hearing by the High Court together. Both cases were dismissed by the Learned High Court Judge by his judgment and order dated 14.07.2010. The Appellant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the High Court itself, as provided for in Section 14(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Sripavan, J. The Petitioners are presently holding the post of Labour Officer, Grade II in the Department of Labour with effect from 01.07.2010. The Petitioners state that this application relates to the relevant date of the appointment given to them as Labour Officers, Grade II wherein they contend that the said appointments shall be backdated with retrospective effect from 18.02.2008. Thus, the scope of this application as pointed out by the Petitioners is whether the impugned date of appointment, namely, 01.07.2010 be ante-dated to 18.02.2008. In fact, in Paragraph (d) of the prayer to the Petition dated 10.11.2010 the Petitioners seek an order to have their appointments backdated to 01.02.2008 with a two year grace period to complete the Efficiency Bar Examinations. Leave to proceed was granted by this Court on 24.01.2012 for the alleged violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution, even though the Petitioners contended that their appointments made in terms of the Gazette Notific...
Tag this Judgment!