Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: sri lanka supreme court Page 7 of about 236 results (0.132 seconds)

May 03 2013 (FN)

Ravindra Lasantha Pathinayaka Vs. Bandara Police Sergeant and Others

Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court

Tilakawardane, J This application was supported on 24.01.2011 and this Court has granted Leave to Proceed on an alleged violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution. The Petitioner states that on Saturday 22nd May 2010 at about 10.15 am he was driving motor vehicle bearing Registration Number WP-PA 5709 along the Ananda Coomaraswamy Mawatha (Green Path) from Kollupitiya towards Horton Place when he observed the red traffic signal at the Horton Place-four way Junction and stopped his vehicle. As he stopped the vehicle at the traffic light, the Petitioner observed Police Constable Darshana (PC 38832), attached to the Motor Traffic Division of the Cinnamon Garden Police Station, who was stationed near the roundabout, signaling the Petitioner to proceed despite the red light signal. This is a fairly common occurrence in Colombo particularly when roads are cleared due to the heavy traffic load or for security reasons. Accordingly the Petitioner started to cross the four-way junction (roun...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 2013 (FN)

illangakoon Mudiyanselage Gnanathilaka Illangakoon Vs. Anula Kumariham ...

Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court

Sripavan, J. The Plaintiff-Respondent- Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") being dissatisfied with the judgment pronounced by the High Court established by Article 154P of the Constitution preferred a leave to appeal application dated 21.07.11 to this Court to have the said judgment set aside on various grounds set out in paragraph 12 of the Petition of Appeal. When the said leave to appeal application was taken up for support, the Learned Counsel for the Defendant-Appellant-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant") took up a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the application on the basis that the Plaintiff has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements set out in Rules 28(2) and / or 28(5) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1990 and therefore the application filed by the Plaintiff should be dismissed in limine. The Plaintiff filed his Plaint dated 21.04.86 in the District Court naming the following four Defendants : Illangakone Mudiyansela...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 26 2013 (FN)

T.R. Ratnasiri Vs. P.B. Jayasundara and Others

Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court

Tilakawardane, J. At the outset of his arguments the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Kodituwakku states that he does not wish to make any allegations against anyone in this Application for Revision that he supports today. And if he has made any personal allegations that he agrees to expunge them from the Revision Application filed today. He further concedes, as do all counsel, that the matter comes up today only for the consideration of a limited matter based entirely on a pure question of law, which admittedly is a threshold issue to be determined before the actual application is considered. The question of law is whether a Revision Application could be preferred to the Supreme Court against a Fundamental Rights Application that had been previously determined by this Court. As this is a pure question of law, Hon Justice P A Ratnayake, PC, J agrees to participate in this case. Mr. Kodituwakku concedes that his arguments are based solely on the cases of Jeyaraj Fernandopulle Vs....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 2013 (FN)

Amura Deshapriya Alles and Another Vs. Road Passenger Services Authori ...

Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court

Saleem Marsoof J: When this case was taken up for hearing on 6th March, 2012, a preliminary objection was taken up by the learned Counsel for the 17th and 18th Respondents, to the effect that the Petitioners cannot have and maintain this application for the reason that it is time-barred as far as the 17th and the 18th Respondents are concerned, who are essential parties to this case. No previous notice of this preliminary objection had been given by or on behalf of the 17th and 18th Respondents to any of the other parties, and admittedly there is no mention of it in the objections filed by the said Respondents, who had also not filed any written submissions prior to this application being taken up for hearing. Having heard learned Counsel for the 17th and 18th Respondents and the other learned Counsel on the preliminary objection, since all other parties including the Petitioner had been taken by surprise by the said preliminary objection, Court directed all learned Counsel to make the...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 2013 (FN)

Sumith Ediriwickrama Competent Authority Pugoda Textiles Lanka Ltd. an ...

Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court

Saleem Marsoof J: On 28th November 2012, when this case was due to be resumed before this bench, learned Counsel for the Petitioners-Respondents (hereinafter referred to as the Respondents) moved to raise the following two preliminary objections, which had not been previously taken up by learned Counsel on any of the previous dates in this case. The said objections were based on- (1) the alleged non-compliance with Rules 3 and 7 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1990 insofar as the appeal is time-barred; and (2) the alleged non-compliance with Rule 8(3) of the aforesaid Rules insofar as the Appellant had failed to properly take out notices on the Respondents. Before dealing with the said preliminary objections, it is useful to set out the material of this case. This Court has on 9th December 2004 granted special leave to appeal against the judgement of the Court of Appeal dated 28th October 2003. However, although thereafter the case came up for hearing on 4th August 2005, 1st December 2005 ...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 2013 (FN)

Kiran Atapattu Vs. Janashakthi General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court

Saleem Marsoof J: In these appeals, which were taken together for hearing with the consent of all Counsel, the Appellant sought to challenge the consolidated judgment of the High Court which set aside three arbitral awards made by a tribunal of three arbitrators and refused the enforcement of the same. The said awards had been made in favour of the Appellant pursuant to three claims made by him on the basis of three insurance policies issued by the Respondent insurance company. Before looking at the substantive questions of law arising for determination by this Court in these appeals, it will be useful to outline the salient facts that will be material to the decision of this Court. By the comprehensive motor vehicle policy marked P1A, Colombo Engineering Enterprises, of which the Appellant was sole proprietor, insured Nissan lorry bearing No.47- 1370 for Rs. 800,000 with the Respondent on 10th September 1996 for the period 16th September 1997 to 15th September 1998. By the insurance p...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 2013 (FN)

Warnakulasooriya Sunil Asoka Harischandra Fernando Vs. Police Sergeant ...

Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court

S.I. Imam. J. Having heard all Counsel in this case, this Court granted Leave to proceed for the alleged violation of Article 11 of the Constitution on 03.09.2010. The Petitioner in his Petition dated 02.08.2010 stated that on or about November 2009 he commenced employment in the "Mangalika Oil Mill" owned by Rukman Narasinghe of Karukkuwa, Madampe situated at Galahitiyawa, Madampe as a Machine Operator (Labourer). The Petitioner averred that his residence was situated approximately 400 Meters away from the aforesaid Oil Mill premises, and that his usual working hours at the Oil Mill were from 7.00 a.m. To 5.30 p.m. The Petitioner stated that there were 12 labourers inclusive of himself, and one Supervisor, of whom 7 of them namely Chathu, Karuppiah, Chaminda, Wimale, Ampare Jayantha, Nuwara Jayantha and Sudda resided at the Workers Quarters situated at the Oil Mill premises. It was stated by the Petitioner that he did not spend the nights at the Oil Mill premises as he resided closeby...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 2013 (FN)

A.M. Ratnayake Vs. Administrative Appeals Tribunal and Others

Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court

Saleem Marsoof J: When this application for special leave to appeal filed in this Court in terms of the Article 128 of the Constitution against the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 2n August 2011 was taken up for support on 22n June 2012, the case had to be re-fixed for support on an application by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner). However, learned State Counsel who appeared for the 5th - 15th , 17th and 18th Respondents indicated to Court and learned Counsel for the Petitioner that he would take up a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this application for special leave to appeal on the ground that it is precluded by the provisions of Article 61A of the Constitution, and both learned Counsel moved for time to file written submissions on that question. After the filing of the written submissions, the matter was taken up for further oral submissions before this Bench. It has to be stated at the outset that the...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 2013 (FN)

D.M.A. Jeewananda Dissanayake Vs. D.S. Bodhinagoda, Attorney-at-law

Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court

Rule dated 04.11.2010 was issued under the hand of the Registrar of the Supreme Court 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 for deceit and/or malpractice and thereby conducting himself in a manner unworthy of an Attorney-at-Law. This Rule is a sequel to two preliminary inquiries conducted by two panels of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) against the Respondent. At the conclusion of the said inquiries, the respective panels had unanimously recommended that the Respondent be reported to the Supreme Court for necessary action. On 17.12.2010, the Rule was read out to the Respondent in open court to which he pleaded not guilty and moved for time to show cause. The matter was thereafter fixed for inquiry. The Attorney General appeared in support of the Rule. Th...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 2013 (FN)

international Dresses (Private) Limited Vs. W.D.J. Seneviratne and Oth ...

Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court

S.I. Imam, J. The Petitioner-Appellant (henceforth sometimes referred to as the "Appellant") sought a Mandate in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari and thereby sought to quash the Award made by the Arbitrator the 5th Respondent-Respondent dated 10.01.2007 made under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act in the Court of Appeal. The 1st Respondent-Respondent appointed the Arbitrator under Section 4(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Petitioner contended in the Court of Appeal that the main basis for such an application was that the aforesaid Award was made by the Arbitrator without arriving at a Judicial determination of the facts upon an analysis of all the evidence adduced which was in breach of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The 5th Respondent-Respondent in his Award held that the termination of services of the 6th to 20th Respondents was unfair; that the services of the 21st to 26th Respondents had been terminated unjustly, and directed that the 6th to 26th Res...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //