Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Saleem Marsoof J: In this appeal from the order of the High Court of the Western Province holden in Colombo exercising civil jurisdiction and hearing commercial matters (Commercial High Court) dated 10th June 2003, the only question that arises for decision is whether the said High Court had erred in refusing to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree entered by it against the Appellant on 31st August 2001. No question has been raised as regards the regularity of the appellate procedure followed in this case. At the hearing before this Court, learned Counsel for the Appellant emphasized that the Appellant, Consolidated Steel Industries (Pvt) Ltd., was a limited liability company incorporated in Sri Lanka, and that the default in appearance on the part of the Appellant had been caused by the failure to comply with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code Ordinance No. 12 of 1895, as subsequently amended, with respect to service of process on such corporate entities. He submitted th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Wanasundera, PC., J. Leave to Proceed was granted by this Court on 01.10.2009 for an alleged violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution and relief was granted in terms of prayer (f) restraining the 1st - 21st , 27th and 30th Respondents from appointing the 23 rd Respondent to the post of Lecturer (Probationary)/Senior Lecturer Grade II/I in the Department of Tamil, Faculty of Arts in the 1st Respondent University until the final determination of this application. At the outset of the argument, Counsel conceded that in terms of the advertisement, that the University of Peradeniya had advertised on 12.08.2008 for the applicants, to the vacancy calling for the post of Lecturer (Probationary)/Senior Lecturer Grade II/I in the Department of Tamil, Faculty of Arts. Mr. Rajiv Goonetilleke, Senior State Counsel conceded that this advertisement sought to fill the vacancy in view of the exigency of the University which needed a Tamil Lecturer for the Faculty of Arts. The qualifications for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Sripavan, J. The Petitioner by its Petition dated 21st April 2011, inter alia, moved Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to set aside the Order of the High Court dated 11th March 2011 and to declare that the said High Court did not have jurisdiction to have entertained proceedings in H.C. (ARB) No. 2404/2010 instituted by the Respondent. The facts relating to this application are briefly as follows:- The Petitioner is a foreign construction company which was engaged in construction work for the Respondent Authority. When disputes arose during the course of the works, the Petitioner referred the said disputes first to the Engineer and then to the Adjudicator in terms of the provisions of Clause 19.1 to 19.3 of the Conditions of Contract. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the Adjudicator, the Petitioner thereafter referred the said disputes to arbitration by its letter dated 10th December 2009 in terms of Clause 19.5. The Petitioner in its letter nominated the following thr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Eva Wanasundera, PC.J. The Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Wimala Herath filed action on 16th October 1991 in the District Court of Polonnaruwa in case No. 5414/L seeking a declaration that she is the owner of the lands described in the two schedules " w" and "wa" to the plaint under the Permit No. 156 dated 11.8.1987 issued under the Land Development Ordinance and further sought to eject the Defendant- Appellant-Respondents from the land in schedule "wa" (the 2nd schedule). Schedule to the plaint "w" related to an allotment of land of an extent of 2A. 1R. 26P, and Schedule "wa" referred to a land smaller in extent. The salient point of fact to be noted in this case is that the 30 perch block of land referred to in Schedule "wa" is within the boundaries of the 2A. 1R. 26P. block of land referred to in Schedule "w". In other words land in the 2nd Schedule " wa" is part and parcel of land in the 1st Schedule "w". The 30 P. parcel of land is carved out of the 2A. 1R. 26P. block of a bigger...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Tilakawardena, J The appeal was preferred against the judgement of the High Court of Civil Appeal of the Central Province, holden at Kandy (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Appellate High Court) marked Case No. CP/HC/CA/434/2003 dated 28.09.2009 which dismissed the Appeal of the Appellant. On hearing submissions this Court granted leave on the following questions of law: 1. Do documents D1 (a) - (j) establish that the Plaintiff-Respondent- Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) was engaging in money lending transactions? 2. Did the Learned Judges of the Civil Appellate High Court, misdirect themselves, by failing to properly assess and examine the attendant circumstances, which establish that the Defendant-Appellant-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) did not intend to dispose of the beneficial interest in the property, in the correct perspective? 3. Did the Learned Judges of the Civil Appellate High Court, misdirect themselves, by holding that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Tilakawardane, J. Leave was granted by this Court on 05.10.2010 on the questions of law set out in paragraph 14(b) and (c). The Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) tendered P-1 and claimed that in terms of Section 19(2) of the Land Development Ordinance, the Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka by permit bearing No. 2220/(LANGUAGE) 388A was granted possession of the land which is the subject matter of this application described in the schedule to the plaint dated 08th of February 2001, and which was in extent 02 Acres and 02 Perches. He claimed that the Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) was employed by him as a watcher. The Respondent further claimed that he had temporarily handed over the land seeking the assistance of the Petitioner, and continued his cultivation until 1998 when the Respondent together with the said Ajith Roshantha sought to obtain the land. The Petitioner had obstructed them and con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Tilakawardena, J An application was preferred to this Court , and leave was granted on the following question of Law; "Whether the description of the land given in the deed No. 6257 dated 22.06.1983 attested to by A.H.M Jameel Notary Public, marked as P10, is conclusive with regard to the question that it is a defined and distinct land?" The Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) preferred this Appeal against the judgment entered in case No. CP/HCCA/KAN Central Province 200/2002 (F) of the Provincial High Court of the Central Province Holden at Kandy (Civil Appellate) (hereinafter referred to as the High Court) dated 01.07.2008 made in favour of 2nd Defendant-Appellant-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent). The Appellant instituted an action seeking to partition an allotment of land depicted in Plan No. 7359 dated 07.04.1978, bearing Assessment No. 81/1, at Uda Mahaiyawa, Katugastota Road, Kandy. The Appellant filed civil proceedings ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Tilakawardena, J Leave to Appeal was granted to the Substituted Plaintiff - Respondent - Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Substituted Appellant) on 17th June 2011 as against the Judgment dated 17th January 2011 of the Provincial High Court of Civil Appeal of Mount Lavinia (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Appellate High Court) bearing case No. WP/HCCA/Mt/118/07 F. The deceased Plaintiff (husband of the Substituted Appellant) instituted action in the District Court of Mount Lavinia bearing case No. 1316/00/L, against the 1st to the 4th Defendant - Appellant - Respondents (hereinafter referred to as the Respondents), seeking inter alia for a declaration that the deceased Plaintiff is entitled to commonly possess Lot 'A3' (described in No. 1 of the Schedule to the Plaint and No.2 of the Schedule of Deed No. 5301 dated 26th January 1976 attested by S. Wickremasinghe, Notary Public) together with other owners of that property, for an order directing the removal of all construct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, CJ. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court of the Sabaragamuwa Province holden in Kegalle dated 25.10.2011 (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Appellate High Court). By that judgment the Civil Appellate High Court had rejected the Notice of Appeal and the Petition of Appeal filed by the defendant-appellant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant). The appellant preferred an application for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court against the said judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court on which leave to appeal was granted by this Court. The facts of this appeal as submitted by the appellant, albeit brief, are as follows: The plaintiff-respondent-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) instituted action in the District Court of Mawanella against the appellant and the judgment was delivered in favour of the respondent by the District Court. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed Notice of Appeal an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, CJ. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court of the North Central Province holden in Anuradhapura (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Appellate High Court) dated 28-07-2010. By that judgment the High Court had set aside the judgment of the District Court of Anuradhapura (hereinafter referred to as the District Court) dated 15-02-2006, which was in favour of the plaintiff-respondent-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) and allowed the appeal of the defendant-appellant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent). Being aggrieved by the said judgment the appellant preferred an application before this Court seeking leave to appeal on which said leave was granted by this Court. The facts of this appeal, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant, albeit brief, are as follows: The appellant had preferred an application before the District Court seeking, inter alia, a declaration that she is ent...
Tag this Judgment!