Judgements

Decided Date	Case No	Parties	Judgment By	Keywords	Legislation	Document
2025-12-03	SC/FR/326/2021, SC/FR/327/2021	1. Kanagalingam Wijayadojini, No. 442, Durkai Amman Kovil Street, Ambalkulam, Kilinochchi. 2. Joseph Peter Queens Rosary, Unionkulam, Kudyirruppu, Konavil, Kilinochchi. Petitioners Vs. 1. Officer in Charge, Police Station, Kilinochchi. 2. I.P. Bandara, Terrorist Investigation Unit, Terrorist Investigation Division, Colombo 01. 3. Director, Terrorist Investigation Division, Colombo 01. 4. Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters Colombo 12. 5. The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Menaka Wijesundera J			Download
2025-12-03	SC/FR/81/2025	R.K. Janaka Sathyajith Rajapakse, No. 124/5, Dutugamunu Street, Kalubovila, Dehiwala. PETITIONER Vs. 01. Mr. Anil Jasinghe, Secretary, Ministry of Health. 02. Dr. Asela Gunawardana, Director General of Health Services, Ministry of Health. 03. Dr. P.W.C. Lal Panapitiya, Deputy Director General, Medical Services I, Ministry of Health. 04. Dr. Priyantha Atapattu, Director Tertiary Care Services, Ministry of Health. All of 01st to 04th Respondents are of: “Suwasiripaya,” No. 385, Ven. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 05. Mr. Sanath J. Ediriweera, Chairman, 06. Mr. N.H.M. Chithrananda, Member, 07. Mr. G.S.A de Silva P C, Member, 08. Dr. A.D.N. de Zoysa, Member, 09. Mrs. S.M. Mohamed, Member, 10. Mrs. Ranjani Nadarajapillai, Member, 11. Mr. M.B.R. Pushpakumara, Member, 12. Prof. N. Selvakkumaran, Member, 13. Dr. Sanath Panawennage, Member, 14. Mrs. T.M.L.C. Senarathna, Chairman, Health Service Committee, 15. Dr. Ananda Hapugoda, Member, Health Service Committee, 16. Mr. Nimal Saranathissa, Member, Health Service Committee, 17. Mrs. W.A.C Wickramathilaka, Secretary, Health Service Committee, All of 05th to 17th Respondents are of: The Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 18. Dr. S.P.A Liyanage Ranaweera Deputy Director General National Hospital (Acting), National Hospital of Sri Lanka, Colombo 10. 19. Dr. Sheahan Waas, President, Sri Lanka College of Radiologists, “Wijerama House,” No. 6, Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 07. 20. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J			Download
2025-11-26	SC/FR/16/2021	1. E.G.R.M.N.N.K. Rathnayaka, Alakolawewa, Kolaba Gedara, Mathurata. 2. A.M.N. Shamini Vidurangika, No. 196, Wilgoda Waththa, Kurunegala. 3. W.M.R.S. Wanigasekara, No. 67, Official Village, Digana, Rajawalla, Kandy. 4. P.D.M.R.U.S.S. Bandara, No. 234, Delgoda Walawwa, Delgoda, Dawgalagama, Kalawana. 5. B.G.M.R. Weerasinghe, No. 34, Gamudawa, Kundasale. 6. P.K.G.K. Maduprabashini, “Asiri”, No.168/D, Maligathanna, Kadugannawa. 7. I.H.T.E. Karunathilaka, No. 88/1, Ihalagama, Ellawala, Ehaliyagoda. 8. R.G.J.H.S. Rajapaksha, No. 149/4, Haladiwela, Pilimathalawa. 9. R.M.L. Pethiyagoda, No. 7C, Kambiyawatta, Gelioya. 10. W.D.H.K. Wijesinghe, Narangahamulahena, Ihala Kalugala, Beligala. 11. T.S.D. Rathnayaka, No. 135, Sanduni Trade Centre, Panwewa, Pettiyagedgara, Maligathanna, Bandarawela. 12. N.J.R.S. Samadika, No. 107, Nugagahawatta, Kohunugamuwa Road, Weligama. 13. T.S. Kariyawasam, “Pathum”, Uluwitike, Galle. 14. W.M.E.Y.S. Wasala, No. 21/71A, Sramadana Road, Aruppola, Kandy. 15. R.M.P. Chathurani, “Nandana”, 4th Mile Post, Karandana, Eheliyagoda. 16. R.B. Premachandra, Poholiyadda Walawwa, Poholiyadda, Galagedara. 17. M.R. Vidanagamage, No. 166/2, Sisil Uyana, Ranna. 18. M.B. Hasala, No. 91, Perakumba Mawatha, Kolonnawa. 19. L.A.A.M.H. Gunawardhana, Kusumita, Yattalgoda, Nawathalwaththa. 20. B.M.R.L.M. Jinatissa, No. 20, Danaramba, Doranegama, Madawala, Harispaththuwa 21. N.A.U. Prabath Nissanka, No. 62, Nildiya Uyana, Pellandeniya, Maspotha, Kurunegala. 22. L.A.P. Asoka, Walakadayawa, Molagoda, Kegalle. 23. W.E.M.A.S.M. Sandanayake, No. 27/6, Mahiyanganaya Road, Hunnasgiriya. 24. W.P.K. Ruwandika, No. 84/A, Dodandugoda Road, Dodanduwa. 25. K.A.N. Kaushalya, No. 100/2, Kandewaththa, Kanewala, Pokunuwita, Horana. 26. H.R. Wijayaratne, No. 24/8, C1, Gemunu Mawatha, Attidiya, Dehiwala. 27. L.G. Komangoda, No. 18/2, Melfort Estate, Gemunupura, Kothalawala, Kaduwela. 28. G.B.W.T.M. Gunathilaka, Pimburuwellegama, Gonagama, Kurunegala. 29. O.N. Wimarshana, No. 258/A/3, 5th Lane, Bakmeegaha Road, Kahanthota Road, Malabe. 30. L.H.I.S. Deshappriya, Udugama, Wadumunnegedara. 31. W.M.K.K. Wijesundara, No. 25/B, Marlog Road, South Kabillawela, Bandarawela. 32. H.P.D.V. Pathirana, “Haritha”, Palle Gattuwana, Dambulla Road, Kurunegala. 33. D.I.H.P.S. Dissanayake, No. 78/22, Vihara Lane, Suduhumpola, Kandy. 34. W.S.H. Erandika, No. 692/3A, Meda Mawatha, Ella, Kurundugaha, Hethepma, Elpitiya. 35. N.M.R.S.A. Samarasekara, No. S.29, Udahenkanda, Deraniyagala. 36. N.B.M. Sumanarathne, No. 113A, Wathupitiwala, Nittambuwa. 37. K.L.T.K. Jayarathne, No. 98/2, Kaudupitiya, Gampola. 38. P.H.I.H. Bawanthika, “Siripul”, Karaketiya, Urugasmanhandiya. 39. P.H.W.K. Danushika, No. 513,/1/A, Udumulla Road, Battaramulla. 40. H.A.I.I. Wijesiri, No. 157/6, Godaparagahawatta, Honnantara, Piliyandala. 41. D.M.N.N. Dissanayake, No. 74/2, Dedunupitiya, Pahalagama, Dedunupitiya, Kandy. 42. M.F.A. Muhammadu, No.235/23, C01, Lafir Hajiyar Mawatha, Warana Road, Thihariya. 43. H.S.N. Karunathilaka, Kuda Belungala, Ambanpola. 44. R.D.H.E. Karunarathne, No. 1570/30, Gurugama, Kirindiwela. 45. D.M.T.P. Jayawanthi, School Road, Wadakada. 46. M.S.N. Fernando, No. 2/8, College Road, Chilaw. 47. H.T.C.G. Chandrasoma, No. 39/24, Compayahena Road, Panagoda, Homagama. 48. R.M.S. Madara, Godella Watta, Madiha, Kamburugamuwa. 49. S.C.Y.M.A.M. Udawela, No. 5/A, Koonwewa, Thambuththegama. 50. D.A. Weerasinghe, No. 160, Marathugoda, Pujapitiya, Kandy. 51. W.A.T. Dinuruwan, No. 59A, Prema Bakery, Baddegama Road, Hirimbura, Galle. 52. B.K.G.P. Pabasara, Paradullawatta, Galkaduwa, Imaduwa. 53. R.M.D. Manuranga, No. 326/A/7, Charlston Garden, Ganemulla. 54. K.B.L. Perera, No. 67, 4th Lane, Nildiyauyana. Pallandeniya, Maspotha, Kurungegala. 55. I.B.S.H. Gunawardena, Dehelgamuwa, Yatigaloluwa, Polgahawela. 56. N.A.D.S. Dias, No. 321, Wackwella Road, Galle. 57. K.M.U.K. Kulathunga, Nabiriththawewa, Nikadalupotha. 58. S. Sasadari Abeysekara, No. 96/9, Megoda, Kolonnawa, Wellampitiya. 59. S.J. Pthirana, No. 187/24, Richmod Hill Road, Galle. 60. D.D.M. Thalagala, Asiri Lake Road, Dambulla. 61. J.N.N. Ilangarathna, Kotavilakanda, Pahamune. 62. U.G.C.K.R. Gunasena, No. B2/39, Waimbula, Owaththa, Hingula. 63. H.D.U. Hettiarachchi, No. 479, Thalwatta, Mananwatta, Matale. 64. T.G.K.O. Vijithapala, Nagodawaththa, Mihiripanna, Thalpe. 65. H.K.L.T. Hewa, No. 411/17, Parakrama Mawatha, Kirillawala, Kadawatha. 66. S.P.N. Kaushalya, “Chamara”, Kotavila, Kamburugamuwa. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Jagath Balapatabendi, Chairman, Public Service Commission. 1A. A. Sanath J. Ediriweera, Chairman, Public Service Commission. 2. Indrani Sugathadasa 2A. A.S.M. Mohamed 3. V. Shivagnanasothy 3A.N.H.N. Chithrananda 4. Dr. T.R.C. Ruberu 4A.Prof. N. Selvakkumaran 5. Ahamad Lebbe Mohamed Saleem 5A.M.B.R. Pushpakumara 6. Leelasena Liyanagama 6A.Dr. A.D.N. de Zoysa 7. Dian Gomes 7A.R. Nadarajapillai 8. Dilith Jayaweera 8A.C. Pallegama 9. W.H. Piyadasa 9A. G.S.A. de Silva, PC 2nd, 2A, 3rd, 3A, 4th, 4A, 5th, 5A, 6th, 6A, 7th, 7A, 8th, 8A, 9th and 9A Respondents are members of the Public Service Commission. 1st, 1A, 2nd, 2A, 3rd, 3A, 4th, 4A, 5th, 5A, 6th, 6A, 7th, 7A, 8th, 8A, 9th and 9A Respondents are at No.1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 10. Dr. P.B. Jayasundara, Secretary to the President, Presidential Secretariat, Galle Face Centre Road, Colombo 1. 11. Hon. Janaka Bandara Tennakoon, Minister of Public Services, Provincial Councils & Local Government. 11A. Hon. Dinesh Gunawardena, Minister of Public Services Provincial Councils & Local Government. 12. J.J. Rathnasiri, Secretary to the Ministry of Public Services, Provincial Councils & Local Government 12A. K.D.N. Ranjith Asoka, Secretary to the Ministry of Public Services, Provincial Councils & Local Government. 11th, 11A, 12th and 12A Respondents at Independence Square, Colombo 7, Sri Lanka. 13. University Grants Commission, No. 20, Ward Place, Colombo 7. 14. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Arjuna Obeyesekere J			Download
2025-11-26	SC/APPEAL/63/2021	Amitha Sandaseeli Kellambi, of No. 465, Lady Market Road, South Hall, Middlesex UB1 2QD, United Kingdom presently of Flat 209, Swallow Court Gurnell Grove, Ealing, London, W13 OAB, United Kingdom; Appearing by her Power of Attorney Kurugamage Rohana Perera, No. 50/A, National Houses Ketawalamulla, Dematagoda Colombo 09 PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. Costa Patabendige Alex Ratna Deepal Fernando, No 138, Gama Meda Road, Dandugama, Ja-ela 1st DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT People’s Bank Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2nd DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. A. L. Shiran Gooneratne, Acting CJ		In the matter of an Application for Leave Appeal under and in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution and in terms of Section 5C of High Court of Provinces (Special Provinces) (Amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006, against the judgement of the provincial High Court of Western Province holden in Negombo dated 30.11.2020 in Case No. WP/HCCA/NEG 26/2018(F)	Download
2025-11-21	SC/APPEAL/48/2024	AND NOW BETWEEN Rajakaruna Mudiyanselage Jayawardhena, Mudungoda, Kiralogama. PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Director General, Mahaweli Authority, No. 500, T.B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. Resident Project Manager (Land), Resident of RPM (Land), Thambuththegama. 3. Commissioner of Lands, Land Commissioner’s Department, Colombo 07. 4. Registrar of Lands, Land Registry, Anuradhapura. 5. Rajakaruna Mudiyanselage Siriwardhana, Mudungoda, Kiralogama. 6. Rajakaruna Mudiyanselage Dharmawardhana, Mudungoda, Kiralogama. 7. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J	Page 1 of 15 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal under Article 128(2) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. S.C. Appeal No: Rajakaruna Mudiyanselage 48/2024 Jayawardhena, Mudungoda, SC/SPL/LA No: Kiralogama. 193/2023 PETITIONER CA Writ Application No. Vs. CA(Writ) 293/19 1. Director General, Mahaweli Authority, No. 500, T.B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. Resident Project Manager (Land), Resident of RPM (Land), Thambuththegama. 3. Commissioner of Lands, Land Commissioner’s Department, Colombo 07. Page 2 of 15 4. Registrar of Lands, Land Registry, Anuradhapura. 5. Rajakaruna Mudiyanselage Siriwardhana, Mudungoda, Kiralogama. 6. Rajakaruna Mudiyanselage Dharmawardhana, Mudungoda, Kiralogama. 7. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN Rajakaruna Mudiyanselage Jayawardhena, Mudungoda, Kiralogama. PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Director General, Mahaweli Authority, No. 500, T.B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10. Page 3 of 15 2. Resident Project Manager (Land), Resident of RPM (Land), Thambuththegama. 3. Commissioner of Lands, Land Commissioner’s Department, Colombo 07. 4. Registrar of Lands, Land Registry, Anuradhapura. 5. Rajakaruna Mudiyanselage Siriwardhana, Mudungoda, Kiralogama. 6. Rajakaruna Mudiyanselage Dharmawardhana, Mudungoda, Kiralogama. 7. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS Before : Mahinda Samayawardhena, J. : Sampath B. Abayakoon, J. : Sampath K. B. Wijeratne, J. Page 4 of 15 Counsel : Priyantha Alagiyawanna with Sauri Senanayake instructed by Sachini Maheshika for the Petitioner- Appellant. : Vijithsingh instructed by Dinesh de Silva for the 5th Respondent-Respondent. : Chaya Sri Nammuni, DSG with Hashini Opatha, SSC, for the 1st to 4th and 7th Respondent- Respondents. Argued on : 06-08-2025 Written Submissions : 09-09-2025 (By the Petitioner-Appellant) : 16-05-2024 (By the Petitioner-Appellant) : 10-09-2025 (By the 1st to 4th and 6th Respondent- Respondents) : 25-10-2024 (By the 1st to 4th and 7th Respondent- Respondents) : 17-09-2025 (By the 5th Respondent-Respondent) : 19-09-2024 (By the 5th Respondent-Respondent) Decided on : 21-11-2025 Sampath B. Abayakoon, J. This is an appeal preferred by the petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) on the basis of being aggrieved of the judgment pronounced by the Court of Appeal on 31-05-2023, wherein the Writ Application preferred by the appellant was dismissed. This is a matter where the appellant sought a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the nominations that had been made in the documents Page 5 of 15 P-9, P-9A and P-9B marked and produced along with his petition, and also a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus as prayed for in the petition. The Court of Appeal from the impugned judgment refused to grant the said reliefs and dismissed the Writ Application without costs for the reasons set out in the said judgment. When this appeal was considered for the granting of leave to appeal by this Court on 14-03-2024, leave was granted by this Court on the following questions of law. 1. Have Their Lordships of the Court of Appeal misdirected themselves in law and/or in fact when they failed to consider that as per section 48A(2) of the Land Development Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that the original allotee or the selected prospective permit holder had died prior to the issuance of a permit, his spouse is only entitled to life interests as provided by section 48A(2) of the Land Development Ordinance, and the spouse has no right to make any nomination? 2. Have Their Lordships of the Court of Appeal misdirected themselves in law and/or in fact when failing to identify that once a land is reserved under a person’s name, even if the said person passes away, the spouse is entitled only to life interest? 3. Whether Nandawathie had succeeded as a permit holder and not as a life interest holder in 1980 upon the death of Punchirala, in terms of Section 26 Rule 1 of the Sale of State Land (Special Provisions) Act No. 43 of 1973? 4. Whether in terms of Section 19(2) of the Land Development Ordinance, the permit could have been issued to Punchirala as he had died in 1980? 5. In the circumstances, whether Nandawathie had become the original permit holder in terms of the Land Development Ordinance inasmuch as she could not have been issued with a permit in terms of Act No. 43 of 1973? Page 6 of 15 When this matter was taken up for argument, it was agreed by the parties that this matter could be argued together with SC Appeal No. 49/2024, since the facts and the circumstances and the law that should be considered are similar. It was agreed that a single judgment can be pronounced, but the questions of law that need determination in relation to both the matters should be answered separately. At the hearing of the appeal on 06-08-2025, this Court heard the submissions of the learned Counsel, and also had the benefit of considering the pre-argument as well as post-argument written submissions in relation to their respective stands taken up before the Court. Although the parties agreed to have a single judgment, it is my view that it would be prudent to pronounce two separate judgments in view of the slight variations as to the facts and the questions of law under which the two appeals were argued, which would in my view provide better clarity. The appellant has gone before the Court of Appeal on the basis of being the eldest son of the deceased Rajakaruna Mudiyanselage Punchirala and the claimed legal successor of the subject matter of the application under the provisions of the Land Development Ordinance (LDO). It has been his position that his father Punchirala developed three plots of paddy land situated at Eppawala with the consent of the Mahaweli Authority (referred to as Lot 492, 467 and 491), and therefore, the Mahaweli Authority conveyed the said lands to Punchirala as per the land ledger and the State Land permits issued in that regard. It was his position that the said three lands were conveyed and allocated to his father in the year 1979 under the provisions of LDO (the documents marked P-2 and P-2A filed together with the petition before the Court of Appeal). It has been his position that it is he who developed the said land Lots 492 and 491 with the consent of his father, and even after his father’s death on 29-10-1980, it was he who cultivated and possessed the said lands. Page 7 of 15 He has contended that his mother Nandawathie fell ill in the year 2008 and two of his siblings named as the 5th and 6th respondents in the Court of Appeal petition influenced his mother to demand that he should leave the lands he was cultivating, which resulted in finding out that his mother had been issued State Grants in terms of section 19(4) of the LDO in relation to the lands. It has been his position that upon further inquiry, he came to know that in the land permits issued to his father in relation to two of the lands out of the earlier mentioned three lands, his father’s name has been struck off and his mother’s name has been entered as the permit holder [(permit no. 407/D5/TO/46/03 alias 492 (irrigation) land ledger marked P-7 and P-7A) and (permit no. 407/D5/TO/46/02 alias 491 (irrigation) land ledger marked P-8 and P-8A)]. It has been his position that as a result, his mother has obtained the land grants in relation to the said lands under her name and has nominated the 5th and 6th respondents, which he termed as illegal nominations. Claiming that it is he who is entitled to succeed to the lands given to his father under the permits as the eldest son of the family in terms of the LDO, he has prayed for a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the documents marked P-9, P-9A and P-9B. He has prayed for a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st to 3rd respondents named in the Court of Appeal petition that his name should be entered as the nominee or successor of the lands mentioned in the land grants marked P-5 and P-6 as per the regulations in the LDO. He has also prayed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent to delete the nominations registered in the land registry as specified in P-9A and P-9B. The Court of Appeal in the impugned judgment has determined that the earlier mentioned Punchirala, the father of the appellant, has been selected to alienate the State Lands mentioned in the petition in terms of the Sale of State Lands (Special Provisions) Law, and since he has passed away before any permit could be issued to him, the said permits had been issued to his widow Nandawathie, and that was the reason for the deletion of Punchirala’s name and substituting the name of Nandawathie in the said land permits. Page 8 of 15 It has been the view of the Court of Appeal that accordingly, the State Grants in terms of section 19(4) of the LDO have been properly granted to Nandawathie, and it is she who has the right to nominate her successor. It has been determined that there was no basis for the Court of Appeal to issue Writs in the nature of Certiorari and Mandamus, while holding that the appellant is not entitled to the reliefs sought. At the hearing of this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously argued that in terms of section 48A(2) of the LDO, irrespective of the fact that the original allotee/selected prospective permit holder had died prior to the issuance of permits or not, his spouse is only entitled to life interests and the spouse has no right to make any nominations. It was his contention that even if the grants were being issued in terms of section 19(4) of the LDO, the positions still remain the same. It was his position that in terms of section 2 of the LDO, the term ‘permit-holder’ should mean any person to whom a permit has been issued and includes a person who is in occupation in any land alienated to him on a permit, although no permit has actually been issued to him. Therefore, it was his position that Punchirala’s spouse Nandawathie to whom the grant has been issued in terms of section 19(4) can only have life interest, where she would not have the power to dispose or nominate a successor. The learned Counsel heavily relied on the judgment of Obeyesekere, J. pronounced in the case of Jayathilaka Vs. Divisional Secretary Kuruwita and Others (2021) 2 SLR 430 and the judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court on 09-11-2023 in SC Appeal 166/2017 where Samayawardhena, J. has extensively discussed the legal effects of a permit and a grant issued in terms of section 19(2) and 19(4) of the LDO. The position taken up on behalf of the respondents was that since the original allocation of the lands to Punchirala was made in terms of the Sale of State Lands (Special Provisions) Law No. 43 of 1973, although the said Law has later been repealed, the Law that should be considered as applicable in Page 9 of 15 relation to the issuing of permit to Nandawathie instead of Punchirala should be that and not the LDO. It was the position of the learned Counsel that section 26 of the said Law is the relevant provision under which the relevant authority has decided to change the name of the allotee of the lands in question after the death of the original allotee, and accordingly, permits issued in terms of section 19(2) and the grants issued under section 19(4) have been issued in the name of Nandawathie in terms of the LDO. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that since Nandawathie was the original permit holder, it is she who has the right to nominate the successor in terms of the LDO and the nominations are legal and valid before the law. Having considered the above factual matrix and the legal arguments advanced before the Court, it is my view that the central question that needs consideration would be whether Nandawathie, the mother of the appellant, is the person who was given the original permit or the permit has been given only on the basis that she is the widow of the original allotee or permit holder, and if not, whether she has any right to nominate a successor on her own motion as she has done on this particular occasion. It is clear that when the father of the appellant, namely Punchirala, was selected for the sale of the State Lands mentioned in the petition, the said selection was done on 21-09-1979 in terms of Sale of State Lands (Special Provisions) Law of No. 43 of 1973 (P-2). It is undisputed that the said Punchirala passed away on 20-10-1980, before being issued with a permit or a grant in terms of the said Law. The documents marked P-7A and P-8A, the relevant land ledgers establish the fact that although initially the ledgers have been prepared on the basis that Punchirala is the permit holder, before any permit could be issued, he has passed away in the year 1980. Although the Sale of State Lands (Special Provisions) Law was repealed on 05-05-1981 by the Amendment Act No. 27 of 1981 of the LDO, there cannot be any doubt that the applicable law at the time Punchirala passed away in Page 10 of 15 relation to the allocation of the lands to him has been the Sale of State Lands (Special Provisions) Law. It may be the very reason why the relevant authority has decided to insert Nandawathie’s name in the land ledger having considered the applicability of section 26 of the Law in relation to the devolution of title in case of a death of a permit holder or holder of a grant although there was no permit. It appears that since the Sale of State Lands (Special Provisions) Law stands repealed from the 05-05-1981, when the permits were finally issued on 12-12-1984, it has been issued in terms of the LDO. Accordingly, the grants in respect of the questioned lands have also been issued to the said Nandawathie in terms of section 19(4) of the LDO (the documents marked P-5 and P-6). The said grants have been issued on 29-08-2002 and 17-01-2002 respectively. Therefore, it is my considered view that when the land permits in terms of section 19(2) of the LDO were issued in the name of Nandawathie, the permits have not been issued on the basis that she was the widow of the original permit holder Punchirala, but on the basis that she is the person who should get the permit since the original allotee Punchirala was never issued with a permit in terms of either the Sale of State Lands (Special Provisions) Law or LDO, due to the fact that he has passed away in the year 1980. It is therefore clear that the said Nandawathie has been issued with the corresponding grants in terms of section 19(4) of the LDO on the same basis. Accordingly, I am of the view that the said Nandawathie had the legal right to nominate her successors and to nominate the 5th and the 6th respondents as shown in the documents marked P-9A and P-9B. It needs to be noted that the case relied on by the appellant, namely the case of Jayathilaka Vs. Divisional Secretary, Kuruwita and Others (supra), was not a case where similar facts as in this case had been considered. In the said case, the permit under the provisions of the LDO has been issued in the name of one Rathran Hami and the said Rathran Hami had nominated Pahala Gamaethiralalage Jayathilaka as his successor in the permit itself. Upon the death of the said Rathran Hami, his spouse Gunarathne Manike has Page 11 of 15 succeeded to the said land in terms of section 48A(1) of the LDO as amended by Amendment Act No. 27 of 1981. It has been an admitted fact that the only entitlement that the said Gunarathne Manike had to the land was by virtue of being the surviving spouse of the original permit holder. The said Gunarathne Manike has been granted the permit to the land in terms of section 19(4) of the LDO and she has in turn, based on the strength of the grant in her favour, has nominated one of her other daughters as the successor to the said land. The question before the Court was whether it is the nominee of the original permit holder, namely Jayathilaka, or the nominee of the Gunarathne Manike, who had a grant in her favour as the wife of the original permit holder who should be considered as the successor of the land upon the death of the said Gunarathne Manike. It was under that context His Lordship of the Court of Appeal has considered the provisions of section 48A(2) of the Ordinance in determining that such a spouse shall be entitled to a grant of that land, but the said spouse would not have the power to nominate a successor to that land. It was held that it would be the successor nominated by the original permit holder who can succeed to the land mentioned in the grant accordingly. However, the facts of the matter before this Court are quite different, although it may look somewhat similar. As I have stated previously, the relevant document submitted to the Court of Appeal clearly demonstrates the fact that the mother of the appellant, namely Nandawathie, has not been given the grant on the basis of being the spouse of the permit holder, but the said Nandawathie is the permit holder. It is my view that there is no basis to argue that section 48A(1) or 48A(2) should be the provision applicable when it comes to nominating a successor to the two lands in question. It is clear that Nandawathie being the permit holder on her own right, has been granted the relevant permits in terms of section 19(4) of the LDO. Page 12 of 15 The relevant section 19(4) of the Ordinance reads as follows, 19(4). A permit-holder shall be issued a grant in respect of the land which he is in occupation (a) Where he has paid all sums which he is required to pay under subsection (2); (b) Where he has complied with all the other conditions specified in the Schedule to the permit; and (c) Where he has been in occupation of, and fully developed, to the satisfaction of the Government Agent (i) Irrigated land, for a period of three years, or (ii) High land for a period of one year: Provided, however, that the Land Commissioner may issue a grant before the expiry of the aforesaid period where the permit-holder satisfies him that the failure to issue such grant before the expiry of such period would adversely affect the development of such land. For the aforementioned reasons, I find that the learned Judges of the Court of Appeal were correct when it refused to issue Writs in the nature of Certiorari and Mandamus as sought by the appellant, though the Court has not considered the relevant legal provisions and its applicability to the matter at hand in detail. However, it needs to be emphasized that granting of a Writ is a discretionary remedy that would be afforded to a party only upon the discretion of the Court. In such an instance, the conduct of a party who seeks such a Writ is also immensely relevant. It is well settled law that a Writ would not lie if the party is guilty of laches or due to unnecessary delay and in similar circumstances. Page 13 of 15 In the case of Biso Menika Vs. Cyril de Alwis and Others (1982) 1 SLR, it was stated that; Per Sharvananda, J., citing Lord Greene, “A Writ of Certiorari is issued at the discretion of the Court. It cannot be held to be a Writ of right or one issued as a matter of course. But exercise of this discretion by Court is governed by certain well-accepted principles. The Court is bound to issue a Writ at the instance of a party aggrieved by the order of an inferior tribunal except in cases where he has disentitled himself to the discretionary relief by reason of his own conduct, like submitting to jurisdiction, laches, undue delay or waiver. As Lord Greene M.R. in Rex Vs. Stafford Justices (1940) 2 K.B 33 at page 43 stated, “Now, in my opinion, the Order, for the issue of Writ of Certiorari is, except in cases where it goes of course, strictly in all cases a matter of discretion, It is perfectly true to say that if no special circumstance exists and if all that appears is a clear excess of jurisdiction, then a person aggrieved by that is, entitled ex debito justitiae to his Order. That merely means this, in my judgment, that the Court in such circumstances will exercise its discretion by granting the relief. In all discretionary remedies it is well known and settled that in certain circumstances - I will not say in all of them, but in a great many of them - the Court, although nominally it has a discretion, if it is to act according to the ordinary principles upon which judicial discretion is exercised, must exercise the discretion in a particular way and if a Judge at a trial refuses to do so then the Court of Appeal will set the matter right. But when once it is established that in deciding whether or not a particular remedy shall be granted the Court is entitled to inquire into the conduct of the applicant, and circumstances of the case, in order to ascertain whether it is proper or not proper to grant the remedy sought, the case must in my judgment be one of discretion.” Page 14 of 15 The proposition that the application for Writ must be sought as soon as injury is caused is merely an application of the equitable doctrine that delay defeats equity and the longer the injured person sleeps over his rights without any reasonable excuse the chances of his success in a Writ application dwindle and the Court may reject a Writ application on the ground of unexplained delay.” The appellant has filed his action before the Court of Appeal on the 12th day of July 2019. The appellant being the eldest son of Punchirala and Nandawathie and the claimed occupier of the two lands, it is hard to believe what he has stated in his petition, that he came to know only in 2008 after his mother fell ill that the said grants had been issued in favour of his mother Nandawathie. In my view, given the facts of the matter, he should have known that fact from the very outset. Even if he came to know about the grants and the nominations made by his mother in 2008 in favour of his other two siblings, the 5th and the 6th respondents, he has come before the Court of Appeal seeking to quash the said nominations by way of a Writ more than 10 years after the said finding, as claimed in his petition. Although he has attempted to justify the said delay by stating that he complained to the relevant authorities in order to get the nominations cancelled and get his name approved as the successor, which resulted in the delay, I find no basis to agree. The appellant has also averred that he has already initiated a District Court action as well as an action before the High Court of Anuradhapura to assert his rights, which means he has come before the Court of Appeal seeking a discretionary remedy of a Writ while perusing alternative remedies that may be available to him. Page 15 of 15 For the aforementioned reasons, I answer the questions of law considered in the following manner; 1. Considering the matter in terms of section 48A(2) of the LDO does not arise as Nandawathie was the person to whom the permit has been granted. 2. Punchirala has been named as the allotee of the land and had passed away before he was issued with a permit, and the relevant law applicable to the allotments at the time of his death was the Sale of State Lands (Special Provisions) Law and the question of life interest of the spouse would not arise. 3. Yes. 4. No. 5. Yes. Based on the above answers to the questions of law, the appeal is dismissed as I find no merit in the same. The parties shall bear their own costs of the appeal. Judge of the Supreme Court Mahinda Samayawardhena, J. I agree. Judge of the Supreme Court Sampath K. B. Wijeratne, J. I agree. Judge of the Supreme Court		Download
2025-11-21	SC/APPEAL/49/2024	AND NOW BETWEEN Rajakaruna Mudiyanselage Leelawathi, Mudungoda, Kiralogama. PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Director General, Mahaweli Authority, No. 500, T.B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. Resident Project Manager (Land), Resident of RPM (Land), Thambuththegama. 3. Commissioner of Lands, Land Commissioner’s Department, Colombo 07. 4. Registrar of Lands, Land Registry, Anuradhapura. 5. Rajakaruna Mudiyanselage Padmawathi, Mudungoda, Kiralogama. 6. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J	Page 1 of 15 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an appeal under Article 128(2) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. S.C. Appeal No: Rajakaruna Mudiyanselage 49/2024 Leelawathie, Mudungoda, SC/SPL/LA No: Kiralogama. 194/2023 PETITIONER CA Writ Application No. Vs. CA(Writ) 306/19 1. Director General, Mahaweli Authority, No. 500, T.B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. Resident Project Manager (Land), Resident of RPM (Land), Thambuththegama. 3. Commissioner of Lands, Land Commissioner’s Department, Colombo 07. Page 2 of 15 4. Registrar of Lands, Land Registry, Anuradhapura. 5. Rajakaruna Mudiyanselage Padmawathi, Mudungoda, Kiralogama. 6. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN Rajakaruna Mudiyanselage Leelawathi, Mudungoda, Kiralogama. PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Director General, Mahaweli Authority, No. 500, T.B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. Resident Project Manager (Land), Resident of RPM (Land), Thambuththegama. Page 3 of 15 3. Commissioner of Lands, Land Commissioner’s Department, Colombo 07. 4. Registrar of Lands, Land Registry, Anuradhapura. 5. Rajakaruna Mudiyanselage Padmawathi, Mudungoda, Kiralogama. 6. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS Before : Mahinda Samayawardhena, J. : Sampath B. Abayakoon, J. : Sampath K. B. Wijeratne, J. Counsel : Priyantha Alagiyawanna with Sauri Senanayake instructed by Sachini Maheshika for the Petitioner- Apppellant. : Vijithsingh instructed by Dinesh de Silva for the 5th Respondent-Respondent. Page 4 of 15 : Chaya Sri Nammuni, DSG with Hashini Opatha, SSC, for the 1st to 4th and 6th Respondent- Respondents. Argued on : 06-08-2025 Written Submissions : 09-09-2025 (By the Petitioner-Appellant) : 16-05-2024 (By the Petitioner-Appellant) : 10-09-2025 (By the 1st to 4th and 6th Respondent- Respondents) : 25-10-2024 (By the 1st to 4th and 6th Respondent- Respondents) : 17-09-2025 (By the 5th Respondent-Respondent) : 19-09-2024 (By the 5th Respondent-Respondent) Decided on : 21-11-2025 Sampath B. Abayakoon, J. This is an appeal preferred by the petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) on the basis of being aggrieved of the judgment pronounced by the Court of Appeal on 31-05-2023, wherein the Writ Application preferred by the appellant was dismissed. This is a matter where the appellant sought a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the nominations in the documents marked as P-8, P-9 and P-10 along with her petition, and also a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus as prayed for in the petition. The Court of Appeal from the impugned judgment refused to grant the said reliefs and dismissed the Writ Application without costs for the reasons set out in the said judgment. Page 5 of 15 When this appeal was considered for the granting of leave to appeal by this Court on 14-03-2024, leave was granted by this Court on the following questions of law. 1. Have their Lordships of the Court of Appeal misdirected themselves in law and/or in fact when they failed to consider that as per section 48A(2) of the Land Development Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that the original allotee or the selected prospective permit holder had died prior to the issuance of a permit, his spouse is only entitled to life interests as provided by section 48A(2) of the Land Development Ordinance, and the spouse has no right to make any nomination? 2. Have their Lordships of the Court of Appeal misdirected themselves in law and/or in fact when they failed to identify that once a land is reserved under a person’s name, even if the said person passes away, the spouse is entitled only to life interest? 3. Have the Honourable Judges of the Court of Appeal misdirected themselves to law and/or in the fact when they failed to identify that as per the scheme of the Land Development Ordinance, when there was a nomination from the original allotee selected and/or prospective permit holder, his nomination is valid and shall prevail irrespective of the fact that he has died prior to the issuance of the permit? 4. Whether Nandawathie had succeeded as a permit holder and not as a life interest holder in 1980 upon a death of Punchirala, in terms of Section 26 Rule 1 of the Sale of State Land (Special Provisions) Act No. 43 of 1973? 5. Whether in terms of Section 19(2) of the Land Development Ordinance, the permit could have been issued to Punchirala as he had died in 1980? 6. In the circumstances, whether Nandawathie had become the original permit holder in terms of the Land Development Ordinance Page 6 of 15 inasmuch as she could not have been issued of the permit in terms of Act No. 43 of 1973? When this matter was taken up for argument, it was agreed by the parties that this matter could be argued together with SC Appeal No. 48/2024, since the facts and the circumstances, and the law that should be considered are similar. It was agreed that a single judgment can be pronounced, but the questions of law that need determination in relation to both the matters should be answered separately. At the hearing of the appeal on 06-08-2025, this Court heard the submissions of the learned Counsel, and also had the benefit of considering the pre-argument as well as post-argument written submissions in relation to their respective stands taken up before the Court. Although the parties agreed to have a single judgment, it is my view that it would be prudent to pronounce two separate judgments in view of the slight variations as to the facts and the questions of law under which the two appeals were argued, which would in my view provide better clarity. The appellant has gone before the Court of Appeal on the basis of being the daughter of the deceased Rajakaruna Mudiyanselage Punchirala and the claimed legal successor of the subject matter of the application under the provisions of the Land Development Ordinance (LDO). It has been her position that her father Punchirala developed three plots of paddy land situated at Eppawala with the consent of the Mahaweli Authority (referred to as Lot 492, Lot 467, and Lot 491), and therefore, the Mahaweli Authority conveyed the said lands to Punchirala as per the land ledger and the State Land permits issued in that regard. It was her position that the said three lands were conveyed and allocated to her father in the year 1979 under the provisions of LDO (the documents marked P-2 and P-2A filed together with the petition before the Court of Appeal). It has been her position that it is she who further developed the land Lot 467 with the consent of her father and other siblings, and even after her father’s death on 29-10-1980, it was she who cultivated and possessed the said lands. Page 7 of 15 She has contended that her mother Nandawathie fell ill in the year 2008 and requested that she should leave the land she was cultivating, which resulted in finding out that her mother had been issued with a permit to the said Lot 467 and also a State Grant in terms of section 19(4) of the LDO in relation to the land. It has been her position that upon further inquiry, she found out that in the land permits issued to her father in relation to the earlier mentioned three lands, her father’s name has been struck off and her mother’s name has been entered as the permit holder [(documents marked P-7 and P-6) and (permit no. 407/D5/To44/02 alias 467)]. It has been her position that as a result, her mother has obtained the land grants in relation to the said lands under her name and has nominated the 5th respondent as her successor in relation to land lot 467, which she termed as an illegal nomination. Claiming that it is she who is entitled to succeed to the land given to her father under the permit as the nominee of her father in terms of the LDO, she has prayed for a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the documents marked P-8, P-9 and P-10. She has prayed for a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st to 3rd respondents named in the Court of Appeal petition that her name should be entered as the nominee or successor of the land mentioned in the land grant marked P-5 and the corresponding land ledger marked P-7 as per the regulations in the LDO. She has also prayed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent to delete the nomination registered in the land registry. The Court of Appeal in the impugned judgment has determined that the earlier mentioned Punchirala, the father of the appellant, has been selected to alienate the State Lands mentioned in the petition in terms of the Sale of State Lands (Special Provisions) Law, and since he has passed away before any permit could be issued to him, the said permits had been issued to his widow Nandawathie, and that was the reason for the deletion of Punchirala’s name and substituting the name of Nandawathie in the said land permits. Page 8 of 15 It has been the view of the Court of Appeal that accordingly, the State Grants in terms of section 19(4) of the LDO have been properly granted to Nandawathie, and it is she who has the right to nominate her successor. It has been determined that there was no basis for the Court of Appeal to issue Writs in the nature of Certiorari and Mandamus, while holding that the appellant is not entitled to the reliefs sought. At the hearing of this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously argued that in terms of section 48A(2) of the LDO, irrespective of the fact that the original allotee/selected prospective permit holder had died prior to the issuance of the permit or not, his spouse is only entitled to life interest and the spouse has no right to make any nomination. It was his contention that even if the grants were being issued in terms of section 19(4) of the LDO, the positions still remain the same. It was his position that in terms of section 2 of the LDO, the term ‘permit-holder’ should mean any person to whom a permit has been issued and includes a person who is in occupation in any land alienated on a permit although no permit has actually been issued. Therefore, it was his position that Punchirala’s spouse Nandawathie to whom the grant has been issued in terms of section 19(4) can only have life interest, where she would not have the power to dispose or nominate a successor. The learned Counsel heavily relied on the judgment of Obeyesekere, J. pronounced in the case of Jayathilaka Vs. Divisional Secretary Kuruwita and Others (2021) 2 SLR 430 and the judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court on 09-11-2023 in SC Appeal 166/2017 where Samayawardhena, J. has extensively discussed the legal effects of a permit and a grant issued in terms of section 19(2) and 19(4) of the LDO. The position taken up on behalf of the respondents was that since the original allocation of the lands to Punchirala was made in terms of the Sale of State Lands (Special Provisions) Law No. 43 of 1973, although the said Law has later been repealed, the Law that should be considered as applicable in Page 9 of 15 relation to the issuing of permit to Nandawathie instead of Punchirala should be that and not the LDO. It was the position of the learned Counsel that section 26 of the said Law is the relevant provision under which the relevant authority has decided to change the name of the allotee of the lands in question after the death of the original allotee, and accordingly, permits issued in terms of section 19(2) and the grants issued under section 19(4) have been issued in the name of Nandawathie in terms of the LDO. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that since Nandawathie was the original permit holder, it is she who has the right to nominate the successor in terms of the LDO, and the nomination is legal and valid before the law. Having considered the above factual matrix and the legal arguments advanced before the Court, it is my view that the central question that needs consideration would be whether Nandawathie, the mother of the appellant, is the person who was given the original permit or the permit has been given only on the basis that she is the widow of the original allotee or permit holder, and if not, whether she has any right to nominate a successor on her own motion as she has done in this particular occasion. It is clear that when the father of the appellant, namely Punchirala, was selected for the sale of the State Lands mentioned in the petition, the said selection was done on 21-09-1979 in terms of Sale of State Lands (Special Provisions) Law of No. 43 of 1973 (P-2). It is undisputed that the said Punchirala passed away on 20-10-1980 before being issued with a permit or a grant in terms of the said Law. The document marked P-7, the relevant land ledger establishes the fact that the ledger in relation to this land has been prepared in the name of Nandawathie on the basis that Punchirala has passed away. Although the Sale of State Lands (Special Provisions) Law has been repealed on 05-05-1981 by the Amendment Act No. 27 of 1981 of the LDO, there cannot be any doubt that the applicable law at the time Punchirala passed away in relation to the allocation of the lands to him has been the Sale of Page 10 of 15 State Lands (Special Provisions) Law. It may be the very reason why the relevant authority has decided to insert Nandawathie’s name in the land ledger having considered the applicability of section 26 of the Law in relation to the devolution of title in case of a death of a permit holder or holder of a grant although there was no permit. It appears that since the Sale of State Lands (Special Provisions) Law stands repealed from the 05-05-1981, when the permit was finally issued on 12-12-1984, it has been issued in terms of section 19(2) of the LDO. The grant in respect of the questioned land has also been issued to the said Nandawathie in terms of section 19(4) of the LDO (the document marked P-5). The said grant has been issued on 17-01-2002. Therefore, it is my considered view that when the land permit in terms of section 19(2) of the LDO was issued in the name of Nandawathie, the permit has not been issued on the basis that she was the widow of the original permit holder Punchirala, but on the basis that she is the person who should get the permit since the original allotee Punchirala was never issued with a permit in terms of either the Sale of State Lands (Special Provisions) Law or LDO, due to the fact that he has passed away in the year 1980. It is therefore clear that the said Nandawathie has been issued with the corresponding grant in terms of section 19(4) of the LDO on the same basis. Accordingly, I am of the view that the said Nandawathie had the legal right to nominate her successors and to nominate the 5th respondent as shown in the documents marked P-8 and P-9. It needs to be noted that the case relied on by the appellant, namely the case of Jayathilaka Vs. Divisional Secretary, Kuruwita and Others (supra), was not a case where similar facts as in this case had been considered. In the said case, the permit under the provisions of the LDO has been issued in the name of one Rathran Hami and the said Rathran Hami had nominated Pahala Gamaethiralalage Jayathilaka as his successor in the permit itself. Upon the death of the said Rathran Hami, his spouse Gunarathne Manike has Page 11 of 15 succeeded to the said land in terms of section 48A(1) of the LDO as amended by Amendment Act No. 27 of 1981. It has been an admitted fact that the only entitlement that the said Gunarathne Manike had to the land was by virtue of being the surviving spouse of the original permit holder. The said Gunarathne Manike has been granted the permit to the land in terms of section 19(4) of the LDO and she has in turn, based on the strength of the grant in her favour, has nominated one of her other daughters as the successor to the said land. The question before the Court is whether it is the nominee of the original permit holder, namely Jayathilaka, or the nominee of the Gunarathne Manike who had a grant in her favour as the wife of the original permit holder who should be considered as the successor of the land upon the death of the said Gunarathne Manike. It was under that context the Court of Appeal has considered the provisions of section 48A(2) of the Ordinance in determining that such a spouse shall be entitled to a grant of that land, but the said spouse would not have the power to nominate a successor to that land. It was held that it would be the successor nominated by the original permit holder who can succeed to the land mentioned in the grant accordingly. However, the facts of the matter before this Court are quite different, although it may look somewhat similar. As I have stated previously, the relevant document submitted to the Court of Appeal clearly demonstrates the fact that the mother of the appellant, namely Nandawathie, has not been given the grant on the basis of being the spouse of the permit holder, but the said Nandawathie is the permit holder. It is my view that there is no basis to argue that section 48A(1) or 48A(2) should be the provision applicable when it comes to nominating a successor to the land in question. Page 12 of 15 It is clear that Nandawathie, being the permit holder on her own right, has been granted the relevant permit in terms of section 19(4) of the LDO. The relevant section 19(4) of the Ordinance reads as follows, 19(4). A permit-holder shall be issued a grant in respect of the land which he is in occupation (a) Where he has paid all sums which he is required to pay under subsection (2); (b) Where he has complied with all the other conditions specified in the Schedule to the permit; and (c) Where he has been in occupation of, and fully developed, to the satisfaction of the Government Agent (i) irrigated land, for a period of three years, or (ii) high land for a period of one year: Provided, however, that the Land Commissioner may issue a grant before the expiry of the aforesaid period where the permit-holder satisfies him that the failure to issue such grant before the expiry of such period would adversely affect the development of such land. For the aforementioned reasons, I find that the learned Judges of the Court of Appeal were correct when it refused to issue Writs in the nature of Certiorari and Mandamus as sought by the appellant, though the Court has not considered the relevant legal provisions and its applicability to the matter at hand in detail. However, it needs to be emphasized that the granting of a Writ is a discretionary remedy that would be afforded to a party only upon the discretion of the Court. In such an instance, the conduct of a party who seeks such a Writ is also immensely relevant. It is well settled law that a Writ would not lie if the party is guilty of laches or due to unnecessary delay and in similar circumstances. Page 13 of 15 In the case of Biso Menika Vs. Cyril de Alwis and Others (1982) 1 SLR, it was stated that; Per Sharvananda, J., citing Lord Greene stated, “A Writ of Certiorari is issued at the discretion of the Court. It cannot be held to be a Writ of right or one issued as a matter of course. But exercise of this discretion by Court is governed by certain well-accepted principles. The Court is bound to issue a Writ at the instance of a party aggrieved by the order of an inferior tribunal except in cases where he has disentitled himself to the discretionary relief by reason of his own conduct, like submitting to jurisdiction, laches, undue delay or waiver. As Lord Greene M.R. in Rex Vs. Stafford Justices (1940) 2 K.B 33 at page 43 stated, “Now, in my opinion, the Order, for the issue of Writ of Certiorari is, except in cases where it goes of course, strictly in all cases a matter of discretion, It is perfectly true to say that if no special circumstance exists and if all that appears is a clear excess of jurisdiction, then a person aggrieved by that is, entitled ex debito justitiae to his Order. That merely means this, in my judgment, that the Court in such circumstances will exercise its discretion by granting the relief. In all discretionary remedies it is well known and settled that in certain circumstances - I will not say in all of them, but in a great many of them - the Court, although nominally it has a discretion, if it is to act according to the ordinary principles upon which judicial discretion is exercised, must exercise the discretion in a particular way and if a Judge at a trial refuses to do so then the Court of Appeal will set the matter right. But when once it is established that in deciding whether or not a particular remedy shall be granted the Court is entitled to inquire into the conduct of the applicant, and circumstances of the case, in order to Page 14 of 15 ascertain whether it is proper or not proper to grant the remedy sought, the case must in my judgment be one of discretion.” The proposition that the application for Writ must be sought as soon as injury is caused is merely an application of the equitable doctrine that delay defeats equity and the longer the injured person sleeps over his rights without any reasonable excuse the chances of his success in a Writ application dwindle and the Court may reject a Writ application on the ground of unexplained delay.” The appellant has filed her action before the Court of Appeal on the 23rd day of July 2019. The appellant being the daughter of Punchirala and Nandawathie and the claimed occupier of the said land, it is hard to believe what she has stated in her petition that she came to know only in 2008 after her mother fell ill that the said grant had been issued in favour of her mother Nandawathie. In my view, given the facts of the matter, she should have known that fact from the very outset. Even if she came to know about the grant and the nomination made by her mother in 2008 in favour of her other sibling, namely the 5th respondent, she has come before the Court of Appeal seeking to quash the said nomination by way of a Writ more than 10 years after the said finding, as claimed in her petition. Although she has attempted to justify the said delay by stating that she complained to the relevant authorities in order to get the nomination cancelled and get her name approved as the successor, which resulted in the delay, I find no basis to agree. For the aforementioned reasons, I answer the questions of law formulated by the Court in the following manner, 1. Considering the matter in terms of section 48A(2) of the LDO, it does not arise as Nandawathie was the person to whom the permit has been granted. 2. Punchirala has been named as the allotee of the land and had passed away before he was issued with a permit, and the relevant Page 15 of 15 law applicable to the allotment at the time of his death was the Sale of State Lands (Special Provisions) Law and the question of life interest of the spouse would not arise. 3. No. 4. Yes. 5. No. 6. Yes. Based on the above answers to the considered questions of law, the appeal is dismissed as I find no merit in the same. The parties shall bear their own costs of the appeal. Judge of the Supreme Court Mahinda Samayawardhena, J. I agree. Judge of the Supreme Court Sampath K. B. Wijeratne, J. I agree. Judge of the Supreme Court		Download
2025-11-19	SC/CHC APPEAL/104/2018	1. S.C.B. Jayasinghe 2. S.T.B. Jayasinghe 3. M.V. Jayasinghe Carrying on business in partnership under the name and style of C.A & Co., 134, Havelock Road, Colombo 5. PLAINTIFFS – APPELLANTS Vs. 1. Kajima Corporation, 2-7, Motoakasaka 1 – Chome, Minato – ku, Tokyo, 107-8388, Japan. 2. Kumagai Gumi Co Ltd, 2-1, Tsukodo-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8557, Japan. 3. Hazama Corporation, 5-8, Kita-aoyama 2 – Chome, Minato – ku, Tokyo, 107-8658, Japan. Carrying on business in partnership under the name and style Kajima Kumagai Hazama Joint Venture, 77A, Ward Place, Colombo 7. 4. Ceylon Electricity Board, Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. DEFENDANTS – RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Arjuna Obeyesekere J	IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the ma􀆩er of an appeal in terms of Sec􀆟on 5 of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act, No. 10 of 1996 SC (CHC) Appeal No: 104/2018 High Court No: HC (Civil) 105/2006 (1) 1. S.C.B. Jayasinghe 2. S.T.B. Jayasinghe 3. M.V. Jayasinghe Carrying on business in partnership under the name and style of C.A & Co., 134, Havelock Road, Colombo 5. PLAINTIFFS Vs. 1. Kajima Corporation, 2-7, Motoakasaka 1 – Chome, Minato – ku, Tokyo, 107-8388, Japan. 2. Kumagai Gumi Co Ltd, 2-1, Tsukodo-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8557, Japan. 3. Hazama Corporation, 5-8, Kita-aoyama 2 – Chome, Minato – ku, Tokyo, 107-8658, Japan. Carrying on business in partnership under the name and style of Kajima Kumagai Hazama Joint Venture, 77A, Ward Place, Colombo 7. 2 4. Ceylon Electricity Board, Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. DEFENDANTS And now between 1. S.C.B. Jayasinghe 2. S.T.B. Jayasinghe 3. M.V. Jayasinghe Carrying on business in partnership under the name and style of C.A & Co., 134, Havelock Road, Colombo 5. PLAINTIFFS – APPELLANTS Vs. 1. Kajima Corporation, 2-7, Motoakasaka 1 – Chome, Minato – ku, Tokyo, 107-8388, Japan. 2. Kumagai Gumi Co Ltd, 2-1, Tsukodo-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8557, Japan. 3. Hazama Corporation, 5-8, Kita-aoyama 2 – Chome, Minato – ku, Tokyo, 107-8658, Japan. Carrying on business in partnership under the name and style Kajima Kumagai Hazama Joint Venture, 77A, Ward Place, Colombo 7. 4. Ceylon Electricity Board, Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. DEFENDANTS – RESPONDENTS 3 Before: Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J Arjuna Obeyesekere, J Sobhitha Rajakaruna, J Counsel: Dr. Harsha Cabral, PC with Nishan Premathiratne and Manith Dasanayake for the Plaintiffs – Appellants Chandaka Jayasundera, PC with Rajinda Jayasinghe, Harith Gunasekera and Praveen Wijayaweera for the Defendants – Respondents Fazly Razik, Deputy Solicitor General for the 4th Defendant – Respondent Argued on: 1st September 2025 Written Tendered on behalf of the Plaintiffs – Appellants on 15th October 2025 Submissions: Tendered on behalf of the Defendants – Respondents on 7th August 2025 and 13th October 2025 Decided on: 19th November 2025 Obeyesekere, J 1) There are two issues that arise for determina􀆟on in this appeal. The first is whether the Plain􀆟ffs – Appellants [the Plain􀆟ffs] have proved that a sum of Rs. 68m they claim was due to them from the 4th Defendant – Respondent [the 4th Defendant] has been remi􀆩ed by the 4th Defendant to the 1st – 3rd Defendants – Respondents [the Defendants/KKH]. The second is, if so, whether the Defendants have been unjustly enriched by their refusal to pay the Plain􀆟ffs a sum of Rs. 55m out of the said sum of money. Background to the appeal 2) The Plain􀆟ffs filed ac􀆟on in the High Court of the Western Province holden in Colombo exercising commercial jurisdic􀆟on [the Commercial High Court/the High Court] on 6th June 2006 against the Defendants under eight causes of ac􀆟on and an alterna􀆟ve 8th cause of ac􀆟on. The Ceylon Electricity Board had been named as the 4th Defendant only for the purpose of no􀆟ce and no relief had been claimed against the 4th Defendant. 4 3) Pursuant to the answer of the Defendants being filed, an objec􀆟on had been taken with regard to the maintainability of the 1st and 2nd causes of ac􀆟on on the basis that the par􀆟es had agreed in terms of the contracts that existed between them to refer any disputes that may arise in terms of such contracts for resolu􀆟on by arbitra􀆟on. The Plain􀆟ffs did not resist this objec􀆟on and had informed the High Court that it will not be pursuing the 1st and 2nd causes of ac􀆟on. 4) The Defendants had also raised an objec􀆟on that the 3rd, 4th and 5th causes of ac􀆟on are prescribed. Having heard the par􀆟es, this objec􀆟on had been upheld by the High Court by its order delivered on 4th March 2009 and those three causes of ac􀆟on had been dismissed. 5) The case proceeded to trial therea􀅌er with only the 6th, 7th and 8th causes of ac􀆟on [together with the alterna􀆟ve 8th cause of ac􀆟on] remaining to be decided. While the 2nd Plain􀆟ff gave evidence on behalf of the Plain􀆟ffs, the Defendants did not lead any evidence. By its judgment delivered on 3rd August 2018, the High Court held that the 6th and 7th causes of ac􀆟on too are prescribed, and that the Plain􀆟ffs have failed to establish the 8th cause of ac􀆟on and the alterna􀆟ve 8th cause of ac􀆟on. 6) Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Plain􀆟ffs filed this appeal. At the hearing, the learned President’s Counsel for the Plain􀆟ffs submi􀆩ed that he would be limi􀆟ng his submissions to the rejec􀆟on of the 8th cause of ac􀆟on that alleged that the Defendants had been unjustly enriched in a sum of Rs. 55m, and the alterna􀆟ve 8th cause of ac􀆟on. The parties and their contractual relationship 7) The Plain􀆟ffs are carrying on business in partnership under the name, style and firm of CA & Company, primarily as civil engineering contractors and hirers of earth moving vehicles. The Plain􀆟ffs also provide manpower, raw materials, construc􀆟on machinery etc., to foreign companies that are engaged in construc􀆟on projects in Sri Lanka. 5 8) The Defendants are public companies incorporated in Japan and are engaged in the business of civil engineering and construc􀆟on projects. The Defendants had formed a joint venture partnership under the name and style of Kajima Kumagai Hazama [KKH] in order to bid for and engage in large scale civil engineering projects in Sri Lanka. 9) In 1999, the Government of Sri Lanka had approved the construc􀆟on of a hydro power sta􀆟on at Kukule Ganga. Pursuant to the calling of tenders, the 4th Defendant had awarded to KKH the contract for the construc􀆟on of the dam. KKH had selected the Plain􀆟ffs as a sub-contractor for the supply of aggregates and quarry sand, earth works on the head pond areas and excava􀆟on and other preliminary works, and entered into three contracts with the Plain􀆟ffs in August 1999 for the provision of the above services. These contracts provided that any dispute among the par􀆟es arising under the said contracts shall be resolved by arbitra􀆟on. The aforemen􀆟oned 1st and 2nd causes of ac􀆟on had arisen under these contracts. 10) The Plain􀆟ffs state that at the request of KKH, it provided price quota􀆟ons for services which were outside the above contracts and which included services such as the supplying of earthmoving equipment for civil works and manpower. Pursuant to its quota􀆟ons being accepted, the Plain􀆟ffs had supplied the said equipment and manpower that was required for KKH to fulfil its contractual obliga􀆟ons under the contract with the 4th Defendant. The Plain􀆟ffs state further that their rela􀆟onship with KKH improved over 􀆟me and that they provided further services to KKH, in respect of which the par􀆟es did not execute any wri􀆩en contracts. The claims that arose out of the performance of such work were the subject ma􀆩er of the 3rd – 7th causes of ac􀆟on and are no longer in issue in this appeal. 11) The services of the Plain􀆟ffs had however been temporarily suspended in June 2000 due to the detec􀆟on of a rock forma􀆟on on the right bank of Kukule Ganga. The Plain􀆟ffs state that work resumed much later and in spite of the 􀆟ght 􀆟melines, they were able to complete the work undertaken by them within the required 􀆟me period. 6 Construction of Weir – Adit II Access Road – the Works 12) The issue that is the subject ma􀆩er of this appeal arises from the construc􀆟on of the Weir – Adit II Access Road [the Works]. 13) In their plaint, the Plain􀆟ffs have stated the following with regard to the Works: (a) In November 2002, the 4th Defendant had called for and received a quota􀆟on from KKH to carry out the Works; (b) The 4th Defendant had found the quota􀆟on of KKH to be excessive; (c) The 4th Defendant therea􀅌er had direct nego􀆟a􀆟ons with the Plain􀆟ffs in rela􀆟on to the construc􀆟on of the Works, which culminated in an oral agreement between the Plain􀆟ffs and the 4th Defendant for the construc􀆟on of the Works for a sum of Rs. 68 million; (d) The 4th Defendant awarded the contract for the execu􀆟on of the Works to the Plain􀆟ffs through KKH for a contract price of Rs. 68m; (e) The 4th Defendant appointed KKH as the supervisor for the Works, as borne out by le􀆩er dated 14th March 2003 [P4], by which KKH had informed the Plain􀆟ffs inter alia as follows: “First of all we would like to inform you that the Contract for the construction of access road from Weir site to Adit II was negotiated by you directly with the Ceylon Electricity Board and our involvement in this work is merely to facilitate the payments through the project funds, progress monitoring, facilitate quality control (carrying out laboratory testing), official communication with CEB/JV on behalf of CA & Co. and invoicing. ” (f) The Plain􀆟ffs successfully completed the construc􀆟on of the Works in January 2004; (g) The 4th Defendant had disbursed the full contract value of Rs. 68m to KKH to be paid to the Plain􀆟ffs for the execu􀆟on of the Works; 7 (h) The Plain􀆟ffs became aware of that fact only when “the 4th Defendant in􀆟mated the said fact to the Plain􀆟ff in or about May 2005.”; (i) In spite of the Plain􀆟ffs having concluded the Works and the 4th Defendant having paid KKH the said sum of Rs. 68m, KKH have only paid the Plain􀆟ffs a sum of Rs. 13m and there is now due and owing to the Plain􀆟ffs from KKH the balance sum of Rs. 55m; (j) Having received the said sum of Rs. 68m but by only paying a sum of Rs. 13m to the Plain􀆟ffs and retaining the balance sum due and owing to the Plain􀆟ffs, KKH have been unjustly enriched in a sum of Rs. 55m. 14) There are two ma􀆩ers that I must men􀆟on at this stage. The first is that the Plain􀆟ffs did not submit with the plaint any document/s in support of the above ma􀆩ers. The second is that it was admi􀆩ed by the 2nd Plain􀆟ff during cross examina􀆟on that “both the 8th cause of ac􀆟on and the alternate cause of ac􀆟on are based on the same set of facts” which I have summarised above. While the basis for the 8th cause of ac􀆟on was founded upon unjust enrichment, the basis for the alterna􀆟ve 8th cause of ac􀆟on was that the Defendants have dishonestly misappropriated the said sum of Rs. 55m and defrauded the Plain􀆟ffs. Thus, all findings with regard to the 8th cause of ac􀆟on would apply to the alterna􀆟ve cause of ac􀆟on, as well. 8th cause of action – answer and issues 15) This being the posi􀆟on of the Plain􀆟ffs, I wish to advert to the following two ma􀆩ers. 16) The first is that while the answer of the 1st Defendant was a complete denial of the factual averments of the plaint, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants specifically denied in their answer the fact that any money was due on the 6th – 8th causes of ac􀆟on or on the alterna􀆟ve cause of ac􀆟on. It was correctly pointed out by the learned President’s Counsel for the Plain􀆟ffs that the answers filed by the Defendants are not in conformity with the provisions of Sec􀆟on 75(d) of the Civil Procedure Code which requires an answer not only to contain a statement denying or admi􀆫ng the several averments of the plaint, but for it to set out in detail plainly and concisely the ma􀆩ers of fact and law and the circumstances upon which the defendant means to rely for 8 his defence. In view of the said denial of the averments in the plaint, the only admissions that were recorded were with regard to the status of the par􀆟es and the fact that KKH have entered into several contracts with the 4th Defendant. 17) The second ma􀆩er that I wish to advert to is that with no admissions forthcoming from the Defendants with regard to the Works except perhaps the le􀆩er P4, the burden of establishing the 8th cause of ac􀆟on had fallen fairly and squarely on the Plain􀆟ffs. This is in conformity with the provisions of Sec􀆟ons 101 and 102 of the Evidence Ordinance which provides as follows: Section 101 – “Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.” Section 102 – “The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.” 18) The Plain􀆟ffs had accordingly raised the following issues rela􀆟ng to the 8th cause of ac􀆟on: (a) Did the Plain􀆟ffs successfully complete the construc􀆟on of the said Weir – Adit II access road in or around January 2004? [Issue No. 16] (b) Has the 4th Defendant disbursed the full contract value of Rs. 68m to KKH to be paid to the Plain􀆟ffs in respect of the construc􀆟on of the Weir – Adit II access road? [Issue No. 17] (c) Did KKH pay only a sum of Rs. 13m to the Plain􀆟ffs in respect of the work performed by them in the construc􀆟on of the Weir – Adit II access road? [Issue No. 18] 9 Evidence relating to the 8th cause of action 19) The evidence-in-chief of the 2nd Plain􀆟ff was tendered by way of an affidavit. The averments therein with regard to the Works were almost iden􀆟cal to those in the plaint to which I have already referred to. Other than the averments in the affidavit, the 2nd Plain􀆟ff did not produce with the affidavit any documentary evidence to establish the following ma􀆩ers, which formed the basis of the aforemen􀆟oned issues raised by the Plain􀆟ffs: (a) That the Plain􀆟ffs submi􀆩ed to the 4th Defendant a quota􀆟on for a sum of Rs. 68m for the carrying out of the Works; (b) That the 4th Defendant accepted the price quoted by the Plain􀆟ffs for the carrying out of the Works in a sum of Rs. 68m; (c) That the Plain􀆟ffs completed the construc􀆟on of the Works; (d) That the 4th Defendant paid KKH a sum of Rs. 68m on account of the Works; (e) That the sum of Rs. 13m that the Plain􀆟ffs claim it received from KKH was in respect of the Works. 20) The above ma􀆩ers were within the knowledge of the Plain􀆟ffs or are ma􀆩ers on which the Plain􀆟ffs could have obtained confirma􀆟on from the 4th Defendant. In the absence of any documentary evidence, it was cri􀆟cal for the success of the Plain􀆟ffs case for them to have led the evidence of an officer from the 4th Defendant since the en􀆟re transac􀆟on rela􀆟ng to the Works revolved around the 4th Defendant. Although the Project Director of the Kukule Ganga Project, an authorised officer from the 4th Defendant and the Chairman of the 4th Defendant had been listed as witnesses, and even though summons had been issued on the la􀆩er, the Plain􀆟ffs did not lead the evidence of any officer from the 4th Defendant. Thus, the case of the Plain􀆟ffs rested en􀆟rely on the evidence of the 2nd Plain􀆟ff. 10 21) The following ques􀆟ons were posed to the 2nd Plain􀆟ff during cross examina􀆟on: “Q - That Rs. 68m which you say that the CEB paid the Defendants was in respect of a contract which you entered into with the CEB? A – Yes, verbally. Q You say you had a verbal contract with the CEB? A – Yes Q – The Defendants were not a party to that contract? A – The Defendants were aware of it. Q – The Defendants were not a party to that contract. The party was you and the CEB? A – Yes. But the Defendants were asked to make the payments. CEB paid the money to the Defendants and the Defendants had to pay the money to me. Q – There was an oral contract with you and the CEB? A – Yes Q – There is nothing in writing A – Nothing in writing. Q – You have not filed any document in this case to show that there was the oral contract? Have you filed a single document? A – No Q – So there is not an iota of evidence apart from what you say that there was an oral contract between you and the CEB? A – Yes Q – Now you say the CEB paid to the Defendants a sum of Rs. 68m? A – Yes Q – There is not an iota of evidence to support that? A – Yes.” 11 22) The en􀆟re case for the Plain􀆟ffs thus rested on the unsubstan􀆟ated and uncorroborated evidence of the 2nd Plain􀆟ff and it was therefore cri􀆟cal that his evidence stood the test of cross examina􀆟on. Unfortunately for the Plain􀆟ffs, that was not to be and the above answers of the 2nd Plain􀆟ff to the last two ques􀆟ons posed to him made it clear that there was no evidence forthcoming from the Plain􀆟ffs to establish the issues raised by them with regard to the 8th cause of ac􀆟on. This being the factual posi􀆟on and with no further evidence either from the Plain􀆟ffs or the Defendants, I shall now consider the judgment of the High Court. Judgment of the High Court 23) The High Court dismissed the ac􀆟on of the Plain􀆟ffs on three grounds. 24) The first is, having carefully examined the above answers of the 2nd Plain􀆟ff during cross examina􀆟on including the answer that the 2nd Plain􀆟ff does not have an iota of evidence to support his version that the 4th Defendant paid KKH a sum of Rs. 68m, the High Court held that apart from the oral evidence of the 2nd Plain􀆟ff, no evidence was led to establish that the 4th Defendant disbursed a sum of Rs. 68m to the Defendants to be paid to the Plain􀆟ffs in respect of the Works or that the Defendants paid the Plain􀆟ffs only a sum of Rs. 13m out of the said sum of Rs. 68m. 25) The second is the failure to call a witness from the 4th Defendant. In this regard, the High Court has held that, “the Plain􀆟ffs had every opportunity to call a witness from the Ceylon Electricity Board to prove that the Ceylon Electricity Board paid a sum of Rs. 68m to the Defendants to be paid to the Plain􀆟ffs. The Plain􀆟ffs failed to produce such evidence.” 26) The third ground is with regard to the effect of P4 and whether it assists the case of the Plain􀆟ffs. In this regard, the High Court has concluded that, “there is no reference whatsoever in the document marked P4 that the Defendants had agreed to pay the Plain􀆟ffs a sum of Rs. 68m or that the CEB had disbursed a sum of Rs. 68m to the Defendants to be paid to the Plain􀆟ffs. It appears therefore that the document marked P4 does not establish that the Defendants had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 68m or any part thereof on behalf of the CEB or that the CEB had paid a sum of Rs. 68m to the Defendants to be paid to the Plain􀆟ffs.” 12 27) With the High Court having arrived at the above conclusions, I shall now consider the submissions of the learned President’s Counsel for the Plain􀆟ffs in order to determine if the High Court erred when it dismissed the ac􀆟on of the Plain􀆟ffs. Submissions on behalf of the Plaintiffs 28) The principal submission of the learned President’s Counsel for the Plain􀆟ffs was that the evidence of the 2nd Plain􀆟ff with regard to the 8th cause of ac􀆟on was sufficient in establishing a prima facie case for the Plain􀆟ffs in the first instance. He submi􀆩ed that the 2nd Plain􀆟ff had stated unequivocally in his oral evidence that the 4th Defendant paid the Defendants a sum of Rs. 68m for the Works which were carried out by the Plain􀆟ffs and that the Defendants only paid a sum of Rs. 13m and fraudulently retained the rest, resul􀆟ng in the unjust enrichment of the Defendants. He submi􀆩ed further that the en􀆟re transac􀆟on is captured in P4 and that KKH cannot deny that it is not liable to the Plain􀆟ffs in respect of the said sum of money. 29) The learned President’s Counsel for the Plain􀆟ffs, relying on the judgment of this Court in Rodrigo and others v St Anthony’s Hardware Stores Limited [(1995) 1 Sri LR 7] submi􀆩ed further that in the absence of any evidence by the Defendants, Court is en􀆟tled to draw a presump􀆟on that had the Defendants given evidence, such evidence would have been unfavourable to the case of the Defendants, as provided for in illustra􀆟on (f) of Sec􀆟on 114 of the Evidence Ordinance, which reads as follows: “The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Illustration (f) – that evidence which could be and is not produced would if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it;” 13 30) As pointed out in Law of Evidence by Coomaraswamy [Volume II Book 1; page 397], the principle underlying the above presump􀆟on “arises from withholding evidence and from the spolia􀆟on or fabrica􀆟on or suppression of evidence. The conduct of the person withholding the evidence can be a􀆩ributed to a supposed consciousness that the evidence, if produced, would operate against him.” Coomaraswamy goes on to state that, “In order to en􀆟tle the court to draw an inference unfavourable to the person withholding the evidence, the opposite party must sa􀆟sfy the Court that such evidence is in existence and could be produced, but has been withheld. What can give rise to the presump􀆟on is not the failure to obtain the evidence but the withholding of it. When no such evidence has been obtained, it cannot be said what the evidence would have been, and therefore no ques􀆟on of presump􀆟on that it would have been unfavourable can arise.” 31) While a Court may draw an adverse inference in an appropriate case arising from the failure of a party to lead evidence that is available to it, one must bear in mind that in Rodrigo, there was sufficient evidence led at the trial to conclude that during all 􀆟mes material to the transac􀆟on the 1st defendant in that case had held himself out as the agent of the other defendants and that the other defendants by their own conduct had held out that the 1st defendant was their sole spokesperson in rela􀆟on to the transac􀆟on so as to induce a belief in the plain􀆟ff and its lawyers that the 1st defendant was a sufficient medium through which no􀆟ce could reach the other defendants. It is in that context that Dheeraratne, J observed [at page 12] that, “The 1st defendant\'s failure to give evidence in these circumstances is quite significant and court is en􀆟tled to draw the presump􀆟on that, had the 1st defendant given evidence on this ma􀆩er, such evidence would have been unfavourable to the case of the defendants. (See sec􀆟on 114 illustra􀆟on [f] of the Evidence Ordinance)”. 32) The posi􀆟on that has arisen in this appeal is not comparable with the above view expressed by Dheeraratne, J in that the Plain􀆟ffs have failed to demonstrate the evidence that is said to be in existence which the Defendants are withholding. 33) To the contrary, the Plain􀆟ffs did not produce an iota of evidence that demonstrated that they in fact carried out the Works for the 4th Defendant, and/or that the Works were completed to the sa􀆟sfac􀆟on of the 4th Defendant. Nor have the Plain􀆟ffs tendered any documents to substan􀆟ate their claim that the 4th Defendant agreed 14 to pay the Plain􀆟ffs the said sum of Rs. 68m for carrying out the Works or the terms and condi􀆟ons subject to which the Plain􀆟ffs were required to carry out the Works for the 4th Defendant, nor did the Plain􀆟ffs produce any wri􀆩en correspondence that it may have had either with the 4th Defendant or KKH, in respect of the Works. That none was available is evident when one examines the list of documents filed by the Plain􀆟ffs. 34) I must reiterate that the above ma􀆩ers were within the knowledge of the Plain􀆟ffs and were cri􀆟cal to the success of the case for the Plain􀆟ffs but which the Plain􀆟ffs did not produce. The lack of evidence on the part of the Plain􀆟ffs was aggravated by the evidence of the 2nd Plain􀆟ff when he stated that he does not have an iota of evidence to say that the 4th Defendant paid KKH Rs. 68m, thus demolishing the primary pillar on which the 8th cause of ac􀆟on was founded upon. 35) Taking the case of the Plain􀆟ffs on the 8th cause of ac􀆟on at its best, what remained was only P4, by which KKH had stated that the contract for the Works was nego􀆟ated by the Plain􀆟ffs directly with the 4th Defendant, with the involvement of KKH being merely to facilitate the payments through the project funds, monitor its progress, facilitate quality control, engage in official communica􀆟on with the 4th Defendant on behalf of the Plain􀆟ffs, and invoicing. 36) While I am sa􀆟sfied on the strength of P4 that the 4th Defendant and the Plain􀆟ffs had an arrangement with regard to the Works, even P4 was silent with regard to the following: (a) The terms and condi􀆟ons subject to which the Plain􀆟ffs were to carry out the Works; (b) The price that the Plain􀆟ffs claimed it had quoted the 4th Defendant; (c) The price that the 4th Defendant is said to have agreed to pay the Plain􀆟ffs for the execu􀆟on of the Works; (d) The modali􀆟es of making payment to the Plain􀆟ffs for the execu􀆟on of the Works; (e) That the 4th Defendant had paid Rs. 68m to KKH on account of the Works. 15 37) In these circumstances, I am of the view that (a) the Plain􀆟ffs have failed to establish on a balance of probability the 8th cause of ac􀆟on, (b) the Plain􀆟ffs have not sa􀆟sfied the requirements that must be established in order to invoke the provisions of illustra􀆟on (f) of Sec􀆟on 114 of the Evidence Ordinance, and (c) the findings of the High Court are supported by the evidence that was before it. I am therefore in agreement with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the High Court, and I see no basis to vary the findings of the High Court. 38) There is one ma􀆩er that I must perhaps advert to, prior to concluding. During the hearing of this appeal, in response to a ques􀆟on raised by Court as a ma􀆩er of interest, the learned Deputy Solicitor General stated that “the 4th Defendant had made payments to KKH on account of the Plain􀆟ffs”. While no further details were provided, I am mindful that the findings that are reached by this Court must be based on and be limited to the ma􀆩ers that arose during the trial before the High Court. Conclusion 39) The judgment of the High Court is accordingly affirmed and this appeal is dismissed, without costs. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J I agree JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT Sobhitha Rajakaruna, J I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT		Download
2025-11-19	SC/APPEAL/153/2016	Bogoda Arachchige Manortne, No. 45, Amugodella Road, Biyagama. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT- APPELLANT Vs. 1. Collure Appuhamilage Somasiri Collure, ‘Thakshila’, No. 42, Biyagama. 2. Dayananda Collure, No. 43, Malwana, Biyagama. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT- RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J	Page 1 of 15 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal under and in terms of section 5(c) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 as amended by Act No. 54 of 2006. S.C. Appeal No: Bogoda Arachchige Manoratne, 153/2016 No.45, Amugodella Road, Biyagama. SC (HC) CALA No: PLAINTIFF 169/2014 Vs. WP/HCCA/GPH No: 1. Collure Appuhamilage 57/08(F) Somasiri Collure, Thakshila’, No. 42, Biyagama. District Court of Gampaha 2. Dayananda Collure, Case No: 35508/L No. 43, Malwana, Biyagama. DEFENDANTS AND 1. Collure Appuhamilage Somasiri Collure, ‘Thakshila’, No. 42, Biyagama. 2. Dayananda Collure, No. 43, Malwana, Biyagama. DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS Vs. Page 2 of 15 Bogoda Arachchige Manortne, No. 45, Amugodella Road, Biyagama. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN Bogoda Arachchige Manortne, No. 45, Amugodella Road, Biyagama. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT- APPELLANT Vs. 1. Collure Appuhamilage Somasiri Collure, ‘Thakshila’, No. 42, Biyagama. 2. Dayananda Collure, No. 43, Malwana, Biyagama. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT- RESPONDENTS Before : S. Thurairaja, P.C., J. : A.H.M.D. Nawaz, J. : Sampath B. Abayakoon, J. Counsel : Manohara De Silva, P.C. with Hirosha Munasinghe instructed by L.K.I. Perera for the Plaintiff- Respondent-Appellant. : Dr. Sunil Coorey instructed by Diana Stephanie Rodrigo for the Defendant-Appellant-Respondents. Page 3 of 15 Argued on : 04-08-2025 Written Submissions : 19-09-2025 and 15-03-2021 (By the Defendant- Appellant-Respondents) : 09-09-2025 and 23-09-2019 (By the Plaintiff- Respondent-Appellant) Decided on : 19-11-2025 Sampath B. Abayakoon, J. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiff-respondent-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) on being aggrieved of the judgment pronounced by the Provincial High Court of the Western Province holden in Gampaha while exercising its civil appellate jurisdiction. The said judgment has been pronounced on 06-03-2014, whereby the judgment pronounced by the learned District Judge of Gampaha on 06-06-2008, which was a judgment pronounced in favour of the plaintiff, was set aside. Having set aside the District Court judgment, the learned Judges of the High Court have allowed reliefs as prayed for in prayer ආ, ඇ in the answer of the defendants before the District Court. When this matter was supported for leave to appeal on 03-08-2016, this Court granted leave on the questions of law as set out in paragraph 13(B) to (H) of the petition dated 04-04-2014. However, when the matter was taken up before the Court for argument on 04-08-2025, both the learned Counsel who represented the parties agreed that it would be sufficient to confine their arguments to the questions of law covered under paragraph 13(B) and (C) of the petition of appeal. Page 4 of 15 The said questions of law read as follows, 1. Did the learned Judges of the Provincial High Court err in law in allowing the appeal of the defendant-appellant-respondent at a time when there was no prayer to set aside or vary the judgment of the trial Court and if the said judgment has no force or avail in law. 2. Did the learned Judges of the Provincial High Court have erred on the fundamental principles of the law in relation to a case of this nature in granting the relief prayed for in the absence of any evidence to establish a right of way by prescriptive user. At the hearing of this appeal, this Court heard the submissions of the learned President’s Counsel who represented the plaintiff, and also the submissions of the learned Counsel who represented the defendant-appellant-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the defendants). This Court also had the benefit of considering the pre-argument written submissions and the post-argument written submissions tendered by the parties. Although the 1st question of law revolves around a legal question as to the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court, I find it appropriate to consider the facts related to this matter before I would venture into considering the questions of law under which this appeal is considered. The plaintiff has instituted an action before the District Court of Gampaha stating that he is the owner of the land morefully described in the 3rd schedule of the plaint. He has averred that the defendants are brothers, and the owners of the lands situated adjacent to the Western boundary of his land where he and his predecessor in title allowed the defendants to use a temporary footpath along the South-Western boundary of his land when their father passed away in 1985 and also when their mother passed away in 1990 for the purposes of their respective funerals. The plaintiff has admitted that the defendants used the said footpath from time to time, but with the permission of the plaintiff’s predecessor in title. Page 5 of 15 It has been the position of the plaintiff that the defendants forcibly erected a gate on 06-07-1991 and started using the footpath forcibly when they had no right of servitude to use a footpath through the land belonging to the plaintiff. On the above-mentioned basis, the plaintiff had prayed for a declaration of title that the land morefully described in the 3rd schedule of the plaint is owned by him without any incumbrances amounting to a servitude, and other incidental reliefs. In their answer filed before the District Court, the defendants, while denying the title pleaded by the plaintiff, had admitted that the two lands owned by them are situated towards the Western boundary of the land belonging to the plaintiff. Denying that they forcibly erected gates, it has been their position that they enjoyed a 6-foot-wide road access from Amunugodella main road to their lands through the land belonging to the plaintiff for over 40 years. They have claimed prescriptive rights to the said road access and has stated that based on that prescriptive right, they erected a gate at the entrance of the said access road from the main road. They have relied on a final partition plan in another case to claim that a 6-foot-wide footpath was in existence for over 40 years and had claimed that it was the most convenient and shortest route and the only access road for the defendants to reach the main road. They have claimed that they have a right to the said access road as a 12-foot-wide road out of necessity. In their prayer, they have sought the dismissal of the plaintiff’s action and for a declaration that they are entitled to the said road access through prescription. They have also prayed for the earlier mentioned widening of the road out of necessity, and for an order for the removal of obstructions caused to their road access, allegedly by the plaintiff. However, it appears that the defendants have given up their claim for the widening of the road access out of necessity at the trial stage. Page 6 of 15 The learned District Judge of Gampaha, having considered both the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court and issues raised by the parties, has pronounced her judgment determining that the plaintiff has established his ownership to the land morefully described in the 3rd schedule of the plaint and the defendants have failed to establish that they have prescriptive rights to a 6-foot-wide road access through the land belonging to the plaintiff. It has also been determined that the 1st and 2nd defendants have a clear separate road access to reach their lands and the road access claimed by them is not the only road access they have, as claimed. It has also been found that the road access claimed by the defendants is an access that can be used to reach the 1st defendant’s land from the land belonging to the 2nd defendant, which is an access of convenience rather than a necessity. Accordingly, the learned District Judge has answered the issues in favour of the plaintiff while granting the reliefs as prayed for in the prayer of his plaint, except for the relief ඈ. When this judgment was appealed against by the defendants to the High Court, the learned Judges of the High Court, after having considered the submissions made before the Court, have decided that the main issue that needs determination would be whether the defendants have acquired a prescriptive right of the footpath by using it as a servitude right for a period of over 40 years. It appears that the learned Judges of the High Court has mainly relied on the final partition plan No. 1137 dated 28-07-1974 filed in the District Court of Gampaha Partition Action No. 14665 (1V3) to determine that the defendants have established that they have used the said footpath as a servitude right even during 1974, and had continued to use it until it was obstructed. It has also been determined that the said footpath has been used as a 6-foot-wide access and the defendants have established using an access road with such width. It has been further determined that although the defendants may have an alternate road access, the disputed path has been used by them at the times of flooding of the area and there is no impediment for them to use the Page 7 of 15 said access as a matter of convenience as they have acquired prescriptive rights over the said access. It has been determined that the learned District Judge was not correct when answering the issues of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the learned Judges of the High Court have set aside the judgment of the learned District Judge, while allowing reliefs prayed for by the defendants as stated earlier. At the hearing of this appeal, the position taken up by the learned President’s Counsel in relation to the 1st question of law was that, in the petition of appeal filed before the High Court, other than narrating the facts of the matter and stating in paragraph 23 of the petition that the defendants are aggrieved on the basis set out in the said paragraph, there was no prayer for seeking any relief from the High Court. It was his position that there was no proper appeal before the High Court under which any relief should have been granted and the learned Judges of the High Court were misdirected in granting reliefs when there was no prayer before the Court other than a mere statement of facts presented in the form of an appeal. Making submissions as to the determination of the High Court where the judgment of the learned District Judge was set aside, it was his position that the learned Judges of the High Court should not have relied on a final partition plan prepared in an unrelated case to conclude that the defendants have proved prescription to a 6-foot-wide road access through the plaintiff’s land of 20 perches. It was his position that the defendants never used a 6-foot-wide access road through the plaintiff’s land as of a right, although they were allowed to use a footpath due to exigencies as stated in the plaint from time to time which does not prove prescribing to a 6-foot-wide road access. Pointing out that both the lands belonging to the two defendants have clear road access and they have been using those roads as their main entrances, it was his contention that the claimed road access was only for the defendants to enter each other’s lands and not out of any necessity. It was further argued that the prescriptive claim has been based on the premise that it is the only Page 8 of 15 means of access available for them, which was not the truth. It was his submission that the plaintiff has proved his case, whereas the defendants have failed to establish the prescriptive claim made by them and the judgment of the District Judge should have been allowed to stand. The position taken up by the learned Counsel for the defendants with regard to the legal question of law was that this was a question raised for the 1st time before this Court. Although it was admitted that the petition of appeal before the High Court does not include a prayer seeking relief, it was his contention that the notice of appeal contains the relief sought for from the appellate Court. It was his position that no miscarriage of justice has occasioned as a result of the said oversight, and in anyway, no prejudice has been caused to either party and hence, in accordance with the proviso of section 5A(2) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 54 of 2006, such an objection cannot be maintained. Submitting as to the facts of the matter, it was his position that although there are alternate access roads, such roads get flooded during the rainy season and the questioned road access is the only access available to the defendants in such situations. It was his position that the learned Judges of the High Court were correct in setting aside the trial Court judgment and allowing the appeal. With the above factual matrix in mind and having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel, I will now move on to consider whether there is merit in the questions of law under which leave to appeal was granted in this matter. The 1st question of law: - A person who is aggrieved of a judgment pronounced by a learned Judge of a District Court can prefer a notice of appeal in terms of section 755 of the Civil Procedure Code within the stipulated time, giving the particulars of case as required in the section so that the opposing party and the other relevant stakeholders is put on notice about his intention to appeal against the judgment. Page 9 of 15 Thereafter, he shall file the petition of appeal within the time frame specified and in terms of section 758 of the Civil Procedure Code. The said section 758 read as follows- 758. (1) The petition of appeal shall be distinctly written upon good and suitable paper, and shall contain the following particulars: — (a) the name of the Court in which the case is pending; (b) the names of the parties to the action; (c) the names of the appellant and of the respondent; (d) the address to the Court of Appeal; (e) a plain and concise statement of the grounds of objection to the judgment, decree, or order appealed against—such statement to be set forth in duly numbered paragraphs; (f) a demand of the form of relief claimed. (2) The Court in deciding any appeal shall not be confined to the grounds set forth by the appellant, but it shall not rest its decision on any ground not set forth by the appellant, unless the respondent has had sufficient opportunity of being heard on that ground. The position taken up by the plaintiff is that when the defendants presented their petition of appeal to the Provincial High Court, they have not prayed for any specific reliefs from the Court, and hence, there was no basis before the High Court to grant any relief to them, and the learned Judges of the High Court was misdirected when relief was granted on the basis that there was a prayer seeking relief. It is clear from the petition of appeal filed before the High Court, which can be found in the Supreme Court appeal brief, that it bears no prayer for any relief claimed. It had been paragraphed and numbered from 1 to 23. Page 10 of 15 Paragraphs 1 to 22 refer to the facts of the case, while in paragraph 23, the appellants have stated the grounds upon which their Counsel would be arguing the appeal before the High Court. It is manifestly clear that the defendants being the appellants before the High Court, had failed to pray for any relief from the Court which is a mandatory requirement in terms of section 758(1)(f) of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Counsel for the defendants contended that this was not a matter taken up before the High Court when the appeal was considered and there is no basis for the plaintiff to take up that as a question of law before this Court. I am of the view, since this Court decided to formulate the questions of law that needs to be determined with the consent of both parties when this matter was taken up for argument, this was a specific question of law raised. Hence, I find that it is a matter that requires a determination from this Court. It needs to be observed that the learned Judges of the High Court had been misdirected when it was determined that the defendants had come before the Court praying for reliefs as sought by them in their answer before the District Court. The 1st paragraph of the appellate judgment pronounced by the High Court reads as follows- 1, 2 විත්තිකාර අභියාචකයන් විසින් මෙෙ අභියාචනය ඉදිරිපත්ත මකාට ඇත්තමත්ත ගම්පහ උගත්ත අිමේක දිසා විනිසුරුවරිය 2008/06/06 දින ප්‍රකාශයට පත්ත කරන ලද තීන්ුව ඉවත්ත කරන මලසට ඉල්ලා සිටිමින් ය. විත්තිකාර පාේශවය විසින් ස්වකීය උත්තතරමේ ආයාචනමේ ඉල්ලා ඇි සහන ලබා මදන මලසටත්ත, අධිකරණයට ෙැනවයි හැමෙන අමනකුත්ත සහන ලබා මදන මලසටත්ත අභියාචන මපත්තසමෙන් ඇයද සිටියි. The above opening passage of the judgment clearly shows that the learned Judges of the High Court have failed to appreciate the fact that there had been no prayer seeking relief in the petition preferred to the High Court, but has gone on a misdirected premise that there was a prayer seeking relief in terms of the answer filed by the defendant before the District Court. It appears that it was on such basis the High Court has decided to allow the defendants to Page 11 of 15 use the 6-foot-wide road way apparently showed in a plan dated 12-07-1993 on the basis of long standing, uninterrupted, and unchallenged usage. The plan mentioned in the High Court judgment is the plan marked 1V1, namely the plan No.5239 dated 12-07-1993 by surveyor K. G. Hubert Perera. Although the Court has decided that the said plan depicts a 6-foot-wide road access, what it actually depicts is a footpath as shown by the defendants to the surveyor. I am unable to comprehend the fact under what circumstances the High Court allowed such relief which was not sought for from the High Court. It is my considered view that there should be a prayer to set aside the judgment of the District Court for the High Court to determine the matter differently from the trial Court judgment. I am of the view that although the learned Judges of the High Court have stated that they are allowing the appeal by granting the above-mentioned relief, in fact there had been no proper appeal before the Court to allow such relief. Under the circumstances, it is my considered view that there is merit in the 1st question of law under which this appeal was considered. The 2nd question of law: - It is clear that the plaintiff has come before the Court seeking for a declaration of title without any encumbrances in favour of the defendants in the form of a servitude through his land. It is manifestly clear from the evidence that the plaintiff has proved his title to the land mentioned in the 3rd schedule of the plaint, which is a land of 20 perches in extent. It has been his position that although the defendants were allowed to use a footpath along the South-Eastern and Western boundary of his land from time to time as a gesture of goodwill, it was never allowed as a right of servitude. It was on the basis that the defendants are attempting to use such a road access as an access of convenience, the plaintiff has pleaded reliefs as prayed for in his plaint. Page 12 of 15 The position of the defendants had been that they have acquired prescriptive rights to a 6-foot-wide road access by using that road for over a period of 40 years. As correctly observed by the learned District Judge in her judgment, a 6-foot-wide road access is not something equivalent to using a footpath, as a footpath cannot be of such a width as claimed by them. Since it has been the position of the defendants that they have prescribed to such a path of 6 feet in width, the law requires them to establish that fact before the trial Court. In other words, it is they who should establish their rights as claimed. Had they claimed that they had a right of servitude of using the claimed road access through the land belonging to the plaintiff through usage or out of necessity, it was up to them to show the said road access by identifying it in a proper manner and also identifying the dominant tenement and the servient tenement. Since their claim was based on a right of a servitude through prescription, they were required to establish that by performing an overt act or acts adverse to the rights of the plaintiff to his land, they used the road for more than 10 years and thereby, acquired prescriptive rights as claimed. In the evidence led before the District Court, there is nothing to suggest that such evidence has been adduced. The only evidence placed before the Court by the defendants had been to the effect that they used the road access as an easy access to the road, which does not mean an adverse usage of the said access in view of the plaintiff’s position that he and his predecessors in title allowed the defendants to use a footpath in times of their need. It has to be mentioned at this juncture, the defendants themselves had admitted that they have separate road access to reach their lands through the roads that run adjacent to their respective lands. The plans prepared for the purposes of this action clearly show that they have been using such road access as the main access to their lands and houses. The evidence also clearly shows that the real purpose of using the footpath have been to obtain access to each other’s land through the land belonging to the plaintiff. Page 13 of 15 I find no basis to consider the evidence that during the times of flooding of the area, the defendants’ only means of access to the road is through the plaintiff’s land. The evidence placed before the District Court has also clearly established the fact that the defendants’ claim in the answer, that this was their only access to the main road, is false. Very much similar facts were considered in the judgment of Wanigasooriya Vs. Danawathie and Others (2009) 1 SLR 85. The plaintiff appellant filed action alleging that her father permitted the defendant’s predecessor to have access to his land over and along the land of the plaintiff, and sought a declaration to close down the road, and further alleged that the defendant has an alternate way. The defendant-respondent contended that the roadway in question had been used by him over a period of 50 years and moved for a dismissal of the action. The trial Court held with the defendant-respondent. Held: 1. The judgment does not support even by a stretch of imagination that the defendants used the right of way for a long period of time exceeding 50 years adverse to the rights of the plaintiff, but merely states that they had used their path. The judgment does not identify the use being adverse to the rights of the plaintiff’s title 10 years immediately preceding the institution of the action. The consequence of this finding would be that according to the trial Judge the defendant had not acquired any prescriptive rights to the road way. 2. It is quite clear that the trial Judge had erred in not appreciating that there was lack of evidence regarding the acquisition of right of way of necessity. Page 14 of 15 Per Adul Salam, J. “The impugned judgment of the learned District Judge in answer to issue 5 does not support even by a stretch of imagination that the defendants use the right of way depicted as X1B in plan X for a long period of time exceeding 50 years, adverse to the rights of the plaintiff but merely states that they had used the path. In other words the finding of the learned District Judge inter alia was that the 1st, 2nd and the 3rd defendants and their predecessors has used the right of way depicted as X1B in plan X for a long period of time exceeding 50 years, but does not identify the use as being adverse to the right of the plaintiff on a title independent and whether they enjoyed the same without any interruptions for a period of 10 years immediately preceding the institution of the action. The consequences of this finding would be that according to the learned Judge the defendants had not acquired any prescription rights to use the road way.” His Lordship also considered the legal principle set out by His Lordship Basnayake, C.J. in Soyza Vs. Fonseka 58 NLR 501 as to the nature of the evidence required to prove the acquisition of a right of way by prescription, where it was held that there should be clear and unmistakable evidence of the commencement of an adverse user for a prescriptive period that is necessary to claim a servitude by way of prescription. In view of the above findings, I am of the view that the learned District Judge was correct in determining that the defendants had failed to prove that they have acquired prescriptive rights to a road access 6 feet in width. I find that the learned Judges of the High Court had failed to consider this important factor in relation to a claim based on prescription. For the reasons as considered above, I answer both the questions of law in the affirmative. Page 15 of 15 Accordingly, I set aside the judgment dated 06-03-2014 by the learned Judges of the High Court of the Western Province holden in Gampaha as it cannot be allowed to stand. I affirm the judgment dated 06-06-2008 pronounced by the learned Additional District Judge of Gampaha. The appeal is allowed. Having considered the relevant facts and the circumstances, I order no costs. Judge of the Supreme Court S. Thurairaja, P.C., J. I agree. Judge of the Supreme Court A.H.M.D. Nawaz, J. I agree. Judge of the Supreme Court		Download
2025-11-17	SC/FR/79/2019	1. Meringnage Sugandi Dinesha Priyangani Fernando. 2. Meringnage Mangala Pushpakumara Fernando. Both of No. 618, Athgala, Gampola West. ORIGINAL PETITIONERS Loku Kumarage Janidu Wathsara, No. 618, Athgala, Gampola West. PETITIONER Vs. 1. S. Akbar, Sub Inspector of Police, Officer-in-Charge, Police Post, Athgala, Gampola. 2. Jayantha Gunawardane, Headquarters Inspector, Police Station, Gampola. 3. W.G. Ginige, Superintendent of Police, Office of Superintendent of Police, Mahara, Gampola. 4. Pujitha Jayasundara, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo. 5. Government Analyst, Government Analyst Department, Colombo. 6. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J	Page 1 of 18 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application in terms of Article 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. SC/FRA/79/2019 1. Meringnage Sugandi Dinesha Priyangani Fernando. 2. Meringnage Mangala Pushpakumara Fernando. Both of No. 618, Athgala, Gampola West. ORIGINAL PETITIONERS Loku Kumarage Janidu Wathsara, No. 618, Athgala, Gampola West. PETITIONER Vs. 1. S. Akbar, Sub Inspector of Police, Officer-in-Charge, Police Post, Athgala, Gampola. 2. Jayantha Gunawardane, Headquarters Inspector, Police Station, Gampola. Page 2 of 18 3. W.G. Ginige, Superintendent of Police, Office of Superintendent of Police, Mahara, Gampola. 4. Pujitha Jayasundara, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo. 5. Government Analyst, Government Analyst Department, Colombo. 6. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS Before : Mahinda Samayawardhena, J. : Sampath B. Abayakoon, J. : M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne, J. Counsel : Petitioner appeared in person : Induni Punchihewa, S.C. for 1st – 3rd and 6th Respondents. Argued on : 06-08-2025 Page 3 of 18 Written Submissions : 17-09-2025 (By the Petitioner) : 24-10-2025 (By the 1st – 3rd and 6th Respondents) Decided on : 17-11-2025 Sampath B. Abayakoon, J. The original petitioners filed this fundamental rights application stating that they are initiating this application on behalf of minor Loku Kumarage Janidu Wathsara, alleging that 1st to 4th respondents violated the fundamental rights of the said minor guaranteed under the Constitution. The original petitioners are siblings. The 1st petitioner is the mother of the earlier mentioned minor, while the 2nd petitioner is the uncle, being the brother of the 1st petitioner. The original petitioners have filed this application on their own motion without any legal assistance, and throughout the case, the original petitioners represented the minor on their own, while it was the 2nd petitioner who made submissions to the Court in relation to their application. When this matter was considered for the granting of leave on 06-06-2019, this Court granted leave to proceed for alleged violations of the said minors’ fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 12(1) and 13(1) of the Constitution limiting it only against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents named in the petition. Before leave to proceed was granted, having considered the fact that the petitioners are representing themselves, this Court directed the Hon. Attorney General to call for a report in relation to the alleged arrest and also a report whether the productions allegedly taken from the custody of the said minor had been sent to the Government Analyst, and if so, the Government Analyst Report. The 1st respondent named in the application has filed his objections by way of an affidavit, and after the matter was fixed for argument, the 2nd petitioner has filed written submissions to be filed of record. Page 4 of 18 It needs to be noted that when this matter was taken up for hearing on 21-09-2022, the learned State Counsel who represented the respondents had brought to the notice of the Court that the minor on whose behalf the petitioners have initiated this application is now a major and 21 years of age at that time, and therefore, the petitioners are not in a position to proceed with this application in the capacity they came before the Court. This has resulted in this Court issuing a notice on the said Loku Kumarage Janidu Wathsara to be present in Court on the next date, and on 26-01-2023, it has been ordered that he should file an affidavit disclosing the full details of the incident and the alleged violations. Although the said order has been made on the basis that he is the 3rd added petitioner, there has been no specific order in that regard. It appears that the said person has not filed a separate affidavit as directed either. When this matter was taken up for argument on 06-08-2025, it was again intimated to the Court by the learned State Counsel who represented the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents, and the Hon. Attorney General who was named as the 6th respondent, that the minor on whose behalf this action has been initiated has now become a major, and therefore, the 1st and 2nd petitioners no longer have any locus standi to represent him before the Court. Since the two original petitioners and the person on whose behalf the action was initiated were present in Court, this Court explained the legal position in this regard to all three of them in Sinhala language. It was specifically informed that the petitioners can no longer represent the said minor who is now a major, and it is only he who can proceed with this action now. The options available to him to represent himself or to obtain legal assistance through an Attorney-at-Law of his choice or the option of obtaining legal assistance from the Legal Aid Commission were also explained. Having understood the legal position explained to them, the minor, who is now a major, informed the Court that since the original petitioners have filed extensive written submissions clarifying their case, it is his wish to obtain a judgment based on written submissions. The learned State Counsel who represented the 1st to 3rd and 6th respondents named in the petition also Page 5 of 18 intimated to the Court that she would also file written submissions as to their stand. Accordingly, all parties were allowed to file further written submissions in relation to this application. It needs to be noted that when the argument of this matter was taken up before this Court on 06-08-2025, in the journal entries of that day, this Court has inadvertently referred to the minor mentioned originally in the petition as the 3rd petitioner, whereas, he has not been referred to as such in the original petition or the original petition has not been specifically amended by naming him as the 3rd petitioner. Having considered the fact that the original petitioners have filed this application on their own, and in view of the present adult status of the minor mentioned in the petition, the caption of the petition should stand amended referring to the petitioners as original petitioners and thereafter, naming the minor on whose behalf this action was filed, namely Loku Kumarage Janidu Wathsara, as the petitioner for the purposes of determining this fundamental rights application. The facts relating to this application as alleged in the petition can be summarized in the following manner. The petitioner has been living with the parents of the original petitioners, since his mother (the 1st original petitioner) and father were divorced, and his mother has remarried. At the time of this incident, he had been a 17-year-old studying in the Advanced Level class at his school. His birth certificate confirms that he was 17 years and two months old at the time of his arrest. According to the events as narrated, on 02-02-2019, at around 7.00 p.m. the petitioner, along with the 2nd husband of the 1st original petitioner, was in the process of learning to ride a motorcycle in front of the road adjacent to the ancestral home of the original petitioners. While they were engaged in that task, a three-wheeler has come and the 1st respondent, along with two others in civilian clothes, had stopped the three-wheeler in front of them and had dragged the petitioner into the three-wheeler and had driven away. Without knowing what happened, the original petitioners had gone to the Gampola Page 6 of 18 Police Station immediately, where they had come to know that the petitioner had been arrested by the Gampola Police. It has been alleged that the persons who arrested the petitioner came while concealing their identity and never explained the reasons for his arrest to the husband of the 1st original petitioner who was present at the time of the arrest. The said husband has given an affidavit marked P-5, explaining the manner in which the petitioner, who was then a minor, was taken into custody. It is on that basis it has been alleged that the petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 13(1) of the Constitution have been violated. Further, it has been alleged that the police did not provide any information about the petitioner until 01.00 a.m. in the morning of 03-02-2019, and at that time, the original petitioners and their relatives who were present at the police station have seen the 1st respondent and another officer escorting the petitioner from the upper floor of the police station to the ground floor, and taking him to the police lockup. It is alleged that when they were allowed to talk to the petitioner, it was informed by him that the 1st respondent assaulted him severely, demanding him to show where the drugs were and had later put a packet of drugs into his pocket and forced him to sign several documents. It is alleged that the original petitioners and their relatives clearly saw the marks of assault on the face of the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner was produced before the Acting Magistrate of Gampola under B-Report No. B123/19 on 03-02-2019 marked P-7 along with the application, and they came to know that the said B-Report has been filed on the basis that 2.25 grams of Heroin was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, which made it impossible for the petitioner to obtain bail until the Government Analyst Report was available. It has been alleged that no Heroin was recovered and the petitioner was never taken to a jewellery shop in order to weigh the alleged productions as stated in the B-Report. It has also been alleged that the police failed to inform the learned Magistrate that the petitioner was a minor at that time, which has resulted in him being remanded as a normal adult person. Page 7 of 18 It has been alleged that since the prison officials informed the original petitioners that the petitioner cannot be kept under normal remand custody since he is a minor, they had to file a motion before the Magistrate’s Court, which resulted in the learned Magistrate directing that the petitioner to be held in a children’s home. The original petitioners have stated in their original petition as to what steps they took in relation to this arrest, claiming that the petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution had been violated due to the fabrications and the illegal arrest and assault of the petitioner by the police. Although leave to proceed has been granted against the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd respondents mentioned in the petition, the contents of the petition clearly show that the allegation of the violation of fundamental rights is only directed against the 1st respondent mentioned, who has been the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of a police post situated at Athgala, Gampola, which appears to be a post established within the jurisdiction of the police area of Gampola. It appears that the 2nd and the 3rd respondents have been named because of the fact that the 2nd respondent is the Headquarters Inspector (HQI) of Gampola Police, and the 3rd respondent is the Superintendent of Police (SP) of Gampola police division. The 1st respondent has filed an objection in relation to the application in the form of an affidavit dated 23-07-2020 and has denied the averments contained in the petition alleging that he infringed the fundamental rights of the petitioner. He has stated that upon receiving information regarding possession of drugs, he left the Gampola police station at 20.07 hours on the orders of his HQI along with two other Police Constables after entering the necessary out entry. He has stated that he was in his official uniform while the other two officers who accompanied him were in civil attire. He has claimed that upon locating the suspect mentioned in the information, the suspect was stopped and questioned, and due to the suspicions arose in the way he answered his questioning, he searched him and found a parcel containing a substance, Page 8 of 18 which he identified as Heroin. He also said that upon further search of the suspect, he found two mobile phones, and in his wallet, there were two receipts of money deposited in a bank amounting to Rs. 83,000/- and Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 560/- in cash, and an Identity Card belonging to another person. Thereafter, he has arrested the suspect, who is now the petitioner before the Court, at 22.00 hours on 02-02-2019 for the possession of Heroin and for the possession of an Identity Card that did not belong to him. He has stated that at the time of the arrest, he specifically informed the suspect the reason for his arrest. In order to substantiate these facts, he has tendered the out entry entered in the information book of the police station and the return note marked as 1R1 and 1R1A respectively, and a copy of the arrest notes made marked as 1R2. It has been stated that after the arrest, he proceeded along with the suspect to the Gampola Gold Garden Jewellery Store and informed the owner of the store to come and weigh the productions. When weighed, it has been found that the substance had a weight of 2 grams and 25 milligrams. It has been his position that after returning to the Gampola police station, he handed over the suspect to the Reserve Officer and the necessary entries were made [1R1(A)]. According to him, he has recorded the statement of the suspect at 06.00 hours on 03-02-2019, and had thereafter, produced him before the Magistrate’s Court of Gampola under the mentioned B-Report where the suspect was remanded. He has claimed that he proceeded to conduct further investigations as to the suspect by obtaining his telephone records and other details, and the Government Analyst Report (1R3) dated 23-04-2019 confirmed that the productions recovered from the possession of the suspect in fact had a pure quantity of 36 milligrams of Diacetylmorphine. Submitting the document marked 1R4, which is a certificate issued by the principal of the school attended by the petitioner, it has been contended that Page 9 of 18 although it has been claimed that the petitioner was a studious student at his school, he was not a person who attended school regularly. Denying the allegation that the petitioner was not given food after his arrest by the police, the 1st respondent has tendered a copy of the relevant page of the book maintained at the police station in relation to the providing of food to the petitioner marked as 1R5 to substantiate that food was provided to him at 09.00 hours on 03-02-2019. The 1st respondent has admitted that he did not mention the fact that the petitioner was a minor in the B-Report filed before the Magistrate’s Court, however it was his position that since the petitioner was represented by a lawyer, that fact may have been conveyed to the learned Magistrate by his Counsel. It has been his position that upon the conclusion of his investigations, the matter was reported to the Hon. Attorney General for advice in May 2019 and upon the advice received by the Hon. Attorney General of the letter dated 07-05-2019, the petitioner was charged in terms of section 78(1)(a) and section 78(5)(a) of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance before the Magistrate’s Court of Gampola. The 1st respondent has stated in his affidavit dated 23-07-2020 that the matter is fixed for trial on 26-08-2020. It has been the position of the 1st respondent that he acted at all times according to the law and not with any prejudice, bias and/or ulterior motives towards the petitioner, and has denied the allegations against him made by the original petitioners in their affidavit filed before the Court. He has also averred that this is an attempt by the original petitioners to mislead this Court with numerous documents that are irrelevant to this application and an attempt to circumvent the due process of law in respect of the conduct of the suspect arrested by him. Although the original petitioner has been allowed to file counter objections in relation to the objections filed by the 1st respondent, it has not been complied with, even though the original petitioners have filed several other documents to substantiate their original petition. Page 10 of 18 It needs to be noted that when this matter was taken up before the Court on 26-03-2019 in order to consider granting of leave to proceed, this Court having observed the investigation notes filed in this regard and the statement made by the petitioner to the police after his arrest, has observed that facts revealed in his statement as to certain financial transactions need further investigations, which has resulted in ordering that further investigations should be carried out in that regard. Having considered the above relevant factual matters, I will now focus my attention on the provisions of the Constitution under which leave to proceed in relation to this application has been granted. Leave to proceed has been granted in terms of Article 12(1) under the Right to Equality, which reads as follows, 12(1). All persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law. Leave to proceed has also been granted in terms of Article 13(1) of the Constitution, which reads, 13(1). No person shall be arrested except according to procedure established by law. Any person arrested shall be informed of the reason for his arrest. When considering the Articles under which leave to proceed has been granted, it is clear that although the original petitioners have claimed that the petitioner was assaulted and subjected to degrading treatment, this Court has not been inclined to grant leave to proceed in terms of Article 11 of the Constitution which provides that no person shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. This may be so because this Court was not satisfied that the petition reveals sufficient material to grant leave to proceed in terms of the said Article. Having made the above observations, I will now proceed to consider whether there is material to come to a finding that the actions of the 1st respondent in arresting the petitioner amount to an infringement of Article 13(1) of the Page 11 of 18 Constitution before I proceed to consider the provisions of Article 12(1) since the entire petition revolves around an alleged arrest of the petitioner on a charge of possessing an unlawful substance. The degree of proof that is required in a case of fundamental rights violation has been considered in the case of Velmurugu Vs. The Attorney General and Another (1981) 1 SLR 406 where it was held, 1. The test applied is the degree of proof, that is, preponderance of probability, used in civil cases which is not so high as is required in criminal cases. But there can be degrees of probability within this standard. The degree depends on the subject matter. Where the allegation is a serious one of torture and inhumane treatment by the executive and administrative authorities of the state, a high degree of probability which is proportionate to the subject matter is necessary. Soza, J. elaborated further as to the standard of proof in a fundamental rights application in the case of Gunawardena Vs. Perera and Others (1983) 1 SLR 305 in the following manner, “…That the standard of proof should be preponderance of probabilities as in a civil case. It is generally accepted that within this standard there could be varying degrees of probability. The degree of probability required should be commensurate with the gravity of the allegation sought to be proved. This court when called upon to determine questions of infringement of fundamental rights will insist on a high degree of probability as for instance a court having to decide a question of fraud in a civil suit would. The conscience of the court must be satisfied that there has been an infringement.” In this regard, the petitioner does not dispute the fact that he was arrested on the day of his arrest. The only difference between the versions of the petitioner and that of the 1st respondent who conducted the raid that led to his arrest relates to the time of the arrest and the mode of transport the 1st respondent used to travel to the place of arrest and whether the 1st respondent Page 12 of 18 and his team were in civilian clothes as alleged by the original petitioners. Whether the petitioner was not informed as to the reasons for his arrest is another question that needs determination. I find that when it comes to the facts with regard to this factual matter, the only way the Court can come to a finding is by considering both the versions as placed before the Court by the parties and by coming to a finding whose version is more probable and can be believed. In this regard, it is the totality of the facts that should be considered, having in mind, the pending Magistrate’s Court action instituted based on the raid conducted by the 1st respondent. The manner in which the original petitioners presented the petition to this Court is also a relevant factor, in my view. The official notes of the raid reveal that the petitioner has been arrested after informing him of the possible charges. There is no dispute that he was produced before a Magistrate within the stipulated time provided for the police to detain him, and accordingly, remanded. Though the original petitioners have complained about the arrest, neither them nor the petitioner has explained the allegation that at the time of his arrest, he had in his possession an Identity Card belonging to someone else, which has later been revealed as belonging to his uncle who was in remand prison at that time, and also two receipts relating to the depositing of unusually large amounts of money, which a young person of petitioner’s age cannot be expected to have. I am unable to believe that they were unaware of the facts reported to the Court as they have obtained copies of large number of documents relating to this case which they have filed of record. The 1st respondent has stated in his affidavit that based on the Government Analyst Report, a plaint was filed against the petitioner in the Magistrate’s Court under the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance and the case is pending. Although that fact may not have been within the knowledge of the original petitioners when they filed this fundamental rights application, it is a matter well within the knowledge of them and the petitioner at the time the 1st respondent filed this objection. Although the petitioner has been allowed to file a response to it by way of a counter objection, he has failed to Page 13 of 18 tender such. Though they have filed several additional documents, they have failed to divulge what happened to the Magistrate’s Court case against the petitioner. In view of the large number of documents they have obtained and filed before the Court, I am unable to find any reason as to why they did not obtain a copy of the Magistrate’s Court case if the case was concluded in favour of the petitioner or if it is still pending. In my view, the only assumption that can be reached is that the case is still pending and commenting on the factual matters that can come up before the trial Court would be sub-judice as whatever the comment of this Court may have a bearing on the outcome of the Magistrate’s Court case. It is the stand of the 1st respondent that when he arrested the petitioner, he informed him of the possible charges. The original petitioners had not been at the place of the arrest, but it was the 1st original petitioner’s husband who has tendered an affidavit marked P-5 along with the petition to substantiate the version of arrest made by the original petitioners. When this matter was considered for the granting of leave, the observations of this Court made on 26-03-2019 show that the Court was also mindful of the statement made by the petitioner to the police after his arrest in relation to the financial transactions mentioned and other matters revealed, which warrants further investigation. In my view, it is under these circumstances whether the claim of the original petitioners that the petitioner was arrested without informing him of any charges or in the manner in which as they allege the arrest was made, it need to be considered as to which version in that regard can be given more weight over the other. In SC (F/R) Application No. 221/2015 decided on 24-10-2023 Aluwihare, PC, J. observed, “A particular form is not required for the notification, nor does it require a complete or detailed description of the charges against the suspect. The Page 14 of 18 requirement is for the arrested person to be told in simple, nontechnical language the essential legal and factual grounds for the arrest at the earliest reasonable opportunity. It is apparent that the Respondents informed the Petitioner the reasons for the arrest – vide the arrest notes marked “3R3”, which state that the Petitioner was arrested for committing the Offence of Criminal Breach of Trust and that she was informed of the reasons.” The original petitioners have claimed that those who came to arrest the petitioner came in a three-wheeler while concealing their identity and forced the petitioner into it and left. Under the circumstances, the fact that the petitioner had been a 17-year-old at the time of his arrest, and also the fact that the raiding police party knew they were conducting a drug raid, and whether there was a necessity for the police to abduct the petitioner as if they were carrying out an illegal operation and to make notes falsely as claimed by the original petitioners, are matters that need consideration. I am of the view that the 1st respondent had sufficient reasons to arrest the petitioner as the facts reveal. In the case of SC (F/R) Application No. 221/2015 (Supra), it was observed further, “In order to effect an arrest, a reasonable suspicion must be entertained in the mind of the Police Officer. The test is objective, and an arrest made purely on subjective grounds or on a general or vague suspicion would be arbitrary. The requirement is limited and is not equated with prima facie proof of the commission of the offence.” It was held in the case of Channa Pieris and Others Vs. the Attorney General and Others (1994) 1 SLR 1 at P. 46-47, “A reasonable suspicion may be based either upon matters within the officer’s knowledge or upon credible information furnished to him, or upon a combination of both sources.” Page 15 of 18 “However, the officer making an arrest cannot act on a suspicion founded on mere conjecture or vague surmise. His information must give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the suspect was concerned in the commission of an offence for which he could have arrested a person without a warrant. The suspicion must not be of an uncertain and vague nature but of a positive and definite character providing reasonable ground for suspecting that the person arrested was concerned in the commission of an offence.” For the reasons considered as above, I am unable to come to a finding that the 1st respondent has failed to sufficiently explain the reasons for the arrest of the petitioner at the time of his arrest. The original petitioners have emphasized that the petitioner being a minor at the time of his arrest, the 1st respondent failed to adhere to the necessary procedural steps with regard to a minor as required by law. Admittedly, the petitioner was 17 years and 2 months old at the time of his arrest. As per the Age of Majority (Amendment) Act No.17 of 1989, the age of majority has been defined as 18 years. In terms of the National Child Protection Authority Act No. 50 of 1998, a child has been identified as someone under the age of 18 years. Penal Code (Amendment) Act No. 22 of 1995 defines a child as a person who has not attained the age of 18 years. However, at the time of the arrest of the petitioner, the relevant Act under which the 1st respondent should have acted, if he was a minor, would be in terms of section 17 of the Children and Young Person’s Ordinance No. 48 of 1939 (CYPO) as amended up to the date of the arrest of the petitioner. Although the earlier mentioned statutes provide, as it is commonly accepted now, anyone under 18 years of age should be treated as a child, the provisions of CYPO have given a different interpretation to the word child and young person under the Ordinance. In terms of section 88, which is the interpretation section of CYPO, a “child” means a person under the age of 14 Page 16 of 18 years while a “Young Person” means a person who has attained the age of 14 years and is under the age of 16 years. Although CYPO underwent drastic changes under the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act No. 39 of 2022 which came into effect from 1st January 2024 in terms of Government Gazette No. 2366/09 dated 08-01-2024, the said amendment has no applicability to the instant application. Under the amendment, CYPO has been named as the Children’s Ordinance and a child has been defined as a person of 18 years of age falling in line with other relevant statutes. When it comes to the matter under consideration, the arresting officer only has to act under section 17 of CYPO if the arrested person was a child or a young person. Therefore, it is my view that since the petitioner was more than 17 years of age at the time of his arrest, no liability can be imposed upon the 1st respondent for not specifically informing his age to the learned Magistrate in the B-Report filed in that regard. However, the copy of the warrant of detention marked and produced as P-41 shows that, the fact of the petitioner being a person of under 18 years of age has been drawn to the attention of the learned Acting Magistrate before whom the petitioner was produced. As a result, the learned Acting Magistrate has ordered that the petitioner should be kept separately from other remand prisoners. It appears that subsequently, it has been ordered that the petitioner should be kept in a children’s home, apparently due to an application made in that regard. There again, I am unable to find that the 1st respondent has committed an illegality when he produced the petitioner before the Court. Next matter that needs attention of the Court is whether Article 12(1) has been violated by the 1st respondent. As I have considered earlier, this Court has not granted leave to proceed in terms of Article 11 of the Constitution after having considered the relevant material placed before the Court in that regard. Therefore, in my view, Page 17 of 18 considering Article 11 along with Article 12(1) would not arise on this occasion. The petitioner has been arrested on an alleged charge of possessing illegal drugs and an Identity Card not belonging to him, and he has been charged before the Magistrate’s Court. There is no allegation that the petitioner was kept under police custody more than necessary and it is clear that he has been produced before the Court within the stipulated time period. The investigation notes produced before this Court provide prima facie material to conclude that the police had followed the due procedural steps after the arrest and had conducted investigations based on the material found in the possession of the petitioner. Apart from denying that he was arrested while possessing an illegal drug as claimed by the 1st respondent, there had been no specific denial as to the other material taken from him by the police, which warrants further investigations. Whether the charge or charges that had been preferred against the petitioner have been proved beyond reasonable doubt or not is a matter for the trial Court in my view, and not a matter upon which this Court can pronounce a judgment. After his arrest, the productions had been duly sent to the Government Analyst and a plaint has been filed without delay. Although the original petitioners and the petitioner in his written submissions had levelled various allegations against all stakeholders involved in the judicial process, I am unable to find that as a reason to conclude on the alleged fundamental rights violation of the petitioner by the 1st respondent. There is no material before the Court that the 2nd and 3rd respondents have violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner. As I have considered in detail, I do not find reasons to conclude that the 1st respondent, while in the process of arresting and detaining the petitioner, has violated his fundamental rights guaranteed in terms of Articles 12(1) and 13(1) of the Constitution. Page 18 of 18 Accordingly, this fundamental rights application is dismissed for want of sufficient merit. There will be no costs. Judge of the Supreme Court Mahinda Samayawardhena, J. I agree. Judge of the Supreme Court M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne, J. I agree. Judge of the Supreme Court		Download
2025-11-13	SC/APPEAL/51/2024	Abdul Gaffoor Lebbe Mohamadu Ali (Deceased) Debahera, Nittambuwa, PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Mohamed Ali Mohamed Mufassal No. 247/1, Debahera, Nittambuwa. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT - APPELLANT vs 4. Mohamed Faiz Malkaduwawa, Kurunegala 5. Siththy Nazeera (Deceased) 5a. Lafir Madhani Rahmathun Nizara No. 395/2, Dunuela, Thihariya 4th and 5th DEFENDANTS – PETITIONERS -RESPONDENTS 6. Mohamed Muzni (Deceased) Bulugahawatta, Thihariya. 6a. Abdullah Subaida Umma 6b. Mohamed Mijad 6c. Safeek Ahamed 6d. Mohamed Muzni Fathima Nasra All of No.395/02/A, Dunuela, Thihariya, Nittambuwa. ADDED 6th DEFENDANTS – PETITIONERS- RESPONDENTS 1. Inul Yunisa (Deceased) and Others. View More	Hon. M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J			Download
2025-11-13	SC/APPEAL/24/2022	1. Savithri Rajakaruna, 2. Vinitha Rajakaruna (Deceased), Both No. 154, 6h Cross Street, Rathmalana. 2a. Hewa Edirappulige Jayan Asela Rajakaruna, 2b. Savithri Rajakaruna, Both of No. 154, 6\" Cross Street, Rathmalana. DEFENDANTS- RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS Vs. Millaniyage Chandra Jayawathie Perera, No. 44/6, Woodland Avenue, Kohuwela. PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Janak De Silva J			Download
2025-11-12	SC/APPEAL/48/2020	Central Finance Co. PLC. No. 84, Raja Vidiya, Kandy. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Basnayake Appuhamilage Belin Tissera “Niwanthika” Paranagama, Pallepola. 2. Basnayake Appuhamilage Justin Tissera Ehelepola, Pallepola. 3. Senanayake Mudiyanselage Priyantha Sisira Kumara Senanayake, Ehelepola, Nilawwa Pallepola. (Deceased) 3A. Basnayake Appuhamilage Belin Tissera Paranagama, Pallepola. (Substituted Defendant-Respondent-Respondent) DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. A.L. Shiran Gooneratne J			Download
2025-11-12	SC/FR/15/2024	Selladurai Yesuraja, Coombewood Estate, Thalawakelle. (In respect of the infringement of the fundamental rights of his wife Rajami Rajakumari who is now deceased) Petitioner Vs. 1. The Officer in Charge Welikada Police Station, Welikada. 2. Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police Western Province, Senior Deputy Inspector General Office, Sub floor, Sri Lanka Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 3. Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 4. Valimuni Dewage Anura Ajith Kumara Sub Inspector of Police, 120/11, pliyatiyane, Dewalapola, Minuwangoda. 5. Basnayake Mudiyanselage Premachandra Basnayake, Police sergeant -25883 Kirindigalla, Ibbagamuwa. 6. Herath Mudiyanselage Maalan Jayawardena, Police constable- 87918 Thuspitiyawe, Thanthirimale, Anuradhapura. 7. Jayasinghe Mudiyanselage Gamini Jayasinghe, Police sergeant -32847 D/3, Kawudulle, Hingurathgoda. 8. Thaanemaya Gedhara Rathnayake Mudhiyanselage Apsara Samarakoon 273, Muwagama, Pahale para, Rathnapura. 9. Herath Mudiyanselage Nilanka Prasadheni Herath, 60/B, Unit 19, Akbopura. 10. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Menaka Wijesundera J	Page 1 of 7 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA. In the matter of an application under and in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. S.C. (FR) No. 15/2024 Selladurai Yesuraja, Coombewood Estate, Thalawakelle. (In respect of the infringement of the fundamental rights of his wife Rajami Rajakumari who is now deceased) Petitioner Vs. 1. The Officer in Charge Welikada Police Station, Welikada. 2. Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police Western Province, Senior Deputy Inspector General Office, Sub floor, Sri Lanka Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 3. Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 4. Valimuni Dewage Anura Ajith Kumara Sub Inspector of Police, Page 2 of 7 120/11, pliyatiyane, Dewalapola, Minuwangoda. 5. Basnayake Mudiyanselage Premachandra Basnayake, Police sergeant -25883 Kirindigalla, Ibbagamuwa. 6. Herath Mudiyanselage Maalan Jayawardena, Police constable- 87918 Thuspitiyawe, Thanthirimale, Anuradhapura. 7. Jayasinghe Mudiyanselage Gamini Jayasinghe, Police sergeant -32847 D/3, Kawudulle, Hingurathgoda. 8. Thaanemaya Gedhara Rathnayake Mudhiyanselage Apsara Samarakoon 273, Muwagama, Pahale para, Rathnapura. 9. Herath Mudiyanselage Nilanka Prasadheni Herath, 60/B, Unit 19, Akbopura. 10. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. Respondents Page 3 of 7 Before : Achala Wengappuli, J. Menaka Wijesundera, J. Sampath K.B. Wijeratne, J. Counsel : Lakshan Dias with Asher Stephen, Hasini Hettiarachchi, Ashwini instructed by Dayani Panditharathne for the Petitioner. Dhammika Piyadasa instructed by D. Praveena S. Senadheera for the Respondent. Tenny Fernando with Anjula Bandara for the 1st Respondent. P.K. Prince Perera with S. Panchcharama for the 5th Respondent. Chamara Nanayakkarawasam instructed by Dimuthu Fernando for the 6th & 7th Respondents. Written Submissions : Latest written submissions on behalf of the Petitioner on 30th September 2025. Written submissions on behalf of the 5th Respondent on 03rd of September 2025. Latest written submissions on behalf of the 6th and 7th Respondents on 29th of September 2025. Argued on : 01.09.2025 Decided on : 12.11.2025 MENAKA WIJESUNDERA J. The petitioner in the instant matter is namely Selladurai Yesuraja, the husband of the deceased who had worked as a house maid in a house at Royal Court Page 4 of 7 Cooray mawatha Rajagiriya, has pleaded in his petition dated 12.09.2024 but in fact, it should be dated as 12.09.2023 and filed on 19.01.2024 that the fundamental rights of the deceased have been violated under Article 11, 12(1) of the Constitution by the 1st to the 4th respondents and has urged this Court to declare as such. The petitioner states that on 05.11.2023, he was informed by the owners of the house in which she had been working that the deceased had been arrested and that the police were assaulting her. When the petitioner contacted the said police, he was informed that his wife had passed away and on the previous occasion when he called the same number the person who answered abused him in filth and had given the phone to the deceased whom he says was groaning into the phone. The petitioner alleged that the post-mortem report had said that the injuries inflicted could be due to the torture of the deceased by the police. However, he states that the lady of the house had filed a complaint of theft against the deceased and she had been taken into custody on that. When this matter was supported for leave the Counsel appearing for the 5th, 6th, 7th and the 8th Respondents raised the objection that the instant application was time barred as per the provisions of the Constitution. According to Article 126(1) of the Constitution an infringement of any fundamental right has to be brought to the notice of this Court within 30 days of the said violation. In the instant matter, the violation had taken place on 11.05.2023 and the instant application had been filed on 19.01.2024. The Counsel for the petitioner argued that he had reported the matter to the Human Rights Commission on 30.05.2023, and he had marked and produced the receipt of the Human Rights Commission dated 30.05.2023 which acknowledges the receipt of his complaint. The counsel for the respondents argued that the instant application has been filed well beyond the time limit specified in the Constitution under Article 126(2) of the Constitution. The Petitioner had lodged a complaint in the Human Rights Commission on 30.05.2023 but, has failed to produce any evidence as to whether an inquiry or investigation is pending or has been concluded. Therefore, the Counsel for the Respondents argued that in the absence of such material, the Petitioner cannot claim refuge under Section 13(1) of the Human Rights Commission Act. Page 5 of 7 Section 13(1) of the Human Rights Commission Act No. 21 of 1996 reads as follows: “Where a complaint is made by an aggrieved party in terms of Section 14, to the Commission, within one month of the alleged infringement or imminent infringement of a fundamental right by executive or administrative action, the period within which the inquiry into such complaint in pending before the Commission, shall not be taken into account in computing the period of one month within which an application may be made to the Supreme Court by such person in terms of Article 126(2) of the Constitution.” Therefore, according to the above quoted section it is quite clear that a mere act of lodging a complaint in the Human Rights Commission is not sufficient to overcome the time limit stipulated under Article 126 (2) of the Constitution. As per the above section, a period of time to be excluded to fall in line with Article 126 (2) “the period within which the inquiry into such complaint is pending before the Commission”. In the case of Jayawardena vs Attorney General FRD (1) 175, it has been held that: “Difficulties have been arisen in the computation of the one-month period in cases of allegations of unequal treatment. The general rule is that an application must be made to the Court within one month of the Petitioner becoming aware of the act of unequal treatment”. In some cases, it has been held that delay in making an application through ignorance of the law cannot be excused, but for other reasons it is not necessarily fatal. This has been held in the cases of Nalika Kumudini v OIC Hungama Police 1997 3SLR 331 by Mark Fernando ACJ. It has also been held that where a Petitioner establishes that he became aware of an infringement or imminent infringement not on the very day the act complained of but subsequently on a later day, the period of one month would be computed only from the date on which such petitioner became aware of his infringement. Apart from the above, our Courts have also discussed the principle of continuing violation of Human Rights. In such cases it has been held that in continuing violations, if a claim is made within the stipulated period counted from any act which was part of the infringement and is proved to the satisfaction of Court, the Respondent will be responsible for those acts committed during the entire period including those committed during the statutory period of limitation. Hence, what Page 6 of 7 has been applied in Sri Lanka is that if there had been a continuous violation the state would be liable for acts committed even before the one month period as laid down in Article 126. A classic example of this principle is the case of Sugathapala Mendis v Chandrika Kumaratunga (Water’s Edge) (2008)2 SLR 339. In this matter the exact date was not given in the judgement but the application had been filed in 2007. The violation is supposed to have taken place before 2005. In this case, when the objection of time bar was taken up Justice Tillekawardana rejected the objection of time bar and had commented that considering the nature of the applications, the Petitioners were within the time limit as per Article 126 of the Constitution. In the instant matter, the said fear arose when the petitioner had learned that the deceased had been arrested on 05.11.2023, on this date he had got to know that the deceased had been arrested and the police was assaulting the deceased. The importance of considering the facts and the circumstances of the case has been very lucidly explained by Prasanna Jayawardena J in the case of De Soysa v Dissananyake SC FR 206 2008, SCM 09.12.2016 who took a different view and had stated that, “Duty entrusted to this Court by the Constitution to give relief and protect a person whose fundamental rights have been violated by executive and by administrative action requires 126(2) of the Constitution to be interpreted and applied in a manner which takes in to account the reality of the facts and circumstances which found the application. This Court has recognized that it would fail to fulfill it guardianship if the time limit is applied by rote and the Court remains blind to facts and circumstances which have denied a petitioner of an opportunity to invoke the jurisdiction of Courts earlier”. Also in a recently held case, SC/FR/244/2017 SC minute dated 22.02.2019, her Ladyship Justice Murdu Fernando had held when the time bar objection was taken up that the rationale adopted by His Lordship Justice Prasanne Jayawardena in the above case that the Court would fail in its role if the time limit is applied by rote and the Court remains blind to the facts of the case, and went on to hold that as per section 13(1) of the Human Rights Commission act “such time will not be taken in to account in computing the period of one month within which an application may be made to this Court as per article 126(2) of the Constitution.” Page 7 of 7 The Indian Constitution has not laid down a time limit for the adjudication of fundamental rights applications but it has been held that unwarranted delays should not be recognized but no specific period can be laid down and each case should be considered according to its merits. This has been held in the case of Ramachandra Shankar Diodar v State of Maharashtra AIR174 SC259, it has further held that the rule that the court may not inquire into belated and stale claims is not a rule of law but a rule of practice based on the exercise of sound judicial discretion depending on the facts of each case. Upon consideration of the above-mentioned matters and the cases cited above it has been very clearly held that the facts and circumstances of each case have to be considered with due diligence but it does not lay down a situation where the Articles in the Constitution can be overruled by a piece of legislation which has been passed by the parliament. As such, I find that the instant application is in violation of Article 126(2) of the Constitution. Hence, I hold that the instant application has been filed out of time. Therefore, the objection of the learned State Counsel is upheld and the instant application is dismissed. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT Achala Wengappuli, J. I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT Sampath K. B. Wijeratne, J. I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT		Download
2025-11-12	SC/APPEAL/27/2023	1. Pallemulla Ralalage Malinda Nishan Pallemulla, Hodella. Metikumbura. Polgahawela. 2. P. M. R. Darmadasa, Hodella, Metikumbura, Polgahawela. 02nd PARTY RESPONDENTS- APPELLANTS- APPELLANTS vs 1. Rankoth Dewayalage Aananda, Hodella, Metikumbura. 2. Madurupitiya Naidelage Keerthisena Kalawana, Metikumbura. 3. Madurupitiya Naidelage Punchi Menike Muruthagahamulla Watta, Hodella, Matikumbura. 4. Ekanayake Mudiyanselage Anura Ekanayaka, Kalawana, Matikumbura. 5. Singappulli Mudiyanselage Pemawathi, Hodella, Matikumbura. and Others View More	Hon. M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J			Download
2025-11-10	SC/APPEAL/68/2022	Sri Lanka Transport Board No. 200, Kirula Road, Narahenpita, Colombo. Respondent-Appellant-Appellant -Vs.- M.D.K. Padmasena, Sandasiri Niwasa, Henegama, Mathugama. Applicant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC Acting CJ	SC Appeal 68/2022 JUDGMENT Page 1 of 21 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA M.D.K. Padmasena, Sandasiri Niwasa, Henegama, Mathugama. Applicant -Vs.- Sri Lanka Transport Board No. 200, Kirula Road, Narahenpita, Colombo. Respondent AND BETWEEN Sri Lanka Transport Board No. 200, Kirula Road, Narahenpita, Colombo. Respondent-Appellant -Vs.- M.D.K. Padmasena, Sandasiri Niwasa, Case No. SC APPEAL 68/2022 SC (SPL) LA 145/2020 Provincial High Court Appeal No. 77/2019 L.T. Kalutara Case No. 18/KT/354/2015 SC Appeal 68/2022 JUDGMENT Page 2 of 21 BEFORE: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE S. THURAIRAJA, PC JUSTICE A. H. M. D. NAWAZ JUSTICE KUMUDINI WICKREMASINGHE COUNSEL: Ms. V. Siriwardena, PC, ASG with Ms. Sabrina Ahmed, SSC instructed by Rizni Firdouse, SSA for the Respondent-Appellant-Appellant Nisala Seniya Fernando instructed by the Legal Aid Commission for the Applicant-Respondent-Respondent Henegama, Mathugama. Applicant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Sri Lanka Transport Board No. 200, Kirula Road, Narahenpita, Colombo. Respondent-Appellant-Appellant -Vs.- M.D.K. Padmasena, Sandasiri Niwasa, Henegama, Mathugama. Applicant-Respondent-Respondent SC Appeal 68/2022 JUDGMENT Page 3 of 21 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Respondent-Appellant-Appellant on 29th November 2022 Applicant-Respondent-Respondent on 20th July 2022 ARGUED ON: 02nd September 2024 DECIDED ON: 10th November 2025 THURAIRAJA, PC, ACTING CJ. 1. The Applicant-Respondent-Respondent, M.D.K. Padmasena (hereinafter the “Respondent”), was employed by the Respondent-Appellant-Appellant, Sri Lanka Transport Board, (hereinafter the “Appellant” or “SLTB”) from 14th March 1981 and was set to retire on the 23rd of October 2011, upon the completion of 55 years of age, which was the compulsory age of retirement at the time. 2. Subsequently, as per SLTB–HR Circular No. 15/20111 issued by the Appellant Board, the age of retirement was extended up to the age of 57 years. 3. Thereafter, the Appellant issued SLTB–HR Circular No. 03/2013,2 which further extended the age of retirement to 60 years. However, such extension was subject to the condition that it would be granted yearly upon requests/applications made 3 months prior to the date of retirement and upon such request/application being approved by the Board of the Appellant. 1 Marked “R1” 2 Marked “A6” SC Appeal 68/2022 JUDGMENT Page 4 of 21 4. The Respondent, as he approached the age of 57, requested such an extension, duly complying with the above conditions. He was accordingly granted an extension for another year of service from 24th October 2013 to 23rd October 2014 until he turned 58. 5. Finding that the Respondent had failed in tendering a request for another year’s extension, which he ought to have done 3 months prior to 23rd October 2014, the Appellant took steps to send the Respondent on retirement by letter dated 17th October 2014.3 6. Following this, on the 27th February 2014, the Respondent filed an application before the Labour Tribunal of Kalutara alleging that his services were terminated by the Appellant, and praying for, inter alia, reinstatement, back wages and damages as the Tribunal may deem fit to order. 7. The Appellant maintained that the Respondent’s services were not terminated by the Appellant, but that the Respondent was sent on retirement with effect from 23rd October 2014 after reaching the age of 58 years, as he had failed to apply for further extension of service beyond the age of 58 years, 3 months prior to his retirement, as required by the existing Circular. The Appellant thus contends that the Respondent’s services came to an end upon the expiration of the extended service period. 8. In spite of this, when the Appellant appeared before the Labour Tribunal, the Appellant had agreed to reinstate the Respondent without back wages as per Circular No. 01/2015 dated 08th March 2015,4 which subsequently came into effect, setting out the age of retirement for SLTB employees as 60 years. However, the Respondent had not accepted this proposal. 3 Letter of Retirement marked “A10” 4 Marked “A5” SC Appeal 68/2022 JUDGMENT Page 5 of 21 9. By order dated 12th March 2019, the Labour Tribunal of Kalutara held that the Respondent’s services have been terminated by the Appellant and ordered that Rs. 658,852.80/- as compensation calculated for the salary of 24 months be paid to the Respondent. 10. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Labour Tribunal of Kalutara, the Appellant preferred an appeal to the Provincial High Court of the Western Province holden in Kalutara (hereinafter the “High Court”), praying inter alia that said order be set aside. 11. The learned High Court Judge, by Judgment dated 02nd July 2020 (hereinafter “the High Court Judgment”), dismissed the said appeal and further ordered that Rs. 50,000/- be paid to the Respondent as costs. 12. Being aggrieved by the same, the Appellant preferred the instant appeal to this Court. Leave was granted on the following questions of law raised by the Appellant: I. Did the learned High Court Judge err in failing to sufficiently consider and/or appreciate that the learned President of Labour Tribunal Kalutara has failed and/or neglected to properly analyse the evidence led before Labour Tribunal Kalutara when arriving at its order dated 12.03.2019? II. Did the learned High Court Judge err in coming into the finding and/or conclusion in his judgment that the Respondent has duly acted in terms of the provisions of the applicable circular marked ‘A6’? III. Did the learned High Court Judge err in considering the decision taken by the Appellant to send the Respondent on retirement as a termination of his services? SC Appeal 68/2022 JUDGMENT Page 6 of 21 ANALYSIS 13. As the Counsel for the Respondent has aptly highlighted in his written submissions, all questions of law before this Court relate to the factual circumstances of the matter and how the learned President of the Labour Tribunal and the learned High Court Judge analysed such facts. As the Respondent submitted, it is trite law that, when questions raised in an appeal from a Labour Tribunal matter relate to the assessment of factual circumstances, appellate courts must not interfere with the findings of the Tribunal, unless such findings are rationally untenable and/or are perverse to the evidence on record.5 14. As A.R.B. Amerasinghe, J. held in Jayasuriya v. Sri Lanka State Plantations Corporation:6 “The Industrial Disputes Act No. 43 of 1950 S. 31D states that the order of a Labour Tribunal shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court except on a question of law. While appellate courts will not intervene with pure findings of fact, they will review the findings treating them as a question of law: if it appears that the Tribunal has made a finding wholly unsupported by evidence, or which is inconsistent with the evidence and contradictory of it; or where the Tribunal has failed to consider material and relevant evidence; or where it has failed to decide a material question 5 Respondent highlighted many judgments in this regard: The Manager Woodend Estate, Mahaoya Group, Dehiovita v. Ceylon Estate Staffs’ Union, SC Appeal 93/2019, SC Minutes of 20th July 2023; Diya-kithulkanda Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd v. KA Munidasa, SC Appeal 143/15, SC Minutes of 10th January 2023; RA Dharmadasa v. Board of Investment of Sri Lanka, SC Appeal 13/2019, SC Minutes of 16th June 2022; Kotagala Plantations Ltd and Lankem Tea and Rubber Plantations (Pvt) Ltd v. Ceylon Planters’ Society (2010) 2 Sri LR 299; Hatton National Bank v. Perera (1996) 2 Sri LR 231; Jayasuriya v. Sri Lanka State Plantations Corporation (1995) 2 Sri LR 379; The Caledonian (Ceylon) Tea and Rubber Estates Ltd v. Hillman 79 NLR 421; Ceylon Transport Board v. WAD Gunasinghe 72 NLR 76; Richard Pieris & Co. Ltd. v. Wijesiriwardena 62 NLR 233 6 (1995) 2 Sri LR 379, at p. 391 (Emphasis added) SC Appeal 68/2022 JUDGMENT Page 7 of 21 or misconstrued the question at issue and had directed its attention to the wrong matters; or where there was an erroneous misconception amounting to a misdirection; or where it failed to consider material documents or misconstrued them or where the Tribunal has failed to consider the version of one party or his evidence; or erroneously supposed there was no evidence.” 15. As to what the term ‘perverse’ may mean in this context, Amerasinghe, J. further observed there in that, “…“Perverse” is an unfortunate term, for one may suppose obstinacy in what is wrong, and one thinks of Milton and how Satan in the Serpent had corrupted Eve, and of diversions to improper use, and even of subversion and ruinously turning things upside down, and, generally, of wickedness. Yet, in my view, in the context of the principle that the Court of Appeal will not interfere with a decision of a Labour Tribunal unless it is “perverse”, it means no more than that the court may intervene if it is of the view that, having regard to the weight of evidence in relation to the matters in issue, the tribunal has turned away arbitrarily or capriciously from what is true and right and fair in dealing even- handedly with the rights and interests of the workman, employer and, in certain circumstances, the public. The Tribunal must make an order in equity and good conscience, acting judicially, based on legal evidence rather than on beliefs that are fanciful or irrationally imagined notions or whims. Due account must be taken of the evidence in relation to the issues in the matter before the Tribunal. Otherwise, the order of the Tribunal must be set aside as being perverse.”7 16. As held in Ceylon Transport Board v. W. A. D. Gunasinghe,8 where a Labour Tribunal 7 ibid, at p. 392 8 72 NLR 76, at p. 81 SC Appeal 68/2022 JUDGMENT Page 8 of 21 makes a finding of fact for which there is no evidence—a finding which is both inconsistent with the evidence and contradictory of it— the restriction of the right of the Supreme Court to review questions of law does not prevent it from examining and interfering with the order based on such a finding if the Labour Tribunal is under a duty to act judicially. 17. Both the Labour Tribunal and the High Court agreed the applicable Circular to be Circular No. 03/2013 dated 14th October 2013, marked “A6”. Neither of the parties before this Court made any attempt to dispute this finding. 18. The last subsection of paragraph 3 of the said Circular is applicable to the Respondent as he falls into the category of employees whose age of retirement was increased from 55 to 57 years, under the previous Circular (SLTB–HR Circular No. 15/2011). As previously noted, under the Circular No. 03/2013 marked ‘A6’, the age of retirement was extended to 60 years, subject to the condition that such extension should be applied for annually, 3 months prior to reaching the age of retirement. The Circular also states that such extensions will be offered where the Appellant Board is satisfied with the said employees’ service. 19. It is pertinent to note that the Respondent, upon nearing the age of 57, had once tendered such a request in 2013 as required by said Circular, and his services were extended by a year (from 24th October 2013 to 23rd October 2014), enabling him to remain employed till the age of 58. 20. The second question of law simply requires this Court to consider if the Respondent duly applied for a further extension thereafter, i.e. whether the Respondent has duly made an application in 2014, 3 months prior to 23rd October 2014. SC Appeal 68/2022 JUDGMENT Page 9 of 21 21. Evidence of the Respondent was led before the Labour Tribunal. He testified that he made a timely application for an extension about 4 months prior to reaching his age of retirement. However, the Respondent was not able to produce any documentary evidence corroborating this claim. 22. The Respondent also called several other witnesses to give evidence before the Labour Tribunal as to the aforesaid purported extension application. According to the testimony of the Manager of the Matugama Depot, Nayana Priyankara de Alwis, the Respondent had tendered an extension application in or about June or July 2014, and he, as the head of the depot, had accepted said letter and given the same to the Correspondence Officer, Premathilaka, according to the ordinary procedure. 23. However, the Appellant contends that they did not receive the Respondent’s purported letter seeking an extension. The Appellant claims to have accordingly issued the Respondent a notice of retirement by letter dated 31st July 2014 marked ‘A8’. 24. The Respondent states that he received this letter marked ‘A8’ not in July, but only on 20th October 2014. This letter had been given directly to the Respondent and not through the Manager of the Depot, as is usually done. Thereafter, the Respondent states that he showed the letter to the Depot Manager. The Depot Manager stated in his evidence that he subsequently made inquiries pertaining to the letter and eventually discussed the matter with the Chairman of the Appellant Board. The Chairman had instructed that they promptly draft an appeal letter. The letter thus drafted, marked ‘A9’, was posted on 20th October 2014. 25. The Appellant states that the appeal letter marked ‘A9’ cannot be accepted as it was not made 3 months before the date of retirement as required by the Circular, and that they thereafter took steps to send the Respondent on Retirement by letter dated 17th October SC Appeal 68/2022 JUDGMENT Page 10 of 21 2014 marked ‘A10’. The said letter was handed over to the Respondent by the Depot Manager of Matugama on 22nd October 2014. 26. The Appellant reiterates that there was no termination of the Respondent’s services, and that he simply attained the mandatory age of retirement, thus ending his term of services by operation of law in line with the applicable Circular. 27. The Respondent states in his written submissions that his letter of extension, which he posted in time as per the Circular, has been misplaced due to lapses on the part of the administration of the Appellant Board. However, as the Appellant highlighted throughout, the Respondent failed to provide any documentary evidence of such a letter. 28. In this regard, the Appellant, relying on Section 106 of the Evidence Ordinance and the rule of ei incumbit probatio qui dicit [the burden of the proof lies upon he who affirms, not he who denies],9 emphasised that the burden was on the Respondent to submit evidence to establish that he duly complied with the applicable Circular. 29. It was the submission of the Respondent that a more flexible approach ought to be taken with respect to procedure when it comes to proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. While a Labour Tribunal is indeed not bound by the Evidence Ordinance or strict rules of evidence,10 this Court has emphasised that procedures adopted by Labour Tribunals must be guided by and should not substantially stray away from established rules of justice and fairness.11 Most well-established principles of evidence come within this 9 Citing ERSR Coomaraswamy, The Law of Evidence Vol. II Book 1, at p. 250 10 vide Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act (as amended); Somawathie v. Backsons Textile Industries Ltd (1973) 79 NLR 204 11 Anderson v. Husny [2001] 1 Sri LR 168 at p. 175 (Mark Fernando J); Associated Motorways (Pvt) Ltd v. Chandani Amaratunaga, Commissioner General of Labour, CA/19/2016/Writ, CA Minutes of 20th July 2018, at p. 5 (Samayawardhena J, as His Lordship then was) SC Appeal 68/2022 JUDGMENT Page 11 of 21 ambit, for they enact nothing but common sense.12 While the Counsel for the Respondent himself acknowledged this, he further submitted that even the Evidence Ordinance, as set out in Section 65(3) therein, permits the leading of secondary evidence to prove the existence, condition or contents of a document when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering such evidence cannot produce the same within a reasonable time, for any other reasons not arising out of his own fault or negligence. 30. Taking a step further, the Appellant invited this Court to draw a presumption under Section 114(f) of the Evidence Ordinance with respect to the Respondent’s failure to provide documentary evidence of making an extension application. I am not inclined to accept this submission that this failure to submit documentary evidence in itself should lead to an adverse inference against the Respondent. However, it is also to be noted that in the Respondent’s application to the Labour Tribunal, he had not averred that he tendered a timely extension application. In addition, the Appellant Board in their Answer dated 17th April 2015 categorically states that there was no application made for an extension of services by the Respondent.13 The Respondent’s Replication does not specifically address the said averment, and nowhere in his pleading before the Labour Tribunal does he assert that there was a timely application made to extend his services. 31. Predicated on the above, the Appellant submits that the Respondent’s position that he did, in fact, duly tender such an application requesting extension of services is an 12 vide Ceylon Cold Stores PLC v. Inter Company Employees’ Union, SC Appeal No. 17/2022, SC Minutes of 8th May 2025, at para 31; Malini De Silva v. Sivasamy [2020] 3 Sri LR 116, at p. 122; Lal Wasantha Abeywickrama v. WAAM Dharmasena, SC Appeal No. 142/10, SC Minutes of 13th August 2015, at p. 8; Colombage v. Ceylon Petroleum Corporation [1999] 3 Sri LR 150, at p. 151; Ceylon University Clerical and Technical Association v. University of Ceylon (1968) 72 NLR 84, at p. 90 13 vide para 6 of the Respondent’s Answer dated 17 April 2015 SC Appeal 68/2022 JUDGMENT Page 12 of 21 afterthought that had been put in evidence belatedly. 32. On this issue with respect to the Respondent’s pleadings before the Labour Tribunal, the Counsel for the Respondent argued that an unduly technical approach should not be taken with respect to pleadings before Labour Tribunals, as persons appearing before Labour Tribunals do not file proxies and are not always represented by Attorneys-at-Law. He further highlighted the fact that the Respondent had not been represented by an Attorney-at-Law before the Labour Tribunal, according to what the record indicates. 33. While I agree that an overly technical approach in this regard would be inapt, a Labour Tribunal cannot ignore the pleadings set out before it, for that contains the exact nature of the grievance against which an applicant seeks relief. Moreover, what the Appellants have highlighted can hardly be considered a technicality. It is the very fact on which his claim depends. It is also indisputable that the Respondent was aware of the requirement to submit an application for extension 3 months prior to what would be his date of retirement, as he had done so once before in 2013. It should also be noted that even in the appeal letter marked ‘A9’, the Respondent fails to refer to the fact that he had tendered a timely extension letter in accordance with the applicable Circular. 34. In light of this, I wish to further observe that the stance taken by the Respondent before the Labour Tribunal has not been consistent. As noted above, he has made no mention of making an application for extension in his pleadings. Thereafter, in his evidence, he has taken the position that he made an extension application 3 months prior to the date of retirement and that it was misplaced. However, as recorded on 01st February 2016, the representative of the Respondent, while the Respondent himself was present before the Tribunal, had submitted the following before the Labour Tribunal: “ඉල්ලුම්කරු වෙනුවෙන් කියා සිටින්වන්, වෙෙ ඉල්ලුම්කරුට වේෙය අව ෝසි කිරීෙ වෙනුවෙන් ස ඊට වෙර සිට වෙෙ ඉල්ලුම්කරුට එෙ වේො දිගුෙ ෙගඋත්තරකාර ආයතනවයන් SC Appeal 68/2022 JUDGMENT Page 13 of 21 අයැද සිටියද ෙගඋත්තරකරු ඉල්ලුම්කරුවේ වේෙය දීර්ඝ වකරීෙට උනන්ුෙක් වනාදක්ො ෙසුෙ එෙ ඉල්ලීෙ ප්‍රතික්වේෙ කර ඇත. වම් අනුෙ ඉල්ලුම්කරු දිගින් දිගටෙ රැකියාෙ අයඳුම් [sic] කළද ඉල්ලුම්කරු නැෙත වේෙවේ ප්‍රතිශ්ඨාෙනය කිරීෙට ෙගඋත්තරකරු අවොව ාසත් වීෙ නිසා වෙෙ අයඳුම් [sic] ෙත්‍රය ගරු ව්නනිශ්චය සභාෙ වෙත වයාමු කවළමි... [It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that, with regard to the termination of the Applicant’s service, although the Applicant had previously requested an extension of service from the Respondent Institution, the Respondent failed to show any interest in extending the Applicant’s service and subsequently rejected the said request. Accordingly, despite the Applicant’s continuous applications for employment, the Respondent failed to reinstate the Applicant in service. Therefore, this application has been referred to the Honourable Tribunal.]”14 35. As can be seen, on the said date, the Respondent had claimed that his duly submitted extension application had been rejected by the Appellant. He had also claimed that the Appellant continuously failed to extend his services despite repeated requests. However, the Respondent has failed to lead evidence to establish that he has, in fact, made such repeated requests. 36. Interestingly, the learned President of the Labour Tribunal has passingly acknowledged the contradictory nature of the Respondent’s submission. On the 5th page of the Labour Tribunal order, the learned President has observed as follows: “වේොවයාජක සාක්ියට කැදවු ස කාර ොනෙ සම්ෙත් උවම්ේ සංජීෙ ේෙකීය මූලික සක්ිවේදී වෙන්ෙ රේ ප්‍රශ්න ෙලදී ඉල්ලුම්කරු වේො දිගුෙ අයැද ඇත්වත් ොස 3 කට ෙසුෙ ෙන ේථාෙරය ඉතාෙත් ව ාදින් ආරක්ෂා කර ඇත. වම් අනුෙ ඉල්ලුම්කරුවේ 14 Emphasis and an approximate translation added SC Appeal 68/2022 JUDGMENT Page 14 of 21 ේථාෙරය ඉල්ලුම්කරුවේෙ සාක්ිකරුෙන්වගන් ෙරේෙර වී ඇති අතර, වේොවයෝජක ේථාෙරය වේෙවයෝජක සාක්ිකරුෙකු විසින් ෙරේෙර කර ඇත... [The Assistant Human Resources Officer Umesh Sanjeewa, who was called as a witness for the employer, has very well defended the position that the applicant applied for the extension of service after 3 months, both in his original testimony and in cross-examination. Accordingly, the applicant\'s position has been contradicted by the applicant\'s own witnesses, and the employer\'s position has been contradicted by an employer witness...]”15 37. While I noted earlier, contradictory positions taken by the Respondent are fairly obvious. However, I fail to see how the witness led for the Appellant contradicted the position taken by the Appellant. Howbeit, what I wish to emphasise categorically is that such contradictory positions significantly weaken the position of the Respondent and the learned President, in his order, ought to have placed more weight on this fact. 38. Although the learned President of the Labour Tribunal has correctly found, based on the evidence available on record, that the Respondent claimed to have submitted an extension application in 2014, the Respondent has clearly failed to establish as to when he tendered such an application. Accordingly, I am of the view that sufficient evidence has not been placed before the Labour Tribunal to decide whether the Respondent has in fact made an extension application 3 months prior in due compliance with the applicable Circular. 39. The Respondent had also claimed before the Labour Tribunal that he continued to work for the Appellant even after receiving the Letter of Retirement, i.e., till 31st October 2014. The Depot Manager also states in his evidence that the Respondent worked until his services were terminated due to the inability to make payments in the absence of a letter 15 Emphasis and an approximate translation added SC Appeal 68/2022 JUDGMENT Page 15 of 21 of extension. The evidence of Senior Security Officer, Wannagu Wannawaduge Don Jayasekara, also confirms that the Respondent reported to work even after the Respondent’s purported date of retirement. 40. The learned President has observed in this regard that, even though the Respondent was sent on retirement on 23rd October 2014 based on the Retirement Letter marked ‘A10’, the Respondent had continued to work thereafter, finding that the Appellant had allowed the Respondent to work past the date of retirement. 41. The learned President aptly questions as to how and why the Respondent was so allowed to work past the purported date of retirement, if the Respondent had failed to duly submit an application for the extension of services. Based on this observation, the learned President proceeds to draw an inference that the Respondent would have tendered a timely application for an extension of his services for him to be so allowed to report to work even after the purported date of retirement, albeit for a short period. On this basis, the Labour Tribunal President has come to the conclusion that the retirement of the Respondent amounts to a termination of the Respondent’s services. 42. The exact wording of the said Order is as follows: “A10 අනුෙ 2014.10.23 දින වේෙවයන් ෙසු ඉල්ලුම්කරුෙ විශ්‍රාෙ ගැන්විය යුතුය. වකවේ වුෙත් ඉල්ලුම්කරු ා ඉල්ලුම්කරු සාක්ියට කැඳවූ සාක්ිකරුෙන්, ඉල්ලුම්කරු එෙ විශ්‍රාෙ දිනවයන් ෙසුෙද වේෙය කළ බෙ ත වුරු කර ඇත. ඒ අනුෙ ෙැ ැදිලි ෙන්වන් ඉල්ලුම්කරුෙ, 2014.10.23 වේෙවයන් ෙසුෙ විශ්‍රාෙ ගැන්වීවෙන් අනතුරුෙ වේෙය කිරීවම් අෙේථාෙක් වේො වයෝජක විසින් සලසා ඇති බෙයි. ඉල්ලුම්කරු අදාළ චක්‍රවල්ලඛ ෙලට අනුකූලෙ ඉල්ලලිම් කරනු වනාලැබුවව්න නම් එවේ වේෙය කිරීෙට අෙේථාෙක් ලබා දීවම් වේතුෙ කුෙක්දැයි ෙැ ැදිලි වනාෙැත. ඒ අනුෙ ඉල්ලුම්කරු නිසි කාකලය [sic] තුල ඉල්ලීම් කළ බෙට අනුමිතියකට එළඹිය ැක… SC Appeal 68/2022 JUDGMENT Page 16 of 21 [As per the document marked A10, the Applicant was due to retire from service on 23.10.2014. However, the Applicant, as well as the witnesses called on behalf of the Applicant, have confirmed that the Applicant continued in service beyond the said retirement date. Accordingly, it is evident that the Employer permitted the Applicant to continue in service after 23.10.2014. Even if the Applicant had not submitted a request in accordance with the relevant circulars, the reason for allowing such continuation remains unexplained. It may therefore be inferred that the Applicant submitted the request within the prescribed time.]”16 43. As it can be seen, the learned President has drawn this inference merely based on the Respondent reporting to work for an additional week subsequent to the date of retirement set out in the Letter of Retirement marked “A10”. 44. The High Court has also drawn this inference, concurring with the learned Labour Tribunal President’s reasoning, even after taking cognisance of the Appellant’s contention that the Respondent has failed to prove that he duly tendered a request for extension. 45. The learned High Court Judge has reasoned as follows: “The Appellant stated that even if the Respondent firmly maintaining [sic] the fact that he had tendered a request for an extension of service in compliance with the terms of the circular, he was unable to prove it. Hence, the argument of the Appellant is that Sec. 106 and Sec. 114(f) applies [sic] to consider the Respondent’s failure to adduce evidence to prove his position as such. Be that as it may, the learned President of LT observed that the Respondent appeared 16 as reflected in page 7 of the Labour Tribunal Order (approximate translation added) SC Appeal 68/2022 JUDGMENT Page 17 of 21 to have worked after 24th October 2014 when he was to send on retirement. [sic] The learned President of the LT has correctly evaluated the evidence adduced by both parties and concluded that the Respondent was allowed to work under the Appellant after the alleged date of retirement according to the Appellant. Hence upon the inference one could have acquired from the act and the performances of the Appellant towards the Respondents as elicited at the inquiry, the Learned President of the LT has come to the conclusion that Appellant’s act substantiated the position of the Respondents that he duly acted in terms of the provisions of the applicable circular to get service extended”17 46. The impugned Judgment of the High Court, which barely spans three pages, contains no other analysis of the Labour Tribunal Order or the evidence available on record than what I have quoted above. After a simple narration of factual circumstances surrounding the appeal, and the arguments put forward by the parties, the learned Judge has, in no more than three short paragraphs, come to conclude that the learned President of the Labour Tribunal has correctly evaluated the evidence in drawing the aforesaid inference. Moreover, it is amply clear that the learned High Court Judge has also drawn this inference—to the effect that the Respondent has duly submitted a request for extension—solely based on the Respondent being present at the workplace for no more than eight short days and acting as he ordinarily does while so present. While it may be true, as the evidence indicates, that the Respondent had placed his fingerprint and that other workmen at the site had interacted with him as usual, such circumstances cannot, in my view, be taken as indicative of the Respondent having been officially granted an extension of service. 17 Judgment of the Provincial High Court of the Western Province Holden in Kalutara, dated 02nd July 2020, at p. 4 SC Appeal 68/2022 JUDGMENT Page 18 of 21 47. Practically speaking, it stands to reason that his colleagues, with whom he had worked for years, if not decades, would not have been indifferent to his presence at the site. And the Respondent himself, for he has clearly considered himself entitled to a service extension—as evidenced from his application before the Labour Tribunal—would naturally have conducted himself as though he remained in the employ of the Appellant. 48. If such reasoning—as that employed by the Labour Tribunal and the High Court—were to be allowed to stand, it necessarily follows that, for any employee to establish that he had been granted an extension of service beyond his date of retirement, such employee needs only to show up at work for several days and behave as though such extension had in fact been granted, hoping his unsuspecting colleagues would play along. 49. In my view, this inference, drawn by the Labour Tribunal as well as the High Court, is one that does not logically or rationally follow from the material available on record, especially considering the fact that the Respondent had not maintained a consistent position before the Labour Tribunal. 50. It cannot be gainsaid that, as the learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted, the spirit of the Industrial Disputes Act is the maintenance of industrial peace and the promotion of smooth labour dispute settlement.18 To this end, any arbiter in industrial dispute settlement proceedings is expected to act—and is indeed empowered to act—in a manner that is just and equitable, unincumbered by strict procedural requirements and unconcerned with pedantic technicalities. If a workman, already hard done by an unjust dismissal, is expected to mount an extremely technical and complicated legal offensive to assert his rights as an employee, the very purpose of the Act would 18 Colombo Apothecaries Co. Ltd. v. Wijesooriya 70 NLR 48 SC Appeal 68/2022 JUDGMENT Page 19 of 21 undoubtedly be defeated. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has extensively dealt with such matters in his Post-Argument Written Submissions.19 51. While that may be so, the attitude towards workmen in these proceedings cannot be so lenient that one is allowed to succeed in his application where he fails to be consistent as to the circumstances of such application—that, in my view, is the bare minimum. 52. Some matters may involve administrative particulars and finer details of management that are generally lost on most workmen. In this matter, too, the Tribunal was confronted with questions as to the applicability of circulars and finer legal considerations such as whether a compelled involuntary retirement would constitute termination within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. It would be most reasonable for a workman, or a representative acting on behalf of such workman, to make errors and/or, at times, even inconsistent applications with respect to such matters. A Labour Tribunal or a court sitting in appeal may certainly overlook such shortcomings. However, where an applicant is inconsistent as to his own conduct material to the dispute, a judge must be wary of placing excessive reliance on his assertions, in the absence of independent or extrinsic evidence supporting such reliance. 53. As this Court has repeatedly emphasised, labour adjudication must always be just and equitable towards both parties.20 Just and equitable jurisdiction that is conferred upon Labour Tribunals and the favourable spirit reflected in the Industrial Disputes Act towards 19 Which, I might add, was well researched and of great assistance while authoring this judgment 20 RA Dharmadasa v. Board of Investment of Sri Lanka, SC Appeal No. 13/2019, SC Minutes of 16th June 2022; Singer Industries (Ceylon) Ltd. v. Ceylon Mercantile Industrial and General Workers Union and Others [2010] 1 Sri LR 66; Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Limited v. The Minister of Labour, SC Appeal No. 22/2003; SC Minutes of 4th April 2008; Millers Limited v. Ceylon Mercantile Industrial and General Workers Union (CMU) [1993] 1 Sri LR 197; The Caledonian (Ceylon) Tea and Rubber Estates Ltd v. Hillman 79 NLR 421; The Ceylon Estates Staffs’ Union v. The Superintendent, Meddecombra Estate, Watagoda and Another 73 NLR 278; Municipal Council of Colombo v. T.P. De S. Munasinghe and 4 Others 71 NLR 223 SC Appeal 68/2022 JUDGMENT Page 20 of 21 the workmen, intended to counteract the unequal bargaining power as between the parties, does not absolve such Tribunals, as well as courts sitting in appeal, from their burden to act judicially.21 54. Considering the aforementioned, I find that the impugned Order of the Labour Tribunal is devoid of evidential support, and the key inference therein, which drove the Tribunal’s conclusion, is not based upon sound reasoning. 55. The Judgment of the High Court, as I previously highlighted, is only a plain affirmation of the Labour Tribunal finding, unsupported by any additional reasoning or analysis. This affirmation of the High Court is preceded only by a reiteration of the factual circumstances and the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. The High Court has manifestly failed to appraise the evidence on record adequately. 56. For the foregoing reasons, I answer all questions of law in the affirmative. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 57. The Judgment dated 02nd July 2020 of the Provincial High Court of the Western Province holden in Kalutara and the Order of the Labour Tribunal of Kalutara dated 12th March 2019 are both set aside. The application of the Appellant-Respondent-Respondent should stand dismissed. Appeal Allowed. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE 21 See RA Dharmadasa v. Board of Investment of Sri Lanka, SC Appeal No. 13/2019, SC Minutes of 16th June 2022 at p. 6-7 (Obeyesekere J); Ceylon Transport Board v. Gunasinghe 72 NLR 76, at p. 83 (Weeramantry J) SC Appeal 68/2022 JUDGMENT Page 21 of 21 A. H. M. D. NAWAZ, J. I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT KUMUDINI WICKREMASINGHE, J. I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT		Download
2025-11-10	SC/APPEAL/245/2016	Narandeniye Deepananda Thero, Kondagala Viharaya, Weeraketiya. PETITIONER-APPELLANT-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Martin Ekanayake, No. 47/1, Beliaththa Road, Kondagala, Weeraketiya. 2. Assistant Commissioner of Agrarian Development, Agrarian Development Office, Hambantota. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC Acting CJ	SC Appeal 245/2016 JUDGMENT Page 1 of 19 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA Narandeniye Deepananda Thero, Kondagala Viharaya, Weeraketiya. PETITIONER -Vs- 1. Martin Ekanayake, No. 47/1, Beliaththa Road, Kondagala, Weeraketiya. 2. Assistant Commissioner of Agrarian Development, Agrarian Development Office, Hambantota. RESPONDENTS AND BETWEEN Narandeniye Deepananda Thero, Kondagala Viharaya, Weeraketiya. PETITIONER-APPELLANT -Vs- 1. Martin Ekanayake, No. 47/1, Beliaththa Road, Kondagala, Weeraketiya. SC Appeal No: 245/2016 Leave to Appeal No: SC/SPL/LA/111/2016 CA (PHC) 122/2011 HC WA 20/2010 SC Appeal 245/2016 JUDGMENT Page 2 of 19 2. Assistant Commissioner of Agrarian Development, Agrarian Development Office, Hambantota. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN Narandeniye Deepananda Thero, Kondagala Viharaya, Weeraketiya. PETITIONER-APPELLANT-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Martin Ekanayake, No. 47/1, Beliaththa Road, Kondagala, Weeraketiya. 2. Assistant Commissioner of Agrarian Development, Agrarian Development Office, Hambantota. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS SC Appeal 245/2016 JUDGMENT Page 3 of 19 BEFORE: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE S. THURAIRAJA, PC JUSTICE A.H.M.D. NAWAZ JUSTICE SAMPATH B. ABAYAKOON COUNSEL: Ranga Dayananda instructed by Lakni Silva for the Petitioner-Appellant-Appellant Shantha Karunadhara instructed by Hasitha Amarasinghe for the 1st Respondent-Respondent-Respondent Ganga Wakishta Arachchi, DSG instructed by Rizni Firdous for the 2nd Respondent-Respondent-Respondent WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: 2nd Respondent-Respondent-Respondent on 30th November 2017 ARGUED ON: 04th August 2025 DECIDED ON: 10th November 2025 THURAIRAJA, PC, ACTING CJ 1. The Petitioner-Appellant-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellant”) made an application to the Provincial High Court holden in Hambantota seeking, inter alia, a writ of certiorari to quash a decision of the 2nd Respondent-Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the “2nd Respondent”). Following a dismissal of the Appellant’s application by the Provincial High Court by order dated 08th November 2011, the Appellant challenged such dismissal in the Court of Appeal. Following a dismissal of the Appellant’s application by the Court of Appeal by judgment dated 25th May 2016, the SC Appeal 245/2016 JUDGMENT Page 4 of 19 appellant has preferred the present appeal before the Supreme Court. On 8th December 2016, this Court granted leave to appeal on the following questions of law: “a. Did the Court of Appeal err in law by holding that the Provincial High Court of the Southern Province Holden in Hambantota did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine Petitioner\'s application? b. Did The Court of Appeal misinterpret the Article 154P of the Constitution? c. Did the Court of Appeal fail to properly evaluate the provisions of Agrarian Development Act No. 46 of 2000 (as amended)? d. Did the Court of Appeal err in law by applying the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.P. Wijesuriya Vs Nimalawathi Wanigasinghe which has no application to the present matter?” FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2. The Appellant is the owner of the paddy land known as ‘Aluthwewamulana’, one acre and one rood in extent (A1-R1-P0). As proof thereof, the document marked “P1” is tendered, deemed to be the extract from the Agricultural Land Register. The 1st Respondent-Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the “1st Respondent”) had claimed anda rights from the Appellant with respect to the said paddy land. 3. The 1st Respondent had made a complaint to the Assistant Commissioner of Agrarian Development of Hambantota (bearing No. HA/04/MISSALANIOUS/2008) on 29th November 2009 that he is the tenant cultivator of the disputed land and to therefore take necessary steps to protect his rights. 4. Subsequently, an inquiry was held, and it was decided, by order marked “P5A”, that the 1st Respondent is the tenant cultivator of the subject land and that the Appellant should not disturb the rights of the 1st Respondent. In the said backdrop, the Appellant had SC Appeal 245/2016 JUDGMENT Page 5 of 19 invoked the jurisdiction of the Provincial High Court for an issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the said decision of the 2nd Respondent. It is further the Appellant’s contention that he was not afforded the opportunity to participate in the said inquiry, contrary to and in violation of the rules of natural justice. 5. The 2nd Respondent, upon filing the statement of objections, raised the preliminary objection that the Provincial High Court holden in Hambantota had no jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter. 6. The order of the Provincial High Court held that, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Wijesuriya v. Wanigasinghe and Others,1 the exercise of island-wide powers by the Commissioner General of Agrarian Development falls within the domain of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, and not the Provincial High Court, and thus, action should have been instituted against the Commissioner in the Court of Appeal. 7. When the Appellant preferred an appeal to the Court of Appeal, the learned Judges adopted the same view, stating that the Provincial High Court did not have jurisdiction in the present case and is empowered to issue an order in the nature of a writ only on: (a) matters arising within the province, and (b) matters falling within the Provincial Council list contained in the Ninth Schedule to the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and any authority exercising the powers within the province. ANALYSIS 8. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution came into effect in 1987, and the Provincial Councils Act, No. 42 of 1987 was enacted in order to establish Provincial Councils in the country. The prime objective of the Thirteenth Amendment was to establish a 1 [2011] 2 Sri L.R. 231. SC Appeal 245/2016 JUDGMENT Page 6 of 19 constitutional framework for devolution of power to units of devolution identified as “Provinces.” The Amendment was designed to decentralise authority, to allow provincial institutions to function not as mere administrative extensions of the centre, but as meaningful organs of governance. This design is reflected both in the language of Chapter XVIIA of the Constitution and in the Provincial Councils Act, No. 42 of 1987, which together manifest the characteristics of substantial devolution. 9. In terms of Article 154P(1), there shall be a High Court for each Province with effect from the date on which Chapter XVIIA of the Constitution comes into force, and each such High Court shall be designated as the High Court of the relevant Province. 10. Devolution of legislative power is not merely a symbolic gesture but the institutionalisation of governance at the provincial level. Article 154G(1) enacts that every Provincial Council may, subject to the Constitution, make statutes applicable to the Province for which it is established in respect of any matter set out in List I of the Ninth Schedule. This provision entrusts Provincial Councils with an exclusive legislative sphere, autonomous within its boundaries. Thus, within the matters devolved under the Provincial Council List, the Councils enjoy plenary competence. This plenary character of authority marks the “substantial” nature of devolution envisaged by the Thirteenth Amendment. 11. Article 154P(4) of the Constitution specifies the scope of jurisdiction of Provincial High Courts. It states, “Every such High Court shall have jurisdiction to issue, according to law – (a) orders in the nature of habeas corpus, in respect of persons illegally detained within the Province; and SC Appeal 245/2016 JUDGMENT Page 7 of 19 (b) order in the nature of writs of certiorari, prohibition, procedendo, mandamus and quo warranto against any person exercising, within the Province, any power under – (i) any law; or (ii) any statutes made by the Provincial Council established for that Province, in respect of any matter set out in the Provincial Council List.” The Issue Contested Before the Provincial High Court Must Pertain to a Matter Listed Under the Provincial Council List 12. The devolutionary pattern under the Thirteenth Amendment empowers both the Parliament and the Provincial Councils to legislate on matters listed under the Provincial Council List in three specific instances, as delineated in Articles 154G(3), 154G(4), and 154G(11) of the Constitution. However, this should not be interpreted as allowing the Parliament, through the devolutionary scheme itself, to diminish the legislative powers devolved to the Provincial Councils. The provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment must be interpreted purposively, in a manner that upholds the foundational rationale for its introduction into the Constitution. 13. Where Parliament has enacted a law on a matter included in the Provincial Council List, the residual scope of that subject must still be understood as falling within the legislative competence of the Provincial Councils, to be exercised through their own statutes. Furthermore, with regard to the concept of “National Policy,” as clarified in this Court’s determination on the Divineguma Bill,2 such a policy cannot take the form of a functional scheme of administration. Rather, it operates only as a framework or set of 2 SC/SD/01/2012, SC/SD/02/2012 and SC/SD/03/2012. SC Appeal 245/2016 JUDGMENT Page 8 of 19 guiding principles within which the Provinces may exercise their devolved legislative powers. 14. Moreover, once a law relating to a devolved subject is amended or repealed, either in whole or in part, the legislative competence of the Provincial Councils over that subject may immediately be exercised. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that subjects devolved under the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution cannot be withdrawn or annulled by subsequent legislation of Parliament. 15. It is pertinent to note that the constitutional establishment of the Provincial High Courts represents a recognition of the need to resolve local disputes through judges with closer familiarity to such issues, while also removing the hardship of litigants who would otherwise have to seek justice only before the superior courts in Colombo. This was a central purpose of the Thirteenth Amendment when the Bill was originally presented to Parliament. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the PHCs must be preserved inviolate and cannot be diminished by interpretations that would undermine the rationale of the Thirteenth Amendment. 16. In this context, the first question to be considered is whether “Agrarian Services” fall within the scope of the Provincial Council List. Item 9 of the List, set out in the Ninth Schedule, provides as follows: “9. Agriculture and Agrarian Services – 9.1. Agriculture, including agricultural extension, promotion and education for provincial purposes, and agricultural services (other than in inter-provincial irrigation and land settlement schemes, State land and plantation agriculture); 9.2. Rehabilitation and maintenance of minor irrigation works; SC Appeal 245/2016 JUDGMENT Page 9 of 19 9.3. Agricultural research, save and except institutions designated as national agricultural research institutions.” 17. The Agrarian Services Act, No. 58 of 1979 was repealed in the year 2000 with the introduction of the Agrarian Development Act, No. 46 of 2000 (as amended), and the long title to the Agrarian Development Act describes the ambit of the Act as follows: \"An act to provide for matters relating to landlords and tenant cultivators of paddy lands, for the utilization of agricultural lands in accordance with agricultural policies for the establishment of Agrarian Development Councils, to provide for the establishment of a land bank and Agrarian Tribunals...” 18. Accordingly, and subject to the express limitations stated in the Ninth Schedule, “Agrarian Services” must be regarded as a matter falling within the Provincial Council List. The present case concerns the issue of tenancy, a matter addressed in Madduma Banda v. Assistant Commissioner of Agrarian Services and Another,3 where this Court held that the term “agrarian” in item 9 of the Provincial Council List refers to landed property, including paddy lands and tenant cultivators: \"The word ‘agrarian’ relates to landed property and such property no doubt would attract paddy lands and tenant cultivators of such land.\"4 19. In Kalu Arachchige Allen Nona v. Sunil Weerasinghe,5 Vijith Malalgoda, PC, J (P/CA, as His Lordship was then) adopted the same view, stating that, if a purposive interpretation is given, the said Act fulfils the requirement of the title \"Agriculture and 3 [2003] 2 Sri L.R. 80 4 ibid., at p. 91 5 CA Writ 23/2013, CA Minutes of 10th June 2016, at p. 4 SC Appeal 245/2016 JUDGMENT Page 10 of 19 Agrarian Services\" referred to in Section 9 of the Provincial Council list. Therefore, the issue before this Court properly falls within the Provincial Council List. Exercising Power Derived from Any Law or Provincial Statute 20. The authority exercised in such matters may derive either from a law enacted by Parliament or from a statute enacted by a Provincial Council. Article 154F(2) does not operate to restrict the jurisdiction of the Provincial High Court in respect of cases arising under statutes enacted by the Provincial Councils. The Provincial High Court accordingly retains jurisdiction over matters governed by laws relating to subjects devolved under the Provincial Council List. The key inquiry for the Court, therefore, is whether the subject matter in dispute falls within a devolved subject, regardless of whether the relevant provision is found in an Act of Parliament or a Provincial statute. 21. In the present case, although the dispute arises under the Agrarian Development Act, No. 46 of 2000 (as amended), which is an Act of Parliament, since ‘Agrarian Services’ are expressly recognised as a devolved subject, the matter must be understood as falling within the jurisdiction of the Provincial High Court pursuant to this second criterion. Against Any Person Exercising Power, Within the Province, Under Any Law or Provincial Statute 22. The central question, in the instant case, is the extent to which this power is qualified by the words “within the Province”. The case of Wijesuriya v. Wanigasinghe and Others,6 has taken a rather restrictive view, requiring that the power or authority itself be provincial in character for a Provincial High Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction. 6 [2011] 2 Sri L.R. 231 SC Appeal 245/2016 JUDGMENT Page 11 of 19 23. In Wijesuriya v. Wanigasinghe (supra),7 this Court interpreted Article 154P(4) and found that it conferred jurisdiction on the Provincial High Courts to issue orders in the nature of writs of certiorari, prohibition, procedendo, mandamus and quo warranto only in respect of: (i) those matters enumerated in the Provincial Council List (List I) of the Ninth Schedule to the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and (ii) against a person exercising power pursuant to any law or provincial specific statutes within the Province.8 24. The Court in Wijesuriya9 further considered the meaning of the term “within” in Article 154P(4)(b), concluding the decisive factor to be the qualitative nature of the power exercised, i.e., whether the scope of the power per se—and not the manner and extent of its exercise—was provincial in character or whether it was exercised from a centrally acting authority for the entire island. 25. In the present case, relying on the judgment in Wijesuriya,10 learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that the Provincial High Court did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the application as the Commissioner General of Agrarian Development exercises powers of an island-wide nature, arguing that the writ application in question ought to have filed before the Court of Appeal. 26. Although, the application of the Appellant before the Provincial High Court challenged a decision of the Assistant Commissioner of Agrarian Development, the Respondents 7 ibid 8 ibid, at p. 236-237 9 ibid, at p. 239 10 ibid SC Appeal 245/2016 JUDGMENT Page 12 of 19 sought to argue in light of Section 38(5) of the Agrarian Development Act that the Assistant Commissioner exercises powers of the Commissioner-General within the area for which such Assistant Commissioner is appointed, and that such functions of the Assistant Commissioners are carried out in furtherance of the national policy. 27. It is in light of this argument that the Provincial High Court dismissed the application and the Court of Appeal went on to affirm such dismissal. I am of the view, however, that such an application of the Wijesuriya dicta risks contradicting Article 154P(4)(b)(i) of the Constitution. 28. This provision expressly empowers the Provincial High Court to issue orders in the nature of writs of certiorari, prohibition, procedendo, mandamus and quo warranto “against any person” exercising authority derived from “any law” or “provincial statute”. The breadth of the terms “any person” and “any power,” particularly the word “any,” must be interpreted expansively to include both centrally and provincially located authorities, provided the subject matter falls within a devolved subject. 29. To impose a restrictive interpretation undermines the fundamental objective of the Thirteenth Amendment, which is to establish a devolutionary scheme. Devolution was intended not only as a constitutional accommodation of minority claims but also as a mechanism to foster localised governance, encourage economic growth, and allow provincial expertise to address regional problems more effectively. Such a scheme enhances democratic participation, strengthens trust in political institutions, and permits provinces to function as “laboratories of democracy” responsive to the distinct needs of their populations. To draw a rigid distinction between “central” and “provincial” authority in this context risks frustrating these objectives. 30. The jurisdiction of the Provincial High Court is not without limitation. The Provincial High Court cannot issue writs in respect of: (a) aspects of devolved subjects expressly excluded SC Appeal 245/2016 JUDGMENT Page 13 of 19 in the Ninth Schedule itself; (b) matters falling within the Concurrent List; and (c) subjects in the Reserved List. Nevertheless, actions and decisions incidental to, or consequential upon, devolved matters do properly fall within the competence of the Provincial High Court, so long as such actions and decisions are of an authority that exercises its power within the province. 31. In any event, the 2nd Respondent of the instant case is the Assistant Commissioner of Agrarian Development attached to the Agrarian Development Office in Hambantota. The Assistant Commissioner’s authority is derived from the Agrarian Development Act No. 46 of 2000 (as amended), a law relating to agrarian services: a subject expressly devolved under the Provincial Council List. 32. According to Section 38(5) of the Agrarian Development Act No. 46 of 2000 (as amended), “Every Assistant Commissioner may exercise all or any of the powers of the Commissioner-General under this Act, within the area to which such Assistant Commissioner is appointed.” 33. Counsel for the Respondent further invited this Court to consider Section 38(7) of the Act, which states that, “The Additional Commissioner General, The Commissioners, the Deputy Commissioner General, every Assistant Commissioner and every Agrarian Development Officer shall in the exercise of his powers and the performance of his duties under this Act, be subject to the direction and control of the Commissioner-General. 34. It is based on these sections that the objection with regard to jurisdiction was raised. As such, questions of law before this Court must necessarily be answered keeping in mind the scope of the Assistant Commissioner’s power under the Section 38(5) of the Act, SC Appeal 245/2016 JUDGMENT Page 14 of 19 which are very clearly limited to the area within which an Assistant Commissioner is appointed. Moreover, although Assistant Commissioners exercise such power subject to the direction and control of the Commissioner-General, there is no basis whatsoever to claim that such direction and control can impute a central character to the actions and decision of an Assistant Commissioner. Analysis of the Questions of Law 35. The first question of law requires this Court to consider whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by holding that the Provincial High Court of the Southern Province holden in Hambantota did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the Petitioner’s application. It is a question of law so wide in scope, the answer to this question necessarily includes the answers to all questions of law before this Court. For this reason, in the course of my analysis on the first question of law, I shall proceed to answer the rest in no particular order. 36. The matter in question relates to agrarian services, specifically the recognition of tenant cultivation rights in paddy lands. As discussed above, Item 9 of the Provincial Council List in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution expressly devolves “Agriculture and Agrarian Services” to the Provincial Councils, subject to certain exclusions not applicable to the present dispute. Accordingly, disputes concerning tenancy rights under the Agrarian Development Act fall within the competence of the Provincial Councils. Moreover, although the matter involves an Act of Parliament, the subject matter it regulates, “Agrarian Services”, is devolved. These matters have not been contested. 37. As to the “within the province” limitation, as previously noted, the Assistant Commissioner of Agrarian Development in Hambantota is an officer functioning within the province and deriving authority from the Agrarian Development Act. To this extent, the instant matter is distinguishable from the Wijesuriya dicta, and the Court of Appeal SC Appeal 245/2016 JUDGMENT Page 15 of 19 has erred in treating the same as binding on the instant matter. As such, it is my view that the reliance placed on Wijesuriya was misplaced. Accordingly, the fourth and final question of law is answered in the affirmative. 38. In terms of the second question of law, the Court of Appeal appear to have considered Article 154P, relying on an overblown reading of the Wijesuriya Case leading to an unduly restrictive interpretation of the term “within the Province” in Article 154P(4)(b), even as the case was clearly distinguishable. As previously noted, it was the finding of the Court of Appeal that the Provincial High Court may only issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, procedendo, mandamus and quo warranto against authorities deemed to be “provincial” in character, excluding those deriving powers from centrally acting authorities. Such an approach, in my view, runs contrary to the plain language of the Constitution. 39. As I briefly noted earlier in the judgment, the provision uses the words “any person” and “any law or provincial statute.” The word “any” must be given its natural, expansive meaning, especially considering the constitutional text being one designed to devolve authority. Limiting the provision to a qualitative assessment of whether the authority itself is central or provincial undermines the very purpose of Article 154P, which is to provide a forum at the provincial level for resolving disputes arising out of devolved subjects. 40. It is not the physical location of the authority—as correctly observed by the Court of Appeal—nor the post or designation of the authority as either “central” or “provincial” that are decisive. The decisive factor, as highlighted in the Wijesuriya Case is the scope of the power that is exercised. In fact, even a central authority may be amenable to judicial review under Article 154P(4)(b) where such authority exercises a power that is provincial in scope and character. SC Appeal 245/2016 JUDGMENT Page 16 of 19 41. Provincial delegates exercising power on behalf of a central supervising authority is far from uncommon. The Agrarian Development Act, too, established such a scheme of administration. If we are to interpret Article 154P(4)(b) in such a manner to exclude all such provincial actors, simply because they act under the authority and supervision of a central authority, that would be to significantly attenuate writ jurisdictions of the Provincial High Courts. 42. We must also appreciate the apparent intention of the framers of the Thirteenth Amendment for Provincial High Courts to serve as accessible institutions of justice in matters affecting local communities. This Amendment was animated by a recognition that justice must be brought closer to the people. The creation of Provincial High Courts was not a mere administrative reorganisation but a deliberate constitutional choice to remedy the inequities of a system in which litigants across the island were compelled to journey to Colombo to vindicate rights even in matters inherently local in character. The right to effective access to justice is not a peripheral value: it is intrinsic to the rule of law itself. A constitutional promise of devolution that does not secure this access is a hollow one. A restrictive interpretation, therefore, offends both the text and the purpose of the Constitution. 43. Matters of jurisdiction in general—especially those relating to territorial jurisdiction—when unduly complicated, have the effect of taking the ordinary man further away from the halls of justice. That would most certainly be antithetical to the most fundamental objective of establishing Provincial High Courts. It should not take those most skilled lawyers specially trained in the art of statutory and constitutional interpretation to determine something so simple as to which court one might take their pleas. SC Appeal 245/2016 JUDGMENT Page 17 of 19 44. As one of the most rudimentary rules of statutory interpretation directs us, there is no need for a court to seek secondary meanings or interpretations where a plain reading is clear and produces no absurdity. 45. Article 154P(4)(b) of the Constitution establishes that High Courts of the Provinces have jurisdiction to issue, according to law, orders in the nature of writs of certiorari, prohibition, procedendo, mandamus and quo warranto “against any person exercising, within the Province, any power under” any law, or provincial statute. 46. The term “within the Province” herein may conceivably lead to some confusion owing to its placement in the text and requires some clarification. This Court, as the forum with sole and exclusive jurisdiction to address such uncertainties within the constitutional text, has previously ventured to explicate the same in Wijesuriya v. Wanigasinghe (supra),11 which I have already adverted to in some detail. As it was decided in the Wijesuriya Case, the decisive factor is the qualitative scope of the power exercised, i.e., if the power itself is one that relates to provinces, the respective Provincial High Court would have jurisdiction under Article 154P(4)(b) of the Constitution. To inflate the said dicta to bring within its purview such subordinate officers acting under the Commissioner-General’s authority, in my view, is completely ill-conceived. 47. Similarly, Section 38(5) of the Agrarian Development Act states that “[e]very Assistant Commissioner may exercise all or any of the powers of the Commissioner-General under this Act, within the area to which such Assistant Commissioner is appointed.” 48. This very clearly indicates that the Assistant Commissioner’s power to exercise the powers of the Commissioner-General so delegates is strictly limited to his or her area of appointment. To this extent, the Court of Appeal has erred in considering the powers of 11 [2011] 2 Sri L.R. 231. SC Appeal 245/2016 JUDGMENT Page 18 of 19 the Assistant Commissioners to be of “island-wide” nature. Accordingly, the third question of law, too, is answered in the affirmative. 49. In light of the above, this Court must affirm, in the clearest terms, that where the subject matter of a dispute arises under a devolved subject, the Provincial High Court is vested with jurisdiction, notwithstanding whether the official whose decision is impugned is a central or provincial officer, so long as the qualitative character and the scope of the power exercised is provincial. To hold otherwise is to privilege the administrative convenience of officials over the constitutional rights of citizens. 50. The Thirteenth Amendment did not devolve power for the ease of government but for the empowerment of the governed. The devolutionary scheme cannot be reduced to an empty formality, nor can the Provincial High Courts be relegated to second-class forums. They are courts of plenary writ jurisdiction in respect of devolved subjects, and their role must be vindicated accordingly. 51. I would be remiss if I did not address the concerns of the 2nd Respondent as to national policy. It was the submission of the 2nd Respondent that the Assistant Commissioner being amenable to writ jurisdiction of the Provincial High Courts would entail unforeseen consequences, in light of the fact that the Assistant Commissioner acts in furtherance of the national policy on agrarian development. It was highlighted that there is a possibility of different courts taking contrasting decisions and stances with regard to the national policy which the Agrarian Development Act seeks to implement, for national policy should always be uniform. This concern, in my view, may be somewhat misplaced. Judicial review, especially in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, is performed under widely accepted grounds and within the contours of well-established principles. In addition, one of the cardinal rules observed by courts in this function is to refrain from being arbiters of political or SC Appeal 245/2016 JUDGMENT Page 19 of 19 policy questions, in order to avoid any potential encroachments of the executive province. 52. In light of the above, it is my considered view that the Appellant originally invoked the proper forum. The first question of law is therefore answered in the affirmative. 53. As all questions of law are answered in the affirmative, the Appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court of the Provinces holden in Hambantota dated 08th November 2011 and the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 25th May 2016 are both set aside. 54. The High Court of the Provinces holden in Hambantota is directed to hear and determine the application on its merits. The High Court is further directed to expedite this matter, as it has been pending since 2010. Appeal Allowed. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE A.H.M.D. NAWAZ, J. I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT SAMPATH B. ABAYAKOON, J. I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT		Download
2025-11-07	SC/APPEAL/56/2023	Kumudu Chanda Amaradasa, No.455/27, Waragodawaththa, Kelaniya. Presently at, No. 125, Uplands Road (Woodford Green, Essex IG8 8JP, United Kingdom) Appearing by his Power of Attorney Leela Amaradasa, No. 455/27, Waragodawaththa, Kelaniya. Substituted Defendant – Appellant - Petitioner V. 1.Minatul Fakariya Kalid 2. Najmul Ashara Sherif 3. Mumthas Asgari Shais 4. (a) Ummu Sashila Kuddus Narmila Apsari Jerin (Power of Attorney holder) 4. (b) Pinas Kuddus 4. (c) Saima Kuddus 4. (d) Raifana Kuddus (minor) 4. (e) Karim Matheen Kalid 5. Fatima Farshana Sheeb 6. (a) Ushana Kuddus 6. (b) Ibrahim Kuddus 6. (c) Yusuf Kuddus 6. (d)Munisan Kuddus 6. (e) Karim Mathin Khalid 7. Ayisha Sherin Sherif All of No. 28, Clifford Place, Colombo 04 Plaintiffs – Respondent - Respondents View More	Hon. K. Priyantha Fernando J	1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application for Appeal in terms of Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1996 as amended by (amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006. SC/APPEAL/56/2023 SC/HCCA/LA/NO:290/2018 WP/HCCA/G.P.H/NO/147/2011/F DC Gampaha Case: No: 39805/L IN THE DISTRICT COURT 1. Minatul Fakariya Kalid 2. Najmul Ashara Sherif 3. Mumthas Asgari Shais 4. Shahul Hameed Riswi Kuddus (Deceased) 4. (a) Ummu Sashila Kuddus Narmila Apsari Jerin (Power of Attorney holder) 4. (b) Pinas Kuddus 4. (c) Saima Kuddus 4. (d) Raifana Kuddus (minor) 4. (e) Karim Matheen Kalid 5. Fatima Farshana Sheeb 6. Ifthikar Alavi Kuddus (Deceased) 6. (a) Ushana Kuddus 6. (b) Ibrahim Kuddus 6. (c) Yusuf Kuddus 6. (d)Munisan Kuddus 6. (e) Karim Mathin Khalid 7. Ayisha Sherin Sherif All of No. 28, Clifford Place, Colombo 04 Plaintiffs V. Bopitige Amaradasa (Deceased) 2 Kumudu Chanda Amaradasa, No.455/27, Waragodawaththa, Kelaniya. Substituted Defendant AND BETWEEN IN THE HIGH COURT Kumudu Chanda Amaradasa, No.455/27, Waragodawaththa, Kelaniya. Substituted Defendant-Appellant V. 1.Minatul Fakariya Kalid 2. Najmul Ashara Sherif 3. Mumthas Asgari Shais 4. Shahul Hameed Riswi Kuddus (Deceased) 4. (a) Ummu Sashila Kuddus Narmila Apsari Jerin (Power of Attorney holder) 4. (b) Pinas Kuddus 4. (c) Saima Kuddus 4. (d) Raifana Kuddus (minor) 4. (e) Karim Matheen Kalid 5. Fatima Farshana Sheeb 6. Ifthikar Alavi Kuddus (Deceased) 6. (a) Ushana Kuddus 6. (b) Ibrahim Kuddus 6. (c) Yusuf Kuddus 6. (d)Munisan Kuddus 6. (e) Karim Mathin Khalid 7. Ayisha Sherin Sherif All of No. 28, Clifford Place, Colombo 04 Plaintiffs – Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN IN THE SUPREME COURT 3 Kumudu Chanda Amaradasa, No.455/27, Waragodawaththa, Kelaniya. Presently at, No. 125, Uplands Road (Woodford Green, Essex IG8 8JP, United Kingdom) Appearing by his Power of Attorney Leela Amaradasa, No. 455/27, Waragodawaththa, Kelaniya. Substituted Defendant – Appellant - Petitioner V. 1.Minatul Fakariya Kalid 2. Najmul Ashara Sherif 3. Mumthas Asgari Shais 4. (a) Ummu Sashila Kuddus Narmila Apsari Jerin (Power of Attorney holder) 4. (b) Pinas Kuddus 4. (c) Saima Kuddus 4. (d) Raifana Kuddus (minor) 4. (e) Karim Matheen Kalid 5. Fatima Farshana Sheeb 6. (a) Ushana Kuddus 6. (b) Ibrahim Kuddus 6. (c) Yusuf Kuddus 6. (d)Munisan Kuddus 6. (e) Karim Mathin Khalid 7. Ayisha Sherin Sherif All of No. 28, Clifford Place, Colombo 04 Plaintiffs – Respondent - Respondents Before : Mahinda Samayawardhena, J. K. Priyantha Fernando, J. Menaka Wijesundera, J. 4 Counsel : Manohara de Silva, PC with Hirosha Munasinghe for Substituted Defendant – Appellant – Appellant W. Dayaratna, PC with Ranjika Jayawardene instructed Chandrani Dayaratne for 1st and 5th Plaintiffs – Respondents - Respondents Argued on : 27.08.2025 Decided on : 07.11.2025 1. ⁠The Plaintiffs- Respondents-Respondents (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiffs – Respondents) have instituted this action against the Defendant – Appellant – Appellant (hereinafter referred to as Defendant - Appellant) and later substituted by his son (hereinafter referred to as Substituted Defendant- Appellant) in the District Court of Gampaha by plaint dated 10.07.1996 seeking a declaration of title in the name of the Plaintiffs – Respondents to the property described in the 3rd schedule to the Plaint, the ejectment of the Defendant - Appellant from the said land, to recover the undisturbed and uninterrupted possession of the corpus and a sum of Rupees 75,000 as damages from the date of the plaint until the Plaintiffs – Respondents recover possession. The Facts 2. In the plaint to the District Court of Gampaha, the following has been stated inter alia. K.L.M.J.S. Kadeeja Umma and J.M.M. Alavi became entitled to the land described in the 2nd schedule to the plaint by deeds bearing Nos. 1441 and 1442 executed by S.M. Saheed Notary Public on 22.04.1927. K.L.M.J.S. Kadeeja Umma has temporarily transferred her title to B. Daniel Fernando (father of the Defendant - Appellant) by deed bearing No.10159 (marked “P7”) executed by K.D.P.S. Gonathilake Notary Public on 04.07.1957 to obtain a loan facility. 3. The land was then divided between K.L.M.J.S. Kadeeja Umma and J.M.M. Alavi through plan bearing No.1553 made by S. Perera licensed surveyor dated 07.07.1961 whereby K.L.M.J.S. Kadeeja Umma has become entitled to the land described in the 3rd schedule to the plaint. She has possessed this land for over ten years. 5 4. Following the demise of K.L.M.J.S. Kadeeja Umma in 1985, her children, the 1st – 7th Respondents have become entitled to the land in question. They maintain that possession of the land in suit was never handed over to B. Daniel Fernando and that following the death of their mother, they have possessed the land in suit. 5. In his answer, the Defendant – Appellant maintained the position that upon the failure of K.L.M.J.S. Kadeeja Umma to pay the loan or the interest, B. Daniel Fernando, the father of the Defendant – Appellant became entitled to the land in suit and that K.L.M.J.S. Kadeeja Umma never retransferred the land back to her. He has submitted that B. Daniel Fernando has possessed the land in suit for over ten years. He further stated that on 01.07.1964 B. Daniel Fernando transferred an undivided share of the land to him by deed bearing No. 148 executed by Notary Public P. Alwaas. The Defendant – Appellant has then occupied this land for ten years and had rubber plantations in the land. 6. Therefore, denying the averments of the Plaintiffs – Respondents, the Defendant - Appellant has prayed for the dismissal of the plaint, a declaration that the defendant is a co-owner to the land described in the 3rd schedule to the plaint and the ejectment of the Plaintiffs - Respondents and anyone holding under them from the land and to handover the peaceful, uninterrupted possession of the corpus to the defendant. 7. The learned District Judge has held in favor of the Plaintiffs – Respondents in the Judgment dated 03.03.2011, granting the reliefs prayed for in the Plaint. Aggrieved, the Substituted Defendant - Appellant has appealed to the High Court of the Western Province holden in Gampaha to set aside the Judgment dated 03.03.2011. The appeal was dismissed by the Lordships of the High Court on 16.07.2018 on the basis that the Plaintiffs – Respondents have acquired prescriptive title to the land in suit. 8. Being aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the Substituted Defendant - Appellant preferred the instant appeal to this Court. This Court granted leave to appeal on the question of law set out in subparagraph (b) of paragraph 15 of the petition dated 27.08.2018. Question of Law “Did the Civil Appellate High Court err in law by failing to consider that in order to obtain a decree on prescription, adverse, independent and 6 continuous possession for ten years previous to the bringing of the action was a mandatory requirement and in the instance case the Plaintiffs- Respondents had not established such possession?” 9. Prior to examining the claim of prescription, I must note that the deed bearing No.10159 which was instrumental in the conditional transfer of land to the land described in the 2nd schedule to B. Daniel Fernando by K.L.M.J.S. Kadeeja Umma specifically states that it is conditionally transferred (see pages 432 – 435) whereby I see no intention of transferring possession or title to B. Daniel Fernando, who handed over an undivided share of the same land to the Defendant –Appellant. Question of Prescription 10. Having established such, I will address the claim of prescription. As per section 3 of the Prescription Ordinance of 1871 (as amended), a plea of prescription requires ten years of uninterrupted and undisturbed possession: 11. “ Proof of the undisturbed and uninterrupted possession by a defendant in any action, or by those under whom he claims, of lands or immovable property, by a title adverse to or independent of that of the claimant or plaintiff in such action (that is to say, a possession unaccompanied by payment of rent or produce, or performance of service or duty, or by any other act by the possessor, from which an acknowledgment of a right existing in another person would fairly and naturally be inferred) for ten years previous to the bringing of such action, shall entitle the defendant to a decree in his favour with costs...” (emphasis mine) 12. The burden of proof in a case of prescriptive title falls on the party who claims prescriptive title as per Gratiaen J. in Chelliah v. Wijenathan [1951] 54 NLR 337 at 342: “…Where a party invokes the provisions of Section 3 of the Prescription Ordinance in order to defeat the ownership of an adverse claimant to immovable property, the burden of proof rests fairly and squarely on him to establish a starting point for his or her acquisition of prescriptive rights….” 13. In my opinion in the case at hand, the question of law ultimately leads to the issue of whether the Plaintiffs – Respondents can establish 7 continuous, undisturbed and uninterrupted possession for ten years prior to instituting this action. Thereby, the Plaintiffs – Respondents would have to prove to this Court such continuous adverse possession from 10.07.1986 – 10.07.1996 since action was instituted on 10.07.1996. 14. The nature in which possession ought to be held in order to establish a claim of prescription is discussed by Justice Canekeratne in Fernando v. Wijesooriya (1947) 48 NLR 320 at 325, where it was held: “…There must be a corporeal occupation of land attended with a manifest intention to hold and continue it and when the intent plainly is to hold the land against the claim of all other persons, the possession is hostile or adverse to the rights of the true owner. It is the intention to claim the title which makes the possession of the holder of the land adverse; if it be clear that there is no such intention there can be no pretence of an adverse possession. It is necessary to inquire in what manner the person who had been in possession during the time held it, if he held in a character incompatible with the idea that the title remained in the claimant to the property it would follow that the possession in such character was adverse. But it was otherwise if he held in a character compatible with the claimant’s title—his possession may be on behalf of the claimant or may be the possession of the claimant (p. 396 of 40 NLR) or from the conduct of the party’s possession an acknowledgment of a right existing in the claimant could fairly and naturally be inferred.” 15. In this regard, the Plaintiffs – Respondents have made the following submissions in asserting their possession and provided supporting evidence. It is their position that Kadija Umma had been in possession throughout and had acquired prescriptive title even after the date of reconvention marked in the conditional transfer which is 07.04.1963. They submit that although she did not retransfer the land in suit back to her name, she had commenced adverse possession from 07.04.1963 and held such possession until 1986 and that upon her death, her children (the Plaintiffs - Respondents) had then continued such prescriptive possession. Therefore, they maintain the position that they had possessed the land in suit and have also asserted such possession each time it was disturbed by another revealing the intention to hold the land against the claim of all other persons. 8 16. In objecting to the disturbances made by the Substituted Defendant- Appellant, I observe that the Plaintiffs – Respondents have made complaints to the police each time there has been a disturbance by the Defendant – Appellant to their possession. On 27.03.1986, the first instance of disturbance as per Plaintiffs – Respondents, they have made a complaint to the police whereby the hut has been removed by the Substituted Defendant – Appellant. This police complaint is marked “P 9” 17. The next disturbance to their possession as per the Plaintiffs – Respondents was on 14.12.1995 where the Defendant – Appellant had forcefully attempted to divide the land. A complaint regarding the same was made to the Police whereby the attempt has been abandoned. This police complaint is marked “P 10”. 18. The document marked “P 11” is a further police complaint made by the Plaintiffs – Respondents to the Mirigama Police when the Defendants had attempted to fence a portion of the property on 27.01.1996. These complaints demonstrate that the Plaintiffs – Respondents have intended to possess the land as their own and have objected any disturbance by the Substituted Defendant – Appellant in years 1986, 1995, and 1996 thereby asserting their possession. 19. The Substituted Defendant – Appellant has also alleged of such disturbances to his alleged possession in his answer to the Plaint where he has stated that the Plaintiffs – Respondents have forcefully entered into his land and destroyed plantations causing damages amounting to Rupees 285000/-. However, I am unable to find any material to conclude that there was any objection by way of complaints to Police by the Substituted Defendant – Appellant to assert his ownership visà- vis this disturbance, which is an anomalous position for someone allegedly in possession, more so given the extent of damages allegedly suffered. 20. Further, the action bearing No 32505 instituted by the father of the Defendant – Appellant against one Namasekara for destroying rubber plantation in this land in 1989 too has not been pursued and thereby withdrawn by the father of the Substituted Defendant – Appellant. In these circumstances, I am unable to see any material to hold that the predecessors of Substituted Defendant – Appellant have asserted their possession and or their ownership of the land in suit. 9 21. Further, I note that the Substituted Defendant – Appellant has submitted the following position to establish his possession in the land in suit. He takes up the stance that his predecessors had rubber plantations in this land. In this regard, the Substituted Defendant – Appellant has submitted documents marked “V3” which is a document granting B. Daniel Fernando (grandfather of the Substituted Defendant - Appellant) to replant rubber in the land in suit (at page 436 of the brief), “V4” which also is a rubber replanting subsidy scheme for the year 1963 (at page 437 of the brief), “V5” and “V6” which are also in relation to rubber plantation in the land. I observe that all these documents are submitted subject to proof (see page 313 of the brief). While it is submitted by the Substituted Defendant – Appellant that documents “V3” and “V4” are presumed to be proved as per S. 90 of the Evidence Ordinance, owing to the fact that all of the documents aforementioned are subject to proof, I find it difficult to accept the Substituted Defendant – Appellant’s position. 22. The Substituted Defendant – Appellant has further submitted that Deed No.148 dated 01.07.1964 was executed by Daniel Fernando transferring 1/4th of the land described in the 2nd schedule to the plaint, which they rely on as a further assertion of possession. In response to this, the Plaintiffs- Respondents state that Daniel Fernando did not have a beneficial interest in the land as the evidence of the Substituted Defendant – Appellant in page 264 of the brief states that possession has not been handed over to them by the aforementioned Kadija Umma. Nonetheless, since the question at hand is prescriptive possession from the period of 1986 – 1996, I am of the opinion that this position is complementary evidence at best and is therefore not capable of establishing the Substituted Defendant – Appellant’s possession on its own. 23. The Substituted Defendant – Appellant has also submitted document marked “V9” which states that the Substituted Defendant – Appellant had rented out a house situated in the land in suit from March 1994 until August 1994, this document too, is submitted subject to proof. 24. Document “V10” submitted by the Substituted Defendant – Appellant which has been issued by the Regional Office for Rubber Development in Kegalle contains holding details in respect of rubber plantations in the land in suit. The date of registration is noted as 29.08.1991 with a mention of subsidy history in year 1963 for 7 acres. However, with regards to the period that falls within the ambit of the 10 case at hand, 1986 – 1996, this document only reflects a receipt of a certain amount as a subsidy for replanting of rubber for only 3 acres and 3 roods under Mr. B. Amaradasa, the Defendant – Appellant which this Court cannot take as conclusive evidence of possession. It must be noted that this area amounts to about a half of the extent of land claimed by the Defendant – Appellant as a joint owner in his answer to the Plaint as he has initially prayed to be declared a joint owner of the land described in the 3rd schedule to the plaint which amounts to 7 acres. 25. If this Court is to accept document marked “V - 10” as valid evidence, the required period of possession falling within the scope of the case at hand would shift and start from 1991 and end in 2001 which would be affected by the institution of action by the Plaintiffs – Respondents in 1996. Nonetheless, I am of the opinion that it is irrational to establish prescriptive title merely based on one proved document to the effect that he has received subsidies to replant rubber in the absence of any further affirmative action to assert such possession against outsiders, more so given the circumstances of this case where the Plaintiffs – Respondents have repeatedly asserted their possession. 26. Looking at cases decided by this Court on similar matters, I observe that the case facts of Carolis Appu v. Anagihamy [1949 51 NLR 355] are quite identical to the facts of the case at hand. In Carolis Appu v. Anagihamy (supra) even after the land of Carolis Appu was mortgaged and thereafter sold by the mortgagee to a third party, Carolis Appu has continued to possess the land up till action was instituted by the third party holding title to the land. The Court has held that although the third party has title by way of deed, Carolis Appu has established prescriptive rights to the land by way of continuous possession. 27. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Plaintiffs- Respondents have held their possession in a way that is incompatible with that of another and have acted in order to assert such possession against any disturbance both during the period of possession by their mother K.L.M.J.S. Kadeeja Umma and after her death in 1985 until the institution of this action. 11 Further Factual Inconsistencies 28. Further, in examining the evidence provided at the trial, I notice multiple inconsistencies in the version of events by the side of Substituted Defendant – Appellant. Firstly, it is observed that the Substituted Defendant – Appellant was born in 1963 and was abroad from 1989 – 1997 (vide page 292 of the brief). He has admitted to not having personal knowledge of the actualities and to be stating what his father has told him. 29. In this regard, at page 254 of the brief, it is seen that the Substituted Defendant – Appellant has in the cross examination, stated that the building in the land was built in 1997 which he later changes to 1989 (see page 254 of the brief). 30. He has also initially stated that possession was handed over to his grandfather B. Daniel Fernando by the deed bearing No. 10159 marked “V2” (see page 261 of the brief). “!: තමා \'(ක සා+,ෙ./ 01වා ඔ45ව (1ව අවස්ථාෙ9 :ටම ඉඩෙ> ?+@ය තමBෙC Dයට EBන බව උ: ඔ9” However, in page 264 he goes on to admit that possession was not in fact handed over to his grandfather by the said deed. “!: ඒ අJව K+@ය+ බාර EBනාය 0යල 0යන කතාව වැරO කතාව+ ෙBද ඇRත වශෙයBම K+@ය+ බාර EBෙB නැහැ උ: ඔU V(ගBනවා ඒ අවස්ථාෙ9/ම බාර ෙගන නැහැ ඔ45ව (යන අවස්ථාෙ9/ Dයා K+@ය+ බාර ෙගන නැහැ” 31. In contrast, I observe that the position maintained by the Plaintiffs – Respondents to be quite consistent. One Don Susilawathi who occupies the neighboring land, giving evidence on behalf of the Plaintiffs – Respondents has stated that B. Daniel Fernando and Defendant – Appellant were not occupying the land in suit and that her brother, one Karunarathna Denipitiya was employed by the Plaintiffs – Respondents to take care of the land in suit and to work on the rubber plantations. I observe that this position is consistently reflected in the police complaint marked “P 10” and further affirmed through the evidence of Delanka Karunadasa (vide page 220 of the brief). Whereby I am inclined to accept the factual version of the Plaintiffs – Respondents. 32. In these circumstances, I observe that the affirmative action taken by the Plaintiffs – Respondents prove that they have held 12 uninterrupted and undisturbed possession of the land in suit adverse to outsiders. I further observe that the evidence they have submitted in this regard is consistent with their claim and therefore, I am of the opinion that they have acquired prescriptive title to the land in the period 10.07.1986 – 10.07.1996. 33. Therefore, the question of law in subparagraph (b) of paragraph 15 in the Petition dated 27.08.2018 is answered in the negative as this Court is satisfied that the Plaintiffs – Respondents have adversely possessed the land in suit and have asserted such possession repeatedly in the face of any disturbances to the same. The judgment of the District Court dated 03.03.2011 and the High Court judgment dated 16.07.2018 are therefore upheld. 34. Appeal is dismissed, Plaintiffs – Respondents are entitled to costs. Appeal is Dismissed. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE MAHINDA SAMAYAWARDHENA I agree JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE MENAKA WIJESUNDERA I agree JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT		Download
2025-11-07	SC/APPEAL/105/2012	01.Hitihamy Mudiyanselage Tilakaratna Banda Waraddana, Wellawa. 1st Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant 02.Hitihamy Mudiyanselage Punchiralage Ran Banda (Deceased) Waraddana, Wallawa. 02(A). Jayasundara Mudiyanselage Podimenika (Deceased) Waraddana, Wellawa. 02(A)(1). Hitihamy Mudiyanselage Abeyratne Bandara Waraddana, Wellawa. Substituted 2nd Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 01.Hitihamy Mudiyanselage Subarath Menike Rangama, Wellava. 02.Hitihamy Mudiyanselage Punchi Menike Hunupola. 03.Hithihamy Mudiyanselage Sittamma Basnayake “Mawatte”, Deliwala, Rambukkana. 04.Hithihamy Mudiyanselage Pemawathi Wickremaratne No. 121, Municipal Road, Matale 1-4 Defendant-Appellant- Respondents 05.Alkegama Alahakoon Mudiyanselage Wimala Panamaldeniya Kuluhendiwela No.119, Wadakada, Pothuhera. 5th Defendant-Respondent- Respondent View More	Hon. Janak De Silva J		In the matter of an application for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 08/11/2011 of the Civil Appeal High Court of Kurunegala in the case No. NWP/HCCA/KUR/120/2004(F)	Download
2025-11-07	SC/APPEAL/31/2017	National Development Bank Limited Presently called and known as National Development Bank PLC No.40, Nawam Mawatha, Colombo 2. Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Katugaha Bandaranayake Herath Mudiyanselage Conrad Sena Katugaha “Promises”, No. 37/1B, Hospital Road, Melrose Place, Wevatanne, Bandarawela. 2nd Defendant-Respondent- Respondent [deceased] 2A. Christine Jennifer Denis No. 37/1B, Hospital Road, Melrose Place, Wevatanne, Bandarawela. 2B. Micheal Sena Vadim Katugaha No. 37/1B, Hospital Road, Melrose Place, Wevatanne, Bandarawela. 2A and 2B Substituted-Defendant- Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Achala Wengappuli J	THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment pronounced on 12. 10. 2016 by the Civil Appellate High Court of the Western Province sitting in Colombo in terms of Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 54 of 2006 read with Article 127 of the Constitution. National Development Bank Limited No.40, Nawam Mawatha, Colombo 2. Plaintiff S.C. Appeal No.31/2017 SC/HCCA/LA No. 566/2016 Vs. Provincial High Court Appeal Case No. WP/HCCA/COL 84/2011 District Court of Colombo Case No. 17820/MB 1. Kongodage Upul Sampath Ratnaloka Bake House “Ratnaloka” No.01, 2nd Kilo Meter Post, Punagala Road, Bandarawela. 2. Katugaha Bandaranayake Herath Mudiyanselage Conrad Sena Katugaha “Promises”, No. 37/1B, Hospital Road, Melrose Place, Wevatanne, Bandarawela. Defendants S.C. Appeal No. 31/2017 2 In the matter of an Appeal National Development Bank Limited Presently called and known as National Development Bank PLC No.40, Nawam Mawatha, Colombo 2. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Kongodage Upul Sampath Ratnaloka Bake House “Ratnaloka” No.01, 2nd Kilo Meter Post, Punagala Road, Bandarawela. 1st Defendant-Respondent 2. Katugaha Bandaranayake Herath Mudiyanselage Conrad Sena Katugaha “Promises”, No. 37/1B, Hospital Road, Melrose Place, Wevatanne, Bandarawela. 2nd Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN National Development Bank Limited Presently called and known as National Development Bank PLC No.40, Nawam Mawatha, Colombo 2. Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. S.C. Appeal No. 31/2017 3 Katugaha Bandaranayake Herath Mudiyanselage Conrad Sena Katugaha “Promises”, No. 37/1B, Hospital Road, Melrose Place, Wevatanne, Bandarawela. 2nd Defendant-Respondent- Respondent AND NOW IN THE MATTER OF A SUBSTITUTION BY AND BETWEEN National Development Bank Limited Presently called and known as National Development Bank PLC No.40, Nawam Mawatha, Colombo 2. Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Katugaha Bandaranayake Herath Mudiyanselage Conrad Sena Katugaha “Promises”, No. 37/1B, Hospital Road, Melrose Place, Wevatanne, Bandarawela. 2nd Defendant-Respondent- Respondent [deceased] 2A. Christine Jennifer Denis No. 37/1B, Hospital Road, Melrose Place, Wevatanne, Bandarawela. S.C. Appeal No. 31/2017 4 2B. Micheal Sena Vadim Katugaha No. 37/1B, Hospital Road, Melrose Place, Wevatanne, Bandarawela. 2A and 2B Substituted-Defendant- Respondent-Respondent *********** BEFORE : P. PADMAN SURASENA, CJ. A.H.M.D. NAWAZ , J. ACHALA WENGAPPULI, J. COUNSEL : Geethaka Goonewardena P.C. with Rishan Vidanapathirana for the Plaintiff- Appellant-Petitioner- Appellant. Dr. Sunil Cooray with Sudarshani Cooray for the 2A and 2B substituted Defendant-Respondent- Respondents ARGUED ON : 14th July, 2021 DECIDED ON : 07th November, 2025 ACHALA WENGAPPULI, J. The Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff Bank) filed an action before the District Court of Colombo to recover a sum of Rs. 496,568.50 with interest fixed at 12.58 % per annum, and also a sum of Rs. 1,215,032.67 per annum and legal interest, from the 1st Defendant-Respondent and the 2nd Defendant-Respondent- S.C. Appeal No. 31/2017 5 Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 1st and 2nd Defendants) on the basis they are jointly and severally liable to pay. The 1st Defendant did not appear before the District Court. The Court proceeded to try the 1st Defendant ex parte. The 2nd Defendant contested the claim against him. After trial, the trial Court dismissed the action of the Plaintiff Bank in relation to the 2nd Defendant. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the Plaintiff Bank preferred an appeal to the Provincial High Court. The Provincial High Court of Civil Appeal proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the Plaintiff Bank after affirming the judgment of the trial Court. Thereupon, the Plaintiff Bank sought Leave to Appeal from this Court against the judgment of the Provincial High Court of Civil Appeal. After affording a hearing to the parties, this Court, on 15.02.2017, decided to grant Leave to Proceed to the Plaintiff Bank on the following questions of law: a. In civil actions, upon production of a Letter of Demand as evidence by the Plaintiff; i. Does the burden of proof shift to the Defendant to establish and/or lead evidence that it was not received by him? ii. Does the burden of proof shift back to the Plaintiff only if the Defendant elicits evidence that he had not received such letter? b. Was there any evidence before Court to determine that the Letters of Demand had not been sent to the Defendants, when the S.C. Appeal No. 31/2017 6 2nd Defendant had failed and/or refused to give evidence to the effect that he had not received such Letters of Demand? c. Has the Provincial High Court of the Western Province erred in law in holding that the letter P29 cannot be considered as a reply to Letters of Demand P25 & P28 [ both dated 06.06.2005], when there was no evidence to the contrary given by the Defendant to the effect that P29 was in reply to some other letter? d. Has the Provincial High Court of the Western Province erred in law in properly evaluating the evidence led in the case? The learned President’s Counsel, in his submissions to this Court, contended on behalf of the Plaintiff Bank that the two causes of action on which the Defendants were sued, accrued when the Defendants defaulted payment of loan instalments that are due at the end of each month. Therefore, in the absence of an “on demand” clause in the mortgage bond, there was no necessity for the Plaintiff Bank to make a demand to any of the Defendants, by way of a Letter of Demand addressed and served on them. In support of the said contention, the learned President’s Counsel relied on a particular section of text quoted from the treatise on The Law of Contracts, by Professor C.G. Weeramantry, where it is stated (Vol. 2, Section 874, page 834) “[A] bond for the performance of an agreement becomes prescribed ten years from the breach of conditions but not otherwise …”. The learned Counsel for the 2nd Defendant, submitted that his consistent position before the trial Court was that he did not receive any of the two Letters of Demand said to have been sent by the Plaintiff Bank under registered cover, and as such no demand had been made in terms of the applicable conditions of the loan transaction. During the trial, the 2nd S.C. Appeal No. 31/2017 7 Defendant disputed the contents of the letters informing him of any dues, or the Letters of Demand, which were all therefore marked subject to proof. But the Plaintiff Bank failed to prove any such document by calling relevant witnesses. When the two contrasting positions presented to the trial Court by the Plaintiff Bank as well as the 2nd Defendant are considered after placing them side by side, it must be observed that the contention presented before this Court by the former was not the position taken before the trial Court. The Plaintiff Bank, although now takes up the position that no demand was necessary for its cause of action to accrue against the 2nd Defendant, the case presented by it before the trial Court, was in fact made on the basis that such demands were made, which the 2nd Defendant chose to ignore. But before I proceed to consider them, it is necessary to make a brief reference to the transaction history between the parties that led to the institution of the instant action. The 1st Defendant secured two loan facilities from the Plaintiff Bank in the sums of Rs. 700,000.00 and Rs. 200,000.00, upon accepting the terms and conditions contained in the Offer Letter dated 09.07.2002 (P2). These two loans were secured by the property belonging to the 2nd Defendant, who pledged the same to the Plaintiff Bank as a primary mortgage. On 09.07.2002, the 2nd Defendant entered into an Immovable Bond No. 511, in respect of the said property with the Plaintiff Bank. On 16.11.2006, the 1st Defendant obtained another loan facility from the Plaintiff Bank on top of the one he had already obtained, along with the 2nd Defendant, by S.C. Appeal No. 31/2017 8 presenting themselves as the “BORROWERS”, in terms of another Letter of Offer (P10). The 2nd Defendant signed on a secondary mortgage bond No. 291 as an “OBLIGOR” on the same day and thereby pledged the same property to the Plaintiff Bank to secure the said subsequent facility also. The 2nd Defendant also executed Deed of Renunciation No. 292, by which he renounced the benefit of Section 46 of the Mortgage Act as amended, along with mortgage bond No. 291. These loans were obtained by the 1st Defendant for the purpose of upgrading his bakery industry. The 1st Defendant who owned the bakery, was married to the 2nd Defendant’s daughter. After several instalments were paid on these facilities, it is alleged that the Defendants have defaulted. The several attempts made by the Plaintiff Bank to secure payment of the defaulted loan instalments from either the 1st and/or the 2nd Defendants, even after engaging them in a series of correspondence, proved unsuccessful. In the continued failure on the part of the Defendants to fulfil their payment obligations, the Plaintiff Bank thereupon issued several Letters of Demand on them. But there was no attempt made on the part of the Defendants to comply with any of these demands. Eventually, the Plaintiff Bank decided to sue the two Defendants “jointly and severally” on two causes of action. The Plaintiff Bank filed its Plaint in the District Court of Colombo on 25.10.2006. In paragraph 10 of the said Plaint, the Plaintiff Bank averred that “… after giving credit for the part payments made by the Defendants as at 30.09.2006 there is a sum of Rs. 496,568.50 due owing and payable from the Defendants to the Plaintiff as shown in the Statement of Accounts filed herewith marked as “P5” which sum or any part thereof the Defendants have failed and neglected to pay and settle the Plaintiff S.C. Appeal No. 31/2017 9 though thereto obliged to and though thereto demanded.” In paragraph 19 of the Plaint the Plaintiff Bank also averred that “… after giving credit for the part payments made by the Defendants as at 30.09.2006 there is a sum of Rs. 1,215, 032.67 due owing and payable from the Defendants to the Plaintiff as shown in the Statement of Accounts filed herewith marked as “P8” which sum or any part thereof the Defendants have failed and neglected to pay and settle to the Plaintiff though thereto obliged to and though thereto demanded”. Since the question of law in relation to this aspect is pivoted on the fact of production of Letters of Demand sent by the Plaintiff Bank to the 2nd Defendant during the trial, the determination on whom the burden of proof of service of those Letters of Demand lies, is very relevant at this stage, in order to inquire into the position taken up by the 2nd Defendant, in view of the nature of evidence presented before the trial Court. This is a necessary task that must be undertaken even before this Court proceeds to analyse the impugned judgment of the Provincial High Court of Civil Appeal along with the judgment of the trial Court, in the light of the contentions presented by the Plaintiff Bank. The 2nd Defendant, in his answer has taken up the position that he did not receive any of the Letters of Demand said to have been sent under registered cover by the Plaintiff Bank. In his answer, the 2nd Defendant averred (at paragraph 13) that “ fuu ú;a;slre ;jÿrg;a lshd isákafka” fuu kvqj mejrSug m%:u fy`” 1 jk ú;a;slre wod< f.ùï fkdf.jd meyer yers wjia:djloS tlS uqo,a m%udKhla fuu ú;a;slref.ka fmr b,a,Sula u.ska meñKs,slre b,a,d fkdisàu u; flfiaj;a meñKs,slreg fuu ú;a;slreg tfrysj meñKs,a, mjrd mj;ajdf.k hd fkdyels nj fuu ú;a;slre lshd isà”. S.C. Appeal No. 31/2017 10 In line with the position taken up in his answer by the 2nd Defendant, issues Nos. 14(1) and 14(2) were raised by him to the effect that whether, prior to the institution of the action, the Plaintiff Bank demanded from the 2nd Defendant the payment of relevant sum, defaulted by the 1st Defendant, and if not, could the Plaintiff Bank have and maintain the action against the 2nd Defendant. After trial, in dismissing the action of the Plaintiff Bank against the 2nd Defendant, the trial Court, in its judgment answered issues No. 14(1) as “not demanded” and issues No. 14(2) as “cannot maintain the action”. The examination of the process of reasoning, adopted by the trial Court to provide the said answers, indicated that the Letters of Demand, marked as P27 and P28 were marked subject to proof but the Plaintiff Bank failed to present relevant evidence to establish that they were in fact sent to the 2nd Defendant informing him of the amount demanded from him. The trial Court also considered the letter dated 11.06.2005 (P29), sent by the 2nd Defendant to the Plaintiff Bank “without prejudice” and decided that it could not be accepted as a document that indicated the 2nd Defendant was duly notified by the Plaintiff Bank of its demand for payment by Letters of Demand P27 and P28. The appeal preferred by the Plaintiff Bank against the said judgment was dismissed by the Provincial High Court of Civil Appeal after affirming the said line of reasoning and the conclusion reached thereupon by the trial Court. The Appellate Court also rejected the submission of the Plaintiff Bank that the contents of the letter P29, although sent with the qualification “without prejudice”, could be relied upon, provided that it was not written with a view to settling the dispute. The Court concluded S.C. Appeal No. 31/2017 11 that in fact P29 was written by the 2nd Defendant to achieve that very purpose. I now turn to the question of law that this Court is called on to answer, in relation to Letters of Demand, which reads as follows; “In civil actions, upon production of a Letter of Demand as evidence by the Plaintiff; i. Does the burden of proof shift to the Defendant to establish and/or lead evidence that it was not received by him? ii. Does the burden of proof shift back to the Plaintiff only if the Defendant elicits evidence that he had not received such letter?” The question of law on this particular aspect of the appeal commenced with the sentence; “[I]n civil actions, upon production of a Letter of Demand as evidence by the Plaintiff…”. It appears that the said question of law was framed rather in an abstract form, as it does not make any reference to the circumstances presented before this Court in the instant appeal. The set of circumstances that were considered by the Courts below, in order to arrive at their respective findings, are now being impugned in these proceedings. The words “[I]n civil actions, upon production of a Letter of Demand as evidence by the Plaintiff…” creates the impression in one’s mind, if an answer is provided by this Court to same, that pronouncement would meant to be applicable to the whole gamut of civil actions, rather than an answer provided to an action based on a particular set of facts and S.C. Appeal No. 31/2017 12 circumstances, on which the lower Courts have applied relevant principles of law, when arriving at their respective findings. It is already noted that the learned President’s Counsel contended that the Plaintiff Bank was not under any obligation to make a demand of the sums due to it. It was submitted that as and when the monies became due on a specific date, in terms of the agreement, the failure of the Defendants to fulfil their part, accrues the requisite cause of action. In the preceding paragraphs, dealing with the factual situation, it was already noted that the averments contained in paragraphs 10 and 19 of the Plaint have indeed described the manner in which the two causes of action were accrued on the Defendants. The action was founded on the fact that demands were made but disregarded. With both these averments, the Plaintiff Bank presented its case on the footing that it had, in fact made demands of the sums due, as mentioned in the several Letters of Demand (P25, P26, P27, P28, P32 and P33) sent to the two Defendants, which they have chosen to ignore. This is indicative from the words that “…the Defendants have failed and neglected to pay and settle to the Plaintiff though thereto obliged to and though thereto demanded.” The reliance placed on the Letters of Demand issued on the Defendants in order to institute an action against them was not due to an oversight on the part of the Plaintiff Bank but for a very valid reason. The Letters of Offer (P2 and P10), by which the two Defendants have undertaken the terms and conditions under which the loan facilities were disbursed by the Plaintiff Bank, contained a clause with the title “Breach by the Borrowers” that read (Clause 7) “ [I]n the event of the Borrowers S.C. Appeal No. 31/2017 13 committing any breach of the terms and conditions set out therein the Bank shall be entitled at any time to cancel the facilities and to demand and recover payments of all its claims on the BORROWERS” (emphasis added). Similarly, the Immovable Bond No. 511 (P6A) also contained in Clause 8(d) that “… in the event of the OBLIGOR and/or MORTGAGOR committing any breach of the terms and conditions set out herein the BANK shall at any time to cancel the facilities and to demand and recover payments of all its claims on the OBLIGOR” (emphasis added). The Immovable Bond No. 511 (P6A), by which the 2nd Defendant pledged his property as security too contained a similar undertaking by the Plaintiff Bank. In Clause 8(d) of P6A, it was agreed among parties that “… in the event of the OBLIGOR and/or the MORTGAGOR committing any breach of the terms of conditions set out herein the BANK shall be entitled at any time to cancel the facilities and to demand and recover payment of all of its claims on the OBLIGOR” (emphasis added). Thus, in the event of any breach of the terms and conditions contained in any of these instruments by the Defendants, it was obligatory on the part of the Plaintiff Bank to make demand of payments from them. Moreover, this factor is further confirmed upon perusal of the Immovable Bond No. 511 (P6A) which also contained a Clause, stating that if any notice or demand were to be made on any of the parties, the manner in which such notice or demand shall be served. The said Clause 5(i) of P6A, reads as follows; “ … that every notice or demand under these presents may be effectually made by notice in writing and every such notice S.C. Appeal No. 31/2017 14 summons or any legal process of any kind whatsoever in connection with any action suit or other proceeding taken under these presents shall be taken and be deemed to have been duly served on the OBLIGOR and the MORTGAGOR if the same be sent by post under registered cover addressed to the OBLIGOR to its registered office at Sole Proprietor of “Rathnaloka Bake House”, at No.37/1B, Hospital Road, Melrose Place, Wevathanne, Bandarawela and to the MORTGAGOR to No. 37/1B, Hospital Road, Melrose Place, Wevathanne, Bandarawela”. In its impugned judgment, the Provincial High Court of Civil Appeal considered this aspect in detail. The appellate Court, having quoted from Prof Weeramantry’s treatise ( supra) where it was stated “[A] bond for the performance of an agreement becomes prescribed ten years from the breach of conditions but not otherwise and prescription will not begin to run until a demand for performance has been made and refused”, and reminded itself of the general principle enunciated in the judgment of Seylan Bank Ltd., v Intertrade Garments (Pvt) Ltd., (2005) 1 Sri L.R. 80 (at p. 87-88), proceeded to hold that “ … proof of demand as a precursor to filing the action is a sine qua non for successful prosecution of the same.” In view of the several factors referred to in the preceding paragraphs, I am of the considered view that the Provincial High Court of Civil Appeal was correct in making the said determination. Thus, it was incumbent upon the Plaintiff Bank to establish the fact that it was more probable that it had made the demand from the 2nd Defendant by sending Letters of Demand P27 and P28 under registered cover to the specified S.C. Appeal No. 31/2017 15 address set out in the Letters of Offer. With that conclusion, I next turn to the evidence presented by the Plaintiff Bank in discharging that burden. There was no dispute to the fact that the 2nd Defendant had resided at all times at the address given in that instrument (P6A), to which all notices or, more importantly the demands, could have been sent under registered cover. During the examination in chief of the witness, called and relied on by the Plaintiff Bank, who gave evidence on this aspect of the case as to the compliance of this requirement. According to him, the Defendants have defaulted the payment of loan instalments and as such “ tfia fkdf.ùu u; 2005’06’06 jk osk 1 jk ú;a;slreg;a” 2jk ú;a;slreg;a” tka;rjdis folla hjd ;sfnkjd th me25 iy me 26 f,i ,l=Kq lr isákjd’ me25 iy me 26 msgm;a hjd ;sfnkjd 2jk ú;a;slreg’ ^ me25 iy me 26 Tmamq lsrSfï ndrhg hg;aj ndr.kakd f,i b,a,d isà’& me25 iy me 26 tka;rjdis hjd ;sfnkafka fï kvqfõ 1jk kvq ksñ;a; iïnkaOfhka whúh hq;= uqo,a i\|yd’ 2jk ksñ;af;a whúh hq;= uqo,a i\|yd 1” 2 ú;a;slrejkag cqks iy cQ,s ,sms folla hjd ;sfnkjd’” It is clear from that evidence, that the witness was not personally involved with either the preparation of the said Letters of Demand or was involved with the posting of the same under registered cover to the address of the 2nd Defendant. In the absence of any personal involvement, the witness obviously had to rely on a record kept by the Plaintiff Bank to make that statement. However, during cross-examination, when the 2nd Defendant questioned the witness over the service of Letters of Demand, he answered that question in the following manner; “ m%%( ;ukag tfia fuu me 32 iy 33 f,aLK ú;a;slrejkag hejqj lshkak hïlsis idCIshla .re wêlrKhg ,ehsia;=.; lr,d ;sfhkjdo@ W( ta .ek uu fkdokS’ m%%( uu ;ukag fh`ckd lr isákafka fï me 32 iy 33 lshk f,aLK S.C. Appeal No. 31/2017 16 ú;a;slrejka fj; hejqj kï” ta iïnkaOfhka ;ud lsisÿ idCIshla ;udf.a f,aLK ,ehsia;=j i\|yd ;ud f.dkq lr kE lsh,@ W( uu fkdfjhs f.dkq lf<a kS;S{ uy;a;hd’ ta .ek uu fkdokS’” This segment of evidence, reproduced above from the witness’s testimony for the Plaintiff Bank, is indicative of the position that there were no records available with the bank for the witness to make that factual statement, when he sought to affirm the fact of posting Letters of Demand to the 2nd Defendant’s address. The only reference made to this issue during re-examination of the witness was to ask him whether the Defendant had admitted the receipt of the Letters of Demand. Since the trial Court considered only the Letters of Demand, marked as P27 and P28, it is prudent to examine the contents of these letters in relation to the issue at hand. P27 is a Letter of Demand issued on 06.07.2005, whereas P28, the other Letter of Demand, was issued on 06.06.2005. Both these letters, carry the names and addresses of the 1st and 2nd Defendants and, are titled “tka;rjdish”. The letters also contain the words to denote that they are sent under registered cover. Other than these two documents and the brief oral account of the witness, there is no other evidence presented by the Plaintiff Bank for the consideration of Court that it had fulfilled its part of the obligation by making a formal ‘demand’ from the 2nd Defendant. The issue as to whether there was a demand made from the 2nd Defendant or not had been a disputed fact in issue since the institution of the action which continued to the trial. In line with the position taken up by the 2nd Defendant in his answer, issues Nos. 14(1) and 14(2) were raised S.C. Appeal No. 31/2017 17 by him and the trial Court were to make a determination on those issues. The Plaintiff Bank was adequately placed on notice by the 2nd Defendant that he disputes the fact that a demand was made. As already noted earlier on in this judgment, these two issues were raised by the 2nd Defendant to the effect; that whether, prior to the institution of the action, the Plaintiff Bank demanded the relevant sum from the 2nd Defendant, and if not, could the Plaintiff Bank have and maintain the instant action against the 2nd Defendant. The Plaintiff Bank had ample notice of the fact that the 2nd Defendant disputes the reception of the Letters of Demand said to have been sent to his address. But the Plaintiff Bank was complacent with the sufficiency of evidence it had presented before the trial Court, which are reproduced above, and apparently expected the trial Court to answer those two issues against the 2nd Defendant. These two documents, by their mere appearance, seem to be photo copies of the original Letters of Demand, which were said to have been sent to the two Defendants by the Plaintiff Bank. Section 61 of the Evidence Ordinance states that the contents of documentary evidence may be proved either by primary evidence or by secondary evidence. Section 63(2) makes such photo copies made from the original, qualify to be taken as secondary evidence of the original, as such copies were made from the original, by a mechanical process, which in itself ensures the accuracy of the copy. Since the originals of P27 and P28 are expected to be in the custody of the 2nd Defendant, after being delivered to him under registered cover to his address, the Plaintiff Bank had the opportunity to make an application to Court to issue notice on the 2nd Defendant, under Section 66 of that Ordinance. This is because Section 66 restricts the admissibility of S.C. Appeal No. 31/2017 18 secondary evidence of a document, unless the party proposing to give such secondary evidence has previously given to the party in whose possession the document is, notice to produce it. There was no such evidence placed before the trial Court by the Plaintiff Bank that the photo copy of the original, in the absence of the original, should be received in evidence, due to the failure of the 2nd Defendant to produce the same, even after notice was issued on him to do so. In addition to these multiple factors tend to indicate that the Letters of Demand P27 and P28 were not properly admitted as evidence before the trial Court. More importantly, it must also be noted that the 2nd Defendant objected to these Letters of Demand being produced and admitted in evidence, when the witness for the Plaintiff Bank tendered them in trial Court. They were accordingly tendered to Court by the Plaintiff Bank with the qualification “subject to proof”. The said objection of the 2nd Defendant to receive the Letters of Demand as admissible evidence was once more taken at the close of the case of the Plaintiff Bank. Section 162 of the Civil Procedure Code states that when a document, the admission of which is objected to, is put forward as the copy of an absent original, it is not proved until both such evidence as is sufficient to prove the correctness of the copy, and also such evidence as would be sufficient to prove the original, had it been tendered instead of the copy, has been given. In the absence of such evidence to satisfy the trial Court by proving the correctness of the copy as well as to prove the original, the trial Court rightly answered the issues Nos. 14(1) and 14(2) in favour of the 2nd Defendant and against the Plaintiff Bank. In appeal, this finding of fact was affirmed by the Provincial S.C. Appeal No. 31/2017 19 High Court of Civil Appeal which decided to dismiss the appeal, preferred by the Plaintiff Bank against the judgment of the trial Court. In view of the reasoning contained in the preceding paragraphs, I am of the opinion that the Courts below have acted rightly in terms of the applicable principles of law in coming to the conclusions they did eventually reach on this particular point. Those Courts have reached the said conclusions after applying those very principles to the factual assertions made by the witness for the Plaintiff Bank. The requirement of establishing the assertion made by the 2nd Defendant that none of the Letters of Demand were received by him arises, only after the Plaintiff Bank fulfilled its part by establishing that the two letters, which informed him of the demand to pay were posted to the address given, in compliance with the terms and conditions contained in the Letters of Offer and the Immovable Bond No. 511. The 2nd Defendant pointed out during his submissions that neither the testimony of the Attorney-at-Law who prepared the Letters of Demand nor the receipts of posting were offered as evidence tendered before Court in support of the position that a demand had been made. In the absence of any admissible evidence presented before the trial Court by the Plaintiff Bank, in order to establish that the Letters of Demand P27 and P28 were sent to the address of the 2nd Defendant under registered cover, as required in terms of the applicable terms and conditions with regard to the granting of loan facilities, there cannot arise a corresponding obligation imposed on the latter to establish the negative. Therefore, the contention presented by the Plaintiff Bank that, by the S.C. Appeal No. 31/2017 20 marking of Letters of Demand through its witness prima facie establishes that those letters were sent to the address of the 2nd Defendant under registered cover cannot succeed. The factual position of the instant appeal is clearly distinguishable to the ones on which Edrick Silva v Chandadasa 70 NLR 169, Cinemas Ltd v Soundararajan (1998) 2 Sri L.R. 19, Rajapakshe v Weerakoon (SC Appeal No. 120/09 – decided on 01.08.2017 and Chandra Gunasekara v Peoples Bank 2020 [B.L.R] 143 were decided and the principle enunciated in them, to the effect where one party to a litigation leads prima facie evidence and the adversary fails to lead contradicting evidence by cross-examination and also fails to lead evidence in rebuttal, then it is a matter falling within the definition of the word ‘proof’ in the Evidence Ordinance. Moving on to the other contention of the Plaintiff Bank that the 2nd Defendant had admitted the receipt of the Letters of Demand by his reply letter marked P29, which was sent under “without prejudice” by the 2nd Defendant fulfils the requirement of the demand being made. The learned President’s Counsel placed heavy reliance on the judgment of Oceanbulk Shipping & Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd., and Others [2010] UKSC 44, where the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom considered the exceptions to the “without prejudice rule”. Before considering the contention of the Plaintiff Bank that the contents of letter P29, qualify to be considered as an exception to the said rule, as it was written in reply to the Letters of Demand P27 and P28, it is necessary to make a superficial reference to the contents of each of these documents. S.C. Appeal No. 31/2017 21 P27 is a Letter of Demand which carries the date 06.07.2005. It demands Rs. 1,001,645.48 from the 1st and 2nd Defendants as the dues from the capital and interest of a loan of Rs, 1,000,000.00 with an annual interest rate of 15.5%. It is addressed to the 1st and 2nd Defendants. Letter of Demand P28 is dated 06.06.2005. It is a letter through which the Plaintiff Bank demanded from the 1st and 2nd Defendants a sum of Rs. 988,872.54 due to it over a loan facility of Rs. 1,000,000.00 with an annual interest rate of 15.5%. Letter P29 is a letter written by the 2nd Defendant addressed to the Plaintiff Bank with an insertion of the words “without prejudice” at its top part. This letter was written by the 2nd Defendant as a reply to two letters he received from the Plaintiff Bank dated 06.06.2005. It speaks of three loans. The amounts of these loans that are indicated by the 2nd Defendant in P29 refer to Rs. 1,000,000.00, Rs. 700,000.00 and Rs. 200,000.00 respectively. P29 is dated 11.06.2005. Of the two Letters of Demand sent by the Plaintiff Bank, only P28 predates the letter P29. P27, carrying a date of 06.07.2005 sent only after P29 was written by the 2nd Defendant. Thus, even if the contents of P29 are accepted as an admission of the demand made by the Plaintiff Bank by ignoring the fact that it was written without prejudice, it then applies to the Letter of Demand P28 only. Letter of Demand P28 refers to a loan of Rs. 1,000,000,00. But the 2nd Defendant, in replying to two letters dated 06.06.2005 refers to three loans of Rs. 1,000,000.00., Rs. 700,000.00 and Rs. 200,000.00 granted to the 1st Defendant. Of the copies of many Letters of Demand, tendered to Court as P25, P26, P27, P28, P32 and P33, only P25 and P28 are dated 06.06.2005. P25 is addressed to the 1st Defendant S.C. Appeal No. 31/2017 22 informing of the demand of the Plaintiff Bank. The name of the 2nd Defendant only appears at the end of the letter and that too after the signature of the Attorney-at-Law, indicating it was sent to him, merely for the purpose of being a recipient of a copy of that letter. Therefore, P25 cannot be taken as a Letter of Demand by which the 2nd Defendant was called upon by the Plaintiff Bank to make payments of the dues he owed to the latter. It is interesting to note that in P25 there is reference to three loans obtained and the demand made over them from the 1st Defendant. Letter of Demand P28 refers to a demand made to recover dues of a loan of Rs. 1,000,000.00 and it does not make any reference to any other loan facilities granted either to the 2nd Defendant or to the 1st Defendant. The 2nd Defendant clearly referred to in P29 that he replies to both letters dated 06.06.2005, which indicated that he was granted three loans, a fact he disputed in the said reply. Thus, it is more likely that P29 was not sent, as a reply to P28, but in reply to two other letters received by the 2nd Defendant, which is in line with his claim that he never received P27 and P28. The trial Court considered these factors in its determination of the issues Nos. 14(1) and 14(2) and the Provincial High Court of Civil Appeal concurred with the view taken by the trial Court that P29 does not contain any admission on the part of the 2nd Defendant that he did receive Letters of Demand P27 and P28. The conclusions reached by the Courts below are the reasonable conclusions that could be reached on the available evidence and therefore are affirmed. In view of these findings, this Court finds no necessity to consider the instances where the Courts would make an exception to the general rule applied on letters written subject to “without S.C. Appeal No. 31/2017 23 prejudice” for the reason highlighted by Lord Clarke quoting Lord Hope (as reproduced in para 28 of the judgment of Oceanbulk Shipping & Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd., and Others); “The essence of [the rule] lies in the nature of the protection that is given to parties when they are attempting to negotiate a compromise. It is the ability to speak freely that indicates where the limits of the rule should lie. Far from being mechanistic, the rule is generous in its application. It recognises that unseen dangers may lurk behind things said or written during tis period, and it removes the inhibiting effect that this may have in the interests of promoting attempts to achieve a settlement. It is not to be defeated by other considerations of public policy which may emerge later, such as those suggested in this case, that would deny them that protection.” In these circumstances and in view of the above reasoning; the questions of law that were raised by the Plaintiff Bank in relation to the instant appeal are answered as follows; a. In civil actions, upon production of a Letter of Demand as evidence by the Plaintiff; i. Does the burden of proof shift to the Defendant to establish and/or lead evidence that it was not received by him? In view of the fact that the Plaintiff Bank had failed to establish the demand was made to the 2nd S.C. Appeal No. 31/2017 24 Defendant, this question does not arise for consideration in relation to the instant matter. ii. Does the burden of proof shift back to the Plaintiff only if the Defendant elicits evidence that he had not received such letter? In view of the answer provided to the previous question, this question too does not arise for consideration. b. Was there any evidence before Court to determine that the Letters of Demand had not been sent to the Defendants, when the 2nd Defendant had failed and/or refused to give evidence to the effect that he had not received such Letters of Demand? There was no evidence that the Letters of Demand were sent to the 2nd Defendant. c. Has the Provincial High Court of the Western Province erred in law in holding that the letter P29 cannot be considered as a reply to Letters of Demand P25 & P28 [ both dated 06.06.2005], when there was no evidence to the contrary given by the Defendant to the effect that P29 was in reply to some other letter? The Provincial High Court of the Western Province made no error in law in holding that P29 cannot be considered as a reply to Letters of Demand P25 and P28. S.C. Appeal No. 31/2017 25 d. Has the Provincial High Court of the Western Province erred in law in properly evaluating the evidence led in the case? The Provincial High Court of the Western Province made no error in law or in fact, in evaluating the evidence led in the case. The judgment of the Provincial High Court of Civil Appeal is therefore affirmed along with that of the District Court and the appeal of the Plaintiff Bank is accordingly dismissed. I make no order as to costs. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT P. PADMAN SURASENA, CJ. I agree. CHIEF JUSTICE A.H.M.D. NAWAZ, J. I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT		Download
2025-11-06	SC/APPEAL/10/2020	H.M.A. Ruwan Ravindranath, No. 13/16, Ariyawansa Mawatha, Kanthale. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. R. Prageeth Indrarathna Rupasinghe, No. 17, Wan-Ela, Kanthale. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-11-06	SC/FR/17/2016	Sooriyapperumalage Ashoka Abeysiri, No. 116, Ya􀆟yana, Ni􀆩ambuwa. PETITIONER Vs. 1. The Chairman, Lanka Phosphate Limited. 1A. Anil Ranasinghe, Chairman, Lanka Phosphate Limited. 1AA. Sujeewa Indrajith Karunasinghe, Chairman, Lanka Phosphate Limited. 2. H.R.U.D. Bandara, General Manager, Lanka Phosphate Limited. 3. D.G.U. Chamara, Finance Manager, Lanka Phosphate Limited. 4. S.D. Rupasinghe, Deputy Finance Manager, Lanka Phosphate Limited. 5. Lanka Phosphate Limited. 1st – 5th Respondents at No. 73/1/1, New Kelani Bridge Road, Colombo 14. 6. R.M. Madduma Bandara, Supplies Officer, Lanka Phosphate Limited, Eppawela. 7. Hon. A􀆩orney General, A􀆩orney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 8. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Colombo 01. 9. The Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Ba􀆩aramulla. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Arjuna Obeyesekere J	IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the ma􀆩er of an applica􀆟on under Ar􀆟cles 17 and 126 of the Cons􀆟tu􀆟on of the Democra􀆟c Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka SC (FR) Applica􀆟on No: 17/2016 Sooriyapperumalage Ashoka Abeysiri, No. 116, Ya􀆟yana, Ni􀆩ambuwa. PETITIONER Vs. 1. The Chairman, Lanka Phosphate Limited. 1A. Anil Ranasinghe, Chairman, Lanka Phosphate Limited. 1AA. Sujeewa Indrajith Karunasinghe, Chairman, Lanka Phosphate Limited. 2. H.R.U.D. Bandara, General Manager, Lanka Phosphate Limited. 3. D.G.U. Chamara, Finance Manager, Lanka Phosphate Limited. 4. S.D. Rupasinghe, Deputy Finance Manager, Lanka Phosphate Limited. 5. Lanka Phosphate Limited. 1st – 5th Respondents at No. 73/1/1, New Kelani Bridge Road, Colombo 14. 6. R.M. Madduma Bandara, Supplies Officer, Lanka Phosphate Limited, Eppawela. 2 7. Hon. A􀆩orney General, A􀆩orney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 8. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Colombo 01. 9. The Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Ba􀆩aramulla. RESPONDENTS Before: Mahinda Samayawardhena, J Arjuna Obeyesekere, J M. Sampath K. B Wijeratne, J Counsel: D. P. L. A Kashyapa Perera for the Pe􀆟􀆟oner Chathura Galhena with Dharani Weerasinghe and Devmini Bulegoda for the 1st – 5th Respondents Sureka Ahmed, Senior State Counsel for the 7th – 9th Respondents Argued on: 17th September 2025 Wri􀆩en Tendered by the Pe􀆟􀆟oner on 26th July 2019, 19th July 2023 and 2nd Submissions: October 2025 Tendered by the 1st – 5th Respondents on 14th October 2025 Decided on: 6th November 2025 Obeyesekere, J 1) There are two issues that arise for determina􀆟on in this applica􀆟on. The first is whether the post of Supplies Manager in Lanka Phosphate Limited, a State owned enterprise and the 5th Respondent to this applica􀆟on, is a post that has been approved by the Department of Management Services. The second issue is, if so, is the failure on the part of the 5th Respondent to pay the Pe􀆟􀆟oner the salary that is payable for the post of Supplies Manager viola􀆟ve of the fundamental rights of the Pe􀆟􀆟oner guaranteed by Ar􀆟cle 12(1) of the Cons􀆟tu􀆟on. 3 The case for the Pe􀆟􀆟oner 2) The Pe􀆟􀆟oner holds a degree in Business Management from the University of Kelaniya. Having served as an audit supervisor in the private sector, the Pe􀆟􀆟oner had joined the 5th Respondent as a Supplies Officer (Execu􀆟ve Grade VI) with effect from 3rd January 2005. 3) In November 2013, the Pe􀆟􀆟oner had submi􀆩ed a memorandum to the Chairman of the 5th Respondent in which he requested that he be appointed to the post of Supplies Manager (Execu􀆟ve Grade II). In the said Memorandum, the Pe􀆟􀆟oner had stated that: (a) In the absence of a Supplies Manager, he has performed the func􀆟ons in that office although he was only the Supplies Officer, thus ensuring the effec􀆟ve func􀆟oning of the Supplies Division; (b) Although he is holding a post in Execu􀆟ve Grade VI, his professional qualifica􀆟ons and experience are sufficient for him to be appointed to a post in Execu􀆟ve Grade II. 4) Having taken into considera􀆟on the said request of the Pe􀆟􀆟oner and his experience, commitment and exper􀆟se, the Ac􀆟ng General Manager of the 5th Respondent had submi􀆩ed a Memorandum to the Board of Directors in December 2013 [the Board] recommending the appointment of the Pe􀆟􀆟oner to the post of Supplies Manager, and sought the approval of the Board to appoint the Pe􀆟􀆟oner to the post of Supplies Manager. 5) The Board, having considered the said Memorandum had recorded its decision in the following manner: “The Chairman brought to the no􀆟ce of the Board the necessity and the importance of re-establishing the post of ‘Supply Manager’ whereas the exis􀆟ng post is 􀆟tled as ‘Supply Officer’, due to the reason that supply du􀆟es were very cri􀆟cal since millions of rupees had been spent annually for the procurement of goods and services including machinery and spare parts. Therefore, the Board noted the necessity for handling the said du􀆟es by a Senior Manager. 4 The Board also noted that Mr. Abeysiri had been covering all supplies du􀆟es under the direct supervision of the General Manager and had been working 9 years since January 2005. It was also noted that Mr. Abeysiri was performing well as Supplies Officer in the best interests of the Company. The Board unanimously granted approval for the promo􀆟on of Mr. Abeysiri to the post of Supplies Manager with effect from 1st January 2014 and for Mr. Abeysiri to be placed on the salary step of Rs. 38,530 subject to the approval of the Department of Management Services.” 6) There are three important ma􀆩ers that are borne out by the above decision of the Board of the 5th Respondent. 7) The first is, as at that 􀆟me, the post of ‘Supplies Manager’ did not exist in the 5th Respondent and hence, a new cadre posi􀆟on had to be created for which the approval of the Department of Management Services was required. The Pe􀆟􀆟oner has disputed this posi􀆟on and claimed that the post of ‘Supplies Manager’ formed part of the organisa􀆟onal structure of the 5th Respondent at that 􀆟me. However, other than submi􀆫ng two undated flow charts said to contain the organisa􀆟onal structure, the Pe􀆟􀆟oner has not submi􀆩ed any other material to substan􀆟ate his posi􀆟on. I am therefore sa􀆟sfied that the posi􀆟on of the 5th Respondent contained in the said Memorandum reflects the correct posi􀆟on in this regard. 8) The second ma􀆩er that is borne out by the said decision is that the Board was mindful that its approval alone was not sufficient to appoint the Pe􀆟􀆟oner to the post of Supplies Manager since there did not exist a cadre posi􀆟on for the said post. It is for this reason that the Board recorded in its decision that the appointment was subject to the approval of the Department of Management Services. 9) The third is, even if the said post did exist, the Board did not follow a compe􀆟􀆟ve procedure to select the most suitable candidate. 10) Even though the Board had taken the above decision, it does not appear that steps were taken by the 5th Respondent to obtain the approval of the Department of Management Services. In spite of that, the Chairman of the 5th Respondent had issued the Pe􀆟􀆟oner a le􀆩er of appointment on 22nd September 2014 appoin􀆟ng 5 the Pe􀆟􀆟oner to the said post of Supplies Manager with effect from 1st January 2014. To my mind, the said le􀆩er was ultra vires the powers of the Chairman since the condi􀆟on subject to which the appointment had been made by the Board had not been sa􀆟sfied. 11) Even though a le􀆩er of appointment had been issued, the Pe􀆟􀆟oner con􀆟nued to be paid the same salary that he had received as Supplies Officer. In June 2015, the Pe􀆟􀆟oner had requested that he be paid the salary of the Supplies Manager. With the 5th Respondent having failed to do so, the Pe􀆟􀆟oner had filed Writ Applica􀆟on No. WR 313/2015 in the Court of Appeal under and in terms of Ar􀆟cle 140 of the Cons􀆟tu􀆟on and sought a Writ of Mandamus direc􀆟ng that he be paid all benefits due to him as Supplies Manager and arrears of salary. 12) While that applica􀆟on was pending before the Court of Appeal, the Pe􀆟􀆟oner had been transferred to the Supplies Division at Eppawela. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Pe􀆟􀆟oner had filed this applica􀆟on complaining that his fundamental rights guaranteed by Ar􀆟cle 12(1) of the Cons􀆟tu􀆟on has been violated as a result of the said transfer, and seeking an interim order (a) staying the said transfer, and (b) the payment of salary and other benefits that he claimed he was en􀆟tled to as the Supplies Manager. 13) This ma􀆩er had been supported for leave on 2nd March 2016. While this Court had not been inclined to grant any relief with regard to the transfer, leave to proceed had been granted for the alleged viola􀆟on of the Pe􀆟􀆟oner’s fundamental rights guaranteed by Ar􀆟cle 12(1) on the basis that he has not been paid the salary relevant to the post of Supplies Manager. 14) I must state that the Pe􀆟􀆟oner, as part of full disclosure, had tendered with his pe􀆟􀆟on, a copy of the applica􀆟on that he had made to the Court of Appeal. Since the issue that needs to be determined in this applica􀆟on as well as in the aforemen􀆟oned Writ applica􀆟on is iden􀆟cal, and since it would be an abuse of process to maintain both applica􀆟ons, upon inquiry by Court at the hearing of this applica􀆟on, the learned Counsel for the Pe􀆟􀆟oner submi􀆩ed that the Pe􀆟􀆟oner will not be proceeding with the said writ applica􀆟on and that the Pe􀆟􀆟oner would withdraw that applica􀆟on in due course. 6 Approval of the Department of Management Services 15) I shall now consider the posi􀆟on of the 5th Respondent. 16) The learned Counsel for the 5th Respondent admi􀆩ed that the Board agreed to appoint the Pe􀆟􀆟oner to the post of Supplies Manager but submi􀆩ed that since there did not exist a cadre posi􀆟on for the said post at that 􀆟me, the said appointment was subject to the approval of the Department of Management Services as clearly recorded in the aforemen􀆟oned decision of the Board. 17) The learned Counsel for the 5th Respondent admi􀆩ed further that the 5th Respondent had not taken any steps to implement the above decision of the Board. This failure to seek approval of the Department of Management Services had been raised at a mee􀆟ng of the Audit and Management Commi􀆩ee of the 5th Respondent held on 2nd May 2014, where the said Commi􀆩ee, “having considered the issue men􀆟oned by the Internal Auditor regarding the promo􀆟on granted to an officer to the designa􀆟on of ‘Supplies Manager’, directed the Management of the Company to take necessary steps to regularise the said promo􀆟on as the said designa􀆟on was not included in the Scheme of Recruitment of the Company.” 18) It appears that in spite of the above decision of the Audit Commi􀆩ee, the 5th Respondent did not take steps to seek the approval of the Department of Management Services, and that the posi􀆟on remained the same even at the 􀆟me the Chairman of the 5th Respondent issued the Pe􀆟􀆟oner with the le􀆩er of appointment on 22nd September 2014. I have already stated that the Chairman of the 5th Respondent acted ultra vires his powers by issuing the said le􀆩er since approval of the Department of Management Services had not been obtained to create the post of ‘Supplies Manager’. The Pe􀆟􀆟oner cannot therefore claim an en􀆟tlement to a salary of a cadre posi􀆟on that does not exist within the 5th Respondent. 19) Pursuant to the filing of the aforemen􀆟oned writ applica􀆟on, and realising that the Pe􀆟􀆟oner has been placed in a precarious posi􀆟on for no fault of his, the 5th Respondent ini􀆟ated discussions with the Department of Management Services. By le􀆩er dated 7th December 2015, the Department of Management Services had informed the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture as follows: 7 “Wla; lreK iusnkaOfhka jq Ufns iudxl yd 2015\'10\'08 oske;s ,smsh yd ,xld fdiafmags ,susgvsys ^rdPH iud.u& ks,Odrska yd fuu fomdra;fuska;=fjs ks,Odrska iuÛ 2015\'10\'02 osk meje;a jq idlpsPdj yd nef\|a\' 02\' ta wkqj ,xld fdiafmags ,susgvs ^rdPH iud.u& i\|yd ixfYdaOs; ldrah uKav,h §weuqKqu 1¶ ys oelafjk mrsos wkqu; lrus\' 03\' ish􀂵u ;k;=re i\|yd n\|jd .ekSus iy Wiia lsrsus isoq lsrsfus oS Unf.a Wla; ,smsh uÛska fuu fomdra;fuska;=j fj; bosrsm;a lr we;s ,xld fdiafmags ,susgvsys ^rdPH iud.u& n\|jd .eksfus yd Wiia lsrSfus mrsmdgsh wkqu; lsrSfuka miqj tu jsOsjsOdkj,g wkql+,j muKla isoq l< hq;= nj ldreKslj okajus\' 04\' uf.a wxl DMS/E2/56/8/355/2/11 yd 2011\'07\'26 oske;sj wkqu; lr we;s ,xld fdiafmags ,susgvsys ^rdPH iud.u& ldrah uKav,h fuhska wj,x.= jk w;r\" fuu fomdra;fuska;=fjs jsOsu;a wkque;shlska f;drj wkqu; ldrah uKav,hg w;sfralj kj ;k;=re we;s lsrSu fyda wkqu; ;k;=rej, isoqjk mqrmamdvq msrjSu o fkdl< hq;= nj jevsoqrg;a ldreKslj okajus\'” 20) Although the approved cadre posi􀆟ons of the 5th Respondent had been annexed to the above le􀆩er, it did not include the post of Supplies Manager but only provided for the post of Supplies Officer. 21) The 5th Respondent had made further wri􀆩en representa􀆟ons to the Department of Management Services in March 2016 by which it pointed out that the Pe􀆟􀆟oner possessed the educa􀆟onal qualifica􀆟ons and experience that were required for the post of Manager, and requested that the post of Supplies Manager be included in the cadre posi􀆟ons of the 5th Respondent. The Department of Management Services had responded as follows: “ tnejska wdh;kfha ;k;=rej,g fiajlhska Wiia lsrsfusos\" wkqu; n\|jd .ekSfus mrsmdgsfha i\|yka jsOsjsOdkj,g mgyeksj huska wkqu; ldrah uKav,fha fkdmj;sk ;k;=re i\|yd mqoa.,hska m;a lsrSfus yelshdjla wOHlaI uKav,hg fkdue;s nj wjOdrKh lrkq leue;af;us\' flfia fj;;a\" uf.a iudxl yd 2015\'12\'07 oske;s ,smsfhka wkqu; ;k;=re w;r\" iyldr iemhqus l<ukdldr (HM 1-1) jYfhka kj ;k;=rla mj;sk nejska\" Bg wod< n\|jd .ekSfus mrsmdgs ilia lr fuu fomdra;fuska;=fjka wjYH wkque;sh ,nd .ekSug lghq;= lrk fuka ldreKslj okajus\' tu iqoqiqlus imqrd,kafkakus wod, ks,Odrshd iyldr iemhqus l<uddldr (HM 1-1) ;;=rg n\|jd .ekSu iusnkaOfhka fuu fomdra;fuska;=fjs jsreoaO;ajhla fkdue;s nj jevsoqrg;a ldreKslj okajus\'” 22) Thus, the posi􀆟on that prevails as of now is that the Department of Management Services has not granted approval for the crea􀆟on of the post of Supplies Manager and therefore the appointment of the Pe􀆟􀆟oner to the post of Supplies Manager which was subject to the approval of the Department of Management Services is not 8 a valid appointment. In these circumstances, the Pe􀆟􀆟oner cannot claim an en􀆟tlement to be appointed to the non-existent post of Supplies Manager and/or to the salary and other benefits that are payable to the Supplies Manager. 23) There is one ma􀆩er that I must advert to prior to concluding. The 1st – 5th Respondents have not made any allega􀆟on of wrongdoing on the part of the Pe􀆟􀆟oner nor disputed his qualifica􀆟ons to be eligible to be appointed to the post of ‘Supplies Manager’ if such a post did exist. This judgment shall not be an impediment to the crea􀆟on of such a post with the approval of the Department of Management Services, provided the need for such a post exists, and the 5th Respondent considering the Pe􀆟􀆟oner to such post, provided the Pe􀆟􀆟oner sa􀆟sfies the eligibility requirements that may be specified for such post in the Scheme of Recruitment and Promo􀆟on, and the selec􀆟on is in accordance with the procedure set out in the said Scheme. Conclusion 24) In the above circumstances, I am of the view that the fundamental rights of the Pe􀆟􀆟oner guaranteed by Ar􀆟cle 12(1) of the Cons􀆟tu􀆟on have not been violated by the 1st – 5th Respondents. This applica􀆟on is accordingly dismissed, without costs. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT Mahinda Samayawardhena, J I agree JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT M. Sampath K. B Wijeratne, J I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT		Download
2025-11-04	SC/FR/166/2021	Cader Mohamed Thowfeek, No.112, Main Street, Sammanthurai. Petitioner Vs. 1. South Eastern University of Sri Lanka, University Park, Oluvil. 2. Prof. M.M.M. Najim, Vice-Chancellor, South Eastern University of Sri Lanka, University Park, Oluvil. 2A.Dr. U.L. Abdul Majeed, Acting Vice Chancellor, South Eastern University, Oluvil, Sri Lanka. 3. Mr. H. Abdul Saththar, Registrar, South Eastern University of Sri Lanka, University Park, Oluvil. 3A.Mr.M.I. Nawfer, Registrar, South Eastern University, Oluvil, Sri Lanka. 4. Mr. A.M.G.B. Abeysinghe, Registrar, Rajarata University of Sri Lanka. 5. Dr. A.W.S. Chandana, Senior Lecturer (Gr. II), Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka. 6. Dr. Anver M. Mustapha 7. Prof. A. Rameez, Dean Faculty of Arts and Culture, South Eastern University of Sri Lanka. 8. Dr. U.L.A Majeed, Dean Faculty of Technology, South Eastern University of Sri Lanka. (2nd to 8th Respondents are the members of the selection committee for the appointment of post of Director/Physical Education of the South Eastern University of Sri Lanka of which 3rd Respondent is the secretary) All of members of selection committee, South Eastern University of Sri Lanka, University Park, Oluvil. 9. University Grant Commission, No. 20, Ward Place, Colombo 07. 10. Prof. Sampath Amaratuga, Chairman, University Grant Commission, No. 20, Ward Place, Colombo 07. 10A. Senior Professor Kapila Seneviratne, Chairman, University Grant Commission, No. 20, Ward Place, Colombo 07. 11. S. Uthayanan, Puliyadi Market Lane, Manippay, Jaffna. 12. I. Lakshman, Sangarathai, Vaddukoddai, Jaffna. 13. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Menaka Wijesundera J	Page 1 of 12 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application under and in terms of Article 17 & 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. S.C. (FR) No. 166/2021 1. Cader Mohamed Thowfeek, No.112, Main Street, Sammanthurai. Petitioner Vs. 1. South Eastern University of Sri Lanka, University Park, Oluvil. 2. Prof. M.M.M. Najim, Vice-Chancellor, South Eastern University of Sri Lanka, University Park, Oluvil. 2A.Dr. U.L. Abdul Majeed, Acting Vice Chancellor, South Eastern University, Oluvil, Sri Lanka. 3. Mr. H. Abdul Saththar, Registrar, South Eastern University of Sri Lanka, University Park, Oluvil. Page 2 of 12 3A.Mr.M.I. Nawfer, Registrar, South Eastern University, Oluvil, Sri Lanka. 4. Mr. A.M.G.B. Abeysinghe, Registrar, Rajarata University of Sri Lanka. 5. Dr. A.W.S. Chandana, Senior Lecturer (Gr. II), Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka. 6. Dr. Anver M. Mustapha 7. Prof. A. Rameez, Dean Faculty of Arts and Culture, South Eastern University of Sri Lanka. 8. Dr. U.L.A Majeed, Dean Faculty of Technology, South Eastern University of Sri Lanka. (2nd to 8th Respondents are the members of the selection committee for the appointment of post of Director/Physical Education of the South Eastern University of Sri Lanka of which 3rd Respondent is the secretary) All of members of selection committee, South Eastern University of Sri Lanka, University Park, Oluvil. 9. University Grant Commission, No. 20, Ward Place, Colombo 07. Page 3 of 12 10. Prof. Sampath Amaratuga, Chairman, University Grant Commission, No. 20, Ward Place, Colombo 07. 10A. Senior Professor Kapila Seneviratne, Chairman, University Grant Commission, No. 20, Ward Place, Colombo 07. 11. S. Uthayanan, Puliyadi Market Lane, Manippay, Jaffna. 12. I. Lakshman, Sangarathai, Vaddukoddai, Jaffna. 13. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents Before : Janak De Silva, J Menaka Wijesundera, J M. Sampath K.B. Wijeratne, J Counsel : M. Nizam Kariapper, PC with Ilham Kariapper and Chathurika Perera instructed by M.I.M. lynullah for the Petitioner. Dr. Avanthi Perera, DSG for the Respondent. Heard learned President\'s Counsel for the Petitioner and Page 4 of 12 learned Deputy Solicitor General. Written Submissions : Written submissions on behalf of the Petitioner on 25th of January 2025. Written submissions on behalf of the 1st Respondent on 14th of March 2023. Argued on : 25.09.2025 Decided on : 04.11.2025 MENAKA WIJESUNDERA, J. The Petitioner in the instant matter is a resource person at the Teacher Professional Development Centre, Samanthurai, and alleges that his fundamental rights have been violated under Article 12 (1) of the Constitution due to the appointment of the 11th Respondent to the post of Director- Physical Education at the South-Eastern University of Sri Lanka. The post of Director-Physical Education at the aforementioned university had been advertised on 26th of November 2020 which had been marked and produced as P10. The Petitioner had submitted his application on 30th of December 2020 (P11) along with two other candidates. He claims that the other 2 candidates namely the 11th and the 12th Respondents, had subsequently withdrawn their applications. The interview had been first scheduled on the 24th of March 2021 but it had been thereafter postponed to the 22nd of April 2021 and the 11th Respondent, who had withdrawn his application had also been present at the interview. Thereafter, the Petitioner had been informed that the 11th Respondent who had obtained 76% of the marks had been selected for the above mentioned post. Therefore, the Petitioner contends that the 11th Respondent who did not comply with the timeline for the application lacked the postgraduate diploma in physical education and the work experience which was required. Therefore, he claims that Page 5 of 12 the selection of the 11th Respondent was irregular and that it violated Article 12(1) of the Constitution. The Petitioner claims that he possesses: (i) A Diploma in Physical Education. (ii) B.Ed. and M. Ed. Degrees. (iii) Reading for a PhD, and (iv) 23 years of experience in physical education instruction and training. The Respondents in their written submissions and oral submissions claimed that the appointment process of the 11th Respondent had been transparent and conducted according to the guidelines of the University Grants Commission (UGC). They further submit that the 11th Respondent had submitted his application through the Secretary of the Ministry of Education as required by the advertisement, and that this is the proper procedure for applicants employed in government departments. They also submit that an advance copy of the 11th Respondent had been received and that the marking scheme at the interview also had been very objective, based on UGC laid-down guidelines and the 11th Respondent had qualified to receive the highest marks among all the candidates. The Respondents further claim that the university is required to appoint the most suitable candidate for the post and the Petitioners grievance amounts to mere disappointment at the outcome of the interview. Therefore, they claim that there was no discrimination or a violation of any Constitutional right of the Petitioner. When this matter was supported for leave this court has granted leave to proceed under Article 12 (1) of the Constitution on 15.03.2022. Upon considering the submissions of both parties both orally and written, I observed that the advertisement which had been marked as P10 clearly indicates that all candidates employed in government institutions must forward their applications through the heads of their institutions, while also allowing advanced copies to be sent directly. The 11th Respondent being an A Level teacher under the Ministry of Education had taken steps to send an advanced copy followed by the official application later forwarded to the Ministry of Education. It has to be emphasized that the requirement to forward applications through institutional heads is a procedural safeguard intended to verify the applicant\'s Page 6 of 12 current employment status and conduct. However, when the candidate proactively complies with the advertisement by sending an advance copy directly, it fulfills the substantive purpose of the requirement. In this context, the acceptance of the application of the 11th Respondents by the university authorities cannot be faulted. The requirement to forward the application through the proper channels is only procedural and non-compliance by the forwarding institution cannot be held against a candidate especially when the candidate had taken steps to send an advanced copy. The Petitioners have alleged that the 11th Respondent did not possess the required academic qualifications but the Petitioner has failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate the said position. The Respondents have vehemently submitted that the selection committee consisting of suitably qualified people had assessed the candidates as per the approved guidelines of the UGC and had selected the 11th Respondent. In public service recruitment, the role of a selection committee, particularly one constituted under university or UGC authority which commands a presumption of regularity and expertise. It is well-established in administrative law that unless there is a clear showing of arbitrariness, or procedural impropriety, courts must refrain from interfering with such selections. Therefore, this Court cannot undermine the selection of a duly constituted expert panel unless the Petitioners have provided this Court with documentary evidence to show that the selection of the 11th Respondent was irrational, capricious or malicious which in my opinion is not evident in this case. The Petitioner has raised serious concerns over the marking scheme, postponement of the interview and the lack of access to documents. The Respondents have maintained that the procedure adopted by the selection committee had been according to as stated before the applicable norms of the UGC. The concerns of the Petitioner are solely based on the fact that the 11th Respondent had not applied within the same timeline as rest of the candidates but the Respondent have offered a very reasonable explanation to this. It must be appreciated that the evaluation process was conducted in accordance with structured criteria, as dictated by UGC. The Petitioner has not contested the objectivity of the scheme itself, nor has he presented comparative data showing that he was unfairly marked. The postponement of the interview, without more, does not render the process illegal or discriminatory unless there is demonstrable prejudice, which has not been shown in this case. Page 7 of 12 This Court observes that when the Petitioner alleges that his fundamental rights have been violated the burden rests on him to satisfy this Court that it is so. The Petitioner has alleged that his fundamental rights have been violated under Article 12 (1) of the Constitution. Article 12(1) provides that, \"All persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law.\" The Fundamental Right provided for by Article 12(1) protects “all persons”, whereas the Fundamental Right provided for by Article 12(2) protects only a “citizen”. Wanasundera J., in the case Palihawadana Ralalage Wickremasinghe v Attorney General (1979) 1 FRD 1,20 states; “Article 12(1), which is the provision generally most relied on and wider in scope than 12(2), appears to embody two separate concepts; but the overall intention of this provision is to ensure equal administration of justice. In short, this Article states that all State action would be tested by the standard of legality and that all persons will be granted the equal protection of the law.” Wanasundera J., in the case of Jayanetti v Land Reform Commission (1984) 2 SLR 172, 184, the argument has been rejected that, “the word ‘law’ in Article 12(1) refers to legislation and not to executive or administrative action. Such a reading of Article 12(1) would result in emasculating the equality clause. There are clear indications in the Constitution itself that the fundamental rights are to be secured, respected and advanced by all organs of government. Besides, any proposed legislation contrary to fundamental rights would be struck down at the Bill stage itself and the question of discrimination by \'legislation\' as such does not really arise” While the concept of equality has an ancient history, it is in modern times that the concept of equality has taken a prominent role in the theory and practice of modern politics. Today equality has been recognized as a basic and essential requirement of democracy. But, however, equality does not mean identical treatment, it requires similarly placed cases to be treated alike. Amerasinghe J., in the case Perera v Monetary Board of the Central bank (1994) 1 SLR 152,180 Page 8 of 12 “...treating unequals equally [is] unjust and violative of Article 12(1) of the Constitution.” As per Sharvananda CJ., in Gooneratne v Chandrananda de Silva (1987) 2 SLR 165, 177 “Article 12 of the Constitution conceives persons to be similarly situated when they are equally qualified. It provides that persons similarly circumstanced should be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities inflicted -like should be treated alike. What is prohibited is discrimination between persons who are substantially similarly circumstanced.” The exercise of power may result in a violation of Article 12(1) in two general scenarios: first, when the power is exercised in a way that treats unequally those who are in similar circumstances; and second, when the power grants discretionary authority to an individual or body in such a manner that it can be used to treat unequally those who are similarly situated. With regard to the second type of situation mentioned above, it has been observed that in Palihawadana Ralalage Wickremasinghe v Attorney General (1979) 1 FRD 1, 8-9 “It is not a reasonable classification but an arbitrary selection where selection is left to the absolute and unfettered discretion of the executive Government \'with nothing to guide or control its action\' ... For in such a case, the difference in treatment rests solely on the arbitrary selection by the Executive. If the statute does not disclose any Government policy or object and confers on the Executive authority [discretion] to make selection at pleasure, the statute would be held, on the face of it, to be discriminatory. If however, the legislative policy is clear and definite and, as an effective method of carrying out that policy, a discretion is vested by the statute upon a body of administrators or officers.” This Court recognizes that Article 12(1) is not violated merely because a candidate is not selected. The principle of equality ensures fairness in the process, not outcomes. Courts have repeatedly held that equality cannot be interpreted as a guarantee for success in selection processes, but rather a guarantee that the process is free of bias, arbitrary criteria, or unlawful preferences. In the case of Palihawadana Ralalage Wickremasinghe v attorney General (1979) 1 FRD 1, per Wanasundera J., pp. 20-21: Page 9 of 12 “Equal protection carries with it, of necessity, the doctrine of classification; for, inequalities and disabilities whether natural, social, or economic may have to be taken into account if justice and fairness is to be achieved as a final result. Equal protection generally requires that all persons who are placed in similar circumstances should be treated alike and for this purpose it would be legitimate to differentiate between persons or things on the basis of clear and intelligible distinctions or differences which must have a rational relationship to the object to be achieved.” There was a time when the view was held judicially that there can be no violation of the right guaranteed under Article 12(1) if the discrimination complained of occurred unintentionally, through a bona fide mistake. At that time the view was expressed by Justice Sharvananda CJ., in the case of Mackie & Co. Ltd v Hugh Molagoda (1986) 1 SLR 300, 308 that, \"The essence of the right of equality guaranteed by Article 12(1) and the evil which the article seeks to guard against is the avoidance of designed and intentional hostile treatment or discrimination on the part of those entrusted with administering the law. In order to sustain a plea of discrimination based on Article 12(1) a party will have to satisfy the court about two things, namely, (1) that he has been treated differently from others, and (2) that he has been differently treated from persons similarly circumstanced without any reasonable basis.\" For a violation of Article 12(1), it is correct that there must necessarily be unequal treatment of equals. In Perera v University Grants Commission (1980) 1 FRD 103,115 Justice Sharvananda, “A person relying on a plea of unlawful discrimination must set out with sufficient particulars his plea of showing how, between persons similarly circumstanced, discrimination has been made, which discrimination has been founded on no intelligible differentia. If the petitioner establishes similarity between persons who are subjected to differential treatment, it is for the State to establish that the differentia is based on a rational object sought to be achieved by it.” Page 10 of 12 It was said by Wanasundera J., in Nimala Wijesinghe v AG (1979) 1 FRD 40, 44-45 that, “Every wrong decision or breach of the law does not attract the constitutional remedies relating to fundamental rights. Where a transgression of the law takes place, due solely to some corruption, negligence or error of judgment, I do not think a person can be allowed to come under Article 126 and allege that there has been a violation of the constitutional guarantees” “The same view has sometimes been expressed as follows: unequal treatment of equals does not always amount to a violation of Article 12(1), for, where equals are treated unequally due solely to an honest error of law or of fact in the process of classification of a person, there is no violation of Article 12(1).” Therefore, equality is now a right as opposed to a mere privilege or an entitlement and in the context of the Sri Lankan fundamental rights conferred by our Constitution, is for the purpose of curing not only injustices taking place but manifestation of discrimination and a host of other injustices which have been recognized by the law. While all fundamental rights of people are equally important the principle of Right to Equality is placed at the top because I suppose that all other rights stem from this. This has been very well expressed in the case of Wijeratne v Sri Lanka Ports Authority, SCFR 256 - 2017 SCMN 2020 by Kodagoda J. with former Chief Justice Murdu Fernando and Thurairaja J. agreeing. Justice Sharvananada had stated in Palihawadana vs Attorney General, 1978-79-80, 1 SLR the first case under fundamental rights jurisdiction in Sri Lanka, “This is as it should be… for equality is a postulate of justice. The concept of equality is basic to man and evokes an immediate response amongst us all. Nothing causes more resentment than a feeling that someone else is getting something which one is not getting. As Thomas Payne said ‘the true and only basis of representative government is equality of rights’ justice is conceived on the basis that all human beings have equal rights in the sense that they should be treated alike. The notion of equality underlines all religious and political philosophies”. Having the above-mentioned sentiments in mind I observe that the 11th Respondents application had been duly considered according to the criteria Page 11 of 12 which had been applied to the other candidates. Any discrepancy in the said marking scheme adopted at the interview or with regard to the consideration of the same at the interview have not been put forward before this Court by the Petitioner apart from mere verbal statements. The Court reiterates that allegations, no matter how sincerely held, must be proven by material evidence. The Petitioner’s claims of irregularity rest on presumptions and unverified assumptions, which do not meet the threshold required under Article 12(1). In the absence of cogent proof of unfair treatment, the grievance raised becomes subjective rather than constitutional. There was a time when the view was held judicially that there can be no violation of the right guaranteed under Article 12(1) if the discrimination complained of occurred unintentionally, through a bona fide mistake. At that time the view was expressed by Justice Sharvananda CJ., in the case of Mackie & Co. Ltd v Hugh Molagoda (1986) 1 SLR 300, 308 that, “The essence of the right of equality guaranteed by Article 12(1) and the evil which the article seeks to guard against is the avoidance of designed and intentional hostile treatment or discrimination on the part of those entrusted with administering the law. In order to sustain a plea of discrimination based on Article 12(1) a party will have to satisfy the court about two things, namely, (1) that he has been treated differently from others, and (2) that he has been differently treated from persons similarly circumstanced without any reasonable basis.” For a violation of Article 12(1), it is correct that there must necessarily be unequal treatment of equals. In Perera v University Grants Commission (1980) 1 FRD 103,115 Justice Sharvananda, “A person relying on a plea of unlawful discrimination must set out with sufficient particulars his plea of showing how, between persons similarly circumstanced, discrimination has been made, which discrimination has been founded on no intelligible differentia. If the petitioner establishes similarity between persons who are subjected to differential treatment, it is for the State to establish that the differentia is based on a rational object sought to be achieved by it.” Therefore, I find that the Petitioner has not suitably established before this Court that his rights under Article 12(1) have been violated although his grievance towards the 11th respondent is understandable because of the expectations he Page 12 of 12 would have had, but mere expectations are not sufficient to be appointed to a post but has to satisfy the relevant criteria to be appointed. Therefore, this Court has to decide on the said criteria and not mere allegations, submitted before us which have to be supported by acceptable evidence. In conclusion, the recruitment process in question appears to have adhered to procedural and substantive fairness as required by constitutional standards. The Court finds no arbitrary or unlawful conduct that rises to the level of a fundamental rights violation. As such, for the reasons stated above, I find no merit in the instant application and it is dismissed without costs. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT Janak De Silva, J. I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT Sampath K. B. Wijeratne, J. I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT		Download
2025-11-04	SC/APPEAL/3/2016	Samaranayake Rajapaksha Mudalige Thilaka Chandralatha Samaranayake, Thalapitiya, Panawela, Eheliyagoda. 2. Samaranayake Rajapaksha Mudalige Vanitha Tulin Samaranayake, No.199, Malagala, Padukka. Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants V. Samaranayake Rajapaksha Mudalige Oliver Ranjith Samaranayake, No. 926/6, Kotte Road, Ethul Kotte, Kotte. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. K. Priyantha Fernando J	1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for Appeal in terms of Section 5(c) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Amendment Act No. 54 of 2006. 1. Samaranayake Rajapaksha Mudalige Thilaka Chandralatha Samaranayake, Thalapitiya, Panawela, Eheliyagoda. 2. Samaranayake Rajapaksha Mudalige Vanitha Tulin Samaranayake, No.199, Malagala, Padukka. Plaintiffs SC Appeal No. 03/2016 SC HC (CA) LA No. 80/2015 WP/HCCA/AV/818/2008(F) D.C. Pugoda Case No.480/P V. Samaranayake Rajapaksha Mudalige Oliver Ranjith Samaranayake, No. 926/6, Kotte Road, Ethul Kotte, Kotte. 2 Defendant AND BETWEEN Samaranayake Rajapaksha Mudalige Oliver Ranjith Samaranayake, No. 926/6, Kotte Road, Ethul Kotte, Kotte. Defendant-Appellant V. 1. Samaranayake Rajapaksha Mudalige Thilaka Chandralatha Samaranayake, Thalapitiya, Panawela, Eheliyagoda. 2. Samaranayake Rajapaksha Mudalige Vanitha Tulin Samaranayake, No.199, Malagala, Padukka. Plaintiffs-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Samaranayake Rajapaksha Mudalige Thilaka Chandralatha Samaranayake, Thalapitiya, Panawela, Eheliyagoda. 3 2. Samaranayake Rajapaksha Mudalige Vanitha Tulin Samaranayake, No.199, Malagala, Padukka. Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants V. Samaranayake Rajapaksha Mudalige Oliver Ranjith Samaranayake, No. 926/6, Kotte Road, Ethul Kotte, Kotte. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent Before : MAHINDA SAMAYAWARDHENA, J. K. PRIYANTHA FERNANDO, J. M. SAMPATH K. B. WIJERATNE, J. Counsel : Chathura Galhena with Naduni Hemantha instructed by Manoja Gunawardena for the Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants. Rohan Sahabandu, PC with Chathurika Elvitigala and S. Senanayake instructed by Amila Kiripitigala for the Defendant-Appellant-Respondent. Argued on : 29.09.2025 4 Decided on : 04.11.2025 K. PRIYANTHA FERNANDO, J 1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Civil Appeal, Avissawella dated 23.01.2015 that held in favour of the Defendant-Appellant-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as Defendant). The 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiffs) preferred this appeal from the judgment of the High Court that decided on the basis that the corpus of the subject matter has not been properly identified. Facts in Brief 2. The land in issue is described in the schedule to the amended Plaint dated 22.12.1998. The Plaintiffs instituted action to partition the said land between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant. 3. According to the amended Plaint, the Plaintiffs state that each of them are entitled to 1/6 share of the said land and that the Defendant is entitled to 4/6. 4. The Defendant, in the Statement of Claim, has stated that the land in question has not been identified properly as there is a vast difference in the extent of the land described in the amended Plaint and the Preliminary Plan submitted by the Licenced Surveyor J. M. D. T. Patrick Reginold, which is dated 13.12.2000 and is marked as “X”. 5. The learned District Judge, delivering her judgment dated 26.03.2008 held in favour of the Plaintiff and ordered the land to be partitioned as prayed for in the amended Plaint. 6. Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned District Judge, the Defendant preferred an appeal to the Civil Appellate High Court of Avissawella. 5 7. Upon hearing of the Appeal, the Learned Judges of the High Court delivered the judgment on 23.01.2015 allowing the Appeal and setting aside the judgment of the District Court. 8. Being aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the Plaintiffs preferred the instant appeal to this Court. Leave to appeal was granted on the questions of law set out in paragraphs 17 (iii) and 17 (iv) of the Petition dated 04.03.2015. Questions of Law 9. Paragraph 17; “(iii) Did the Civil Appellate High Court err in dismissing the action due to the disparity or variation in the extent in the corpus morefully described in the schedule to the plaint and the corpus depicted in the preliminary plan? (iv) Did the Civil Appellate High Court fail to follow the decisions of the Superior Courts in an instant of the disparity or variation in the extent of the corpus and dismiss the action?” Analysis of the Questions of Law 10. Section 18(1)(a)(iii) of the Partition Law No. 21 of 1977 states that; (1) The surveyor shall duly execute the commission issued to him and, in doing so shall, where any boundary of the land surveyed by him is undefined, demarcate that boundary on the ground by means of such boundary marks as are not easily removed or destroyed and shall, on or before the date fixed for the purpose, make due return thereto and shall transmit to the court- 6 (a) a report, in duplicate, substantially in the form set out in the Second Schedule to this Law, verified by affidavit stating- (i) … (ii) … (iii) whether or not the land surveyed by him is in his opinion substantially the same as the land sought to be partitioned as described in the schedule to the plaint (iv) … [Emphasis mine] 11. In the case of Sopaya Silva and Another v. Magilin Silva [1989 02 Sri LR 105] at 108 it was stated by S.N. Silva, J. that; “… If the land surveyed is substantially different from the land as described in the schedule to the plaint, the Court has to decide at that stage whether to issue instructions to the surveyor to carry out a fresh survey in conformity with the commission or whether the action should be proceeded with in respect of the land as surveyed.” 12. The identification of the corpus is vital to a partition action and as stated by Samayawardhena, J. in Thiththalapitige Ruban Perera v. Thiththalapitige Tilakaratne and Another (SC/APPEAL/125/2016 S.C. Minutes of 21 May 2021); “…In a partition action, if the corpus cannot be identified, ipso facto, the action shall fail. There is no necessity to investigate title until the corpus is properly identified. The decision that the corpus has not been properly identified decides the fate of the action 7 without further ado. This underscores the great care with which this decision shall be taken by Court. It shall not be used as a convenient method to summarily dispose of long-drawn-out and complicated partition actions without embarking on the arduous task of investigating the title of each party.” [Emphasis mine] In that case the discrepancy in the extent was considered not to be a ground for the dismissal of the partition action as the Surveyor’s Report depicts satisfactory findings and as the Deeds through which rights are claimed are consistent with the Plaint. 13. In light of the above, I will take into account the following facts and arguments in relation to the discrepancy of the extent of the land in question. 14. The Schedule to the amended Plaint marked “A” describes the land as follows; “බස්නාහිර පළාතේ ගම්පහ දිස්ික්කතේ සියනෑ තකෝරළතේ ගඟබඩ පේුතේ සමණබැද්තෙ තිතබන හල්වලවේත සහ කලහුගහවේත ට මායිම්: උුරට හල්වල සහ මන්ඩාවිල කුඹුර ෙ, නැතගනහිරට තොන් ජුතස් ජයතිලක තනාතාරිස් මහේමයාතේ ඉඩම සහ කැකුළුපාය ෙ, ෙකුණට ජී. ඒ. පාවුළු අප්පුහාමිට සහ තව අයට අයිති ඉඩම ෙ, බස්නාහිරට රාජපක්ෂ ලියනතේ තේමිස් තපතේරා සහ තව අයට අයිති ඉඩම ෙ, යන තමහි ුළ අක්කර විස්සක් පමණ විශාල…” 15. The Deeds marked “P2” and “P3” dated 07.04.1944 through which the Plaintiffs and the Defendant derived title also describe the land in the same manner. 16. On the other hand, the Preliminary Plan marked “X” prepared by Licenced Surveyor J. M. D. T. Patrick Reginold and dated 13.12.2000, describes the land as follows; • උුර - ගම්ුන්ට අයිති කුඹුර, ඇල, හල්වල සහ කැකුල්පාය කුඹුර 8 • නැතගනහිර - හල්වල, කැකුල්පාය කුඹුර සහ ප්‍රැන්සිස් සාතලස් සහ තවේ අයට අයිති ඉඩම • ෙකුණ - තර්ස් ජයතිලක, ජුවන් ජයතිලක සහ මයිකල් ජයතිලක යන අයට අයිති ඉඩම්, පාර, නිමල් කළුතබෝවිලට අයිති ඉඩම සහ එස්. ජී. ඒ. ඒ. තසතනවිරේනට අයිති ඉඩම • බස්නාහිර - විමලතස්න රාජපක්ෂට අයිති ඉඩම, පී. ඒ. තපාඩිමැණිතක්ට සහ තවේ අයට අයිති ඉඩම සහ ගම්ුන්ට අයිති කුඹුර. • The extent has been stated as 14 Acres and 14 Perches. 17. The Surveyor’s Report, dated 13.12.2000, submitted as per Section 18(1)(a)(iii) of the Partition Law No. 21 of 1977, can be found on page 336 of the Appeal Brief. As per paragraph 5 of the said Report it is evident that the Surveyor is satisfied that the surveyed land is the same land that has been described in the schedule to the amended Plaint. The Report reads as follows: “මනින ලෙ ඉඩම පැමිණිල්තල් උපතල්ඛනතේ සඳහන් ඉඩම් තේ” Further, the Report also states that all parties were present during the surveying of the land. 18. It is the Defendant’s current position, by way of written submissions, that the reason for the discrepancy in extent is because the Schedule to the Amended Plaint depicts an amalgamation of two lands named “හල්වලවේත” and “කලහුගහවේත”. However, the Defendant has admitted at the Trial stage that the land in question was in fact 20 Acres in extent. Further, the Defendant has not marked any Deed or Plan at the Trial stage to establish this contention. 19. It is further evident through the first Plaintiff’s evidence during cross-examination at the Trial stage that “හල්වලවේත” and “කලහුගහවේත” both refer to the land named “හල්වලවේත” and that “හල්වලවේත” was the more commonly used name. 9 20. Therefore, taking the above into consideration, I am of the view that the mere discrepancy in the extent of the land in the Schedule to the amended Plaint and the Preliminary Plan should not warrant a dismissal of the Partition action. 21. I will now take into consideration the submissions by the parties on the variations of the boundaries of the said land. 22. When perusing the evidence recorded in the District Court of Pugoda, it is clear that the Licenced Surveyor J. M. D. T. Patrick Reginold has admitted that that the land he surveyed is the same land that was surveyed by him as the boundaries were the same. I will reproduce the relevant excerpts for clarity: “ප්‍ර: තමා සෑහීමකට පේ තවනවාෙ පැමිණිල්තල් උපතල්ඛනතේ තිතබන උුරු මායිමක් තමා මැන්න උුරු මයිමක් හරිය කියා? උ: ඔේ” (Vide page 133-4 of the Appeal Brief) “ප්‍ර: ෙකුණු මායිම පැහැදිලිව තිබුණාෙ? උ: තිබුණා” (Vide page 136 of the Appeal Brief) “ප්‍ර: බස්නාහිර මායිම තිතබනවා කියලා සැහීමකට පාේවුණාෙ? උ: ඔේ” (Vide page 138 of the Appeal Brief) It is evident that the Licenced Surveyor J. M. D. T. Patrick Reginold was able to identify 3 out of the 4 boundaries of the land in question. 10 23. While there are slight differences in the names of the boundaries, I will draw attention to the following excerpt by Samayawardhena, J. in the judgment of Thiththalapitige Ruban Perera v. Thiththalapitige Tilakaratne and Another (supra): “…the Surveyor went to the land 76 years after the execution of the earliest known Deed. One cannot expect the boundaries of land in Gampaha to remain unchanged for 76 years. … In the Preliminary Plan, the Surveyor records the existing boundaries. In doing so, he gives the names of the present owners.” 24. Similarly, in the instant case too, the Surveyor’s Preliminary Plan is made in the year 2000 while the Deeds marked “P2” and “P3” are dated 07.04.1944. Thus, realistically one cannot expect the boundaries of a land and their owners to remain unchanged for a period of approximately 56 years. 25. Therefore, I answer the first question of law in the affirmative that the Civil Appellate High Court has erred in dismissing the action due to the disparity or variation in the extent in the corpus morefully described in the schedule to the plaint and the corpus depicted in the Preliminary Plan. 26. In relation to the second question of law, the learned President’s Counsel for the Defendant, in his written submissions, has referred to several judgments of this Court throughout several years which have dealt with issues regarding discrepancies in the extent of a land. However, these case laws are distinguishable from the case at hand on both legal and factual premises. 27. Therefore, taking the above into account, I affirm that the corpus has sufficiently been identified. The learned District Judge has correctly addressed all aspects in detail having regard to the evidence before the Court. The two questions of law are answered in the affirmative. 11 28. Hence, I set aside the judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court of Avissawella dated 23.01.2015 and uphold the judgment of the District Court of Pugoda dated 26.03.2008. Appeal is allowed JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE MAHINDA SAMAYAWARDHENA I agree JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE M. SAMPATH K.B. WIJERATNE I agree JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT		Download
2025-11-03	SC/APPEAL/135/2023	Kuruppu Arachchilage Thilakarathne, Nelundeniya, Maampita. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT- APPELLANT Vs. Brahmana Arachchilage Dingiri Amma alias Sumanawathi Nelundeniya, Maampita. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J	This is an appeal preferred by the defendant-appellant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) on the basis of being aggrieved of the judgment pronounced on 28-08-2020 by the learned Judges of the Provincial High Court of the Sabaragamuwa Province holden in Kegalle (hereinafter referred to as the High Court), while exercising its civil appellate jurisdiction. From the impugned judgment the High Court has affirmed the judgment pronounced by the learned District Judge of Kegalle on 26-07-2018 in District Court of Kegalle Case No. 7342/L, which was a judgment pronounced in favour of the plaintiff in the said case. When this matter was considered by this Court on 18-09-2023 for the purpose of granting leave to appeal from the impugned judgment, this Court granted leave on the questions of law as set out in paragraph 15(a), (b) and (h) of the petition dated 09-10-2020. The said questions of law read as follows, 1. Has the High Court of Civil Appeal erred in law in applying the principle of estoppel against the defendant in the circumstances of this case? 2. Has the High Court of Civil Appeal erred in law by holding that the plaintiff could succeed without proving prayed licenseeship? 3. Has the High Court of Civil Appeal erred in law in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff has proved title to obtain relief prayed for in the plaint? Page 4 of 15 At the hearing of this appeal, this Court had the privilege of listening to the oral submissions of the learned Counsel for the defendant, and that of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent-respondent. This Court also had the opportunity to consider the written submissions tendered by the parties in relation to their respective contentions in deciding this appeal. The facts that led to the judgment of the High Court can be summarized in the following manner. The plaintiff-respondent-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) instituted an action before the District Court of Kegalle by her plaint dated 24-08-2006. The plaintiff has prayed for a declaration of title to the effect that she is the owner of the land morefully described in the schedule of the plaint and also for a declaration that the defendant’s possession of the land is only as a licensee caretaker. It has also been prayed for the ejectment of the defendant from the land, as well as for damages and other reliefs. The plaintiff has averred her title based on number of deeds as stated in her plaint. The defendant in his answer has denied the title pleaded by the plaintiff and her claim that he is a licensee under her and her predecessors in title. The defendant has pleaded a separate title to the land mentioned in the plaint based on the deeds submitted by him, and also has claimed prescriptive title to the same. At the trial, there had been no admissions between the parties and the case has proceeded to trial on 14 issues settled by the plaintiff, and the 15th to 25th issue settled by the defendant. The plaintiff has raised her 14th issue to identify the subject matter of the action as the land shown in plan No. 2187 dated 22-11-2007, prepared for the purposes of the action by the licensed surveyor K. Wijeratne. After trial, pronouncing his judgment on 26-07-2018, the learned District Judge has determined that although this is an action for a declaration of title, this is also an action to eject a licensee from the land mentioned in the plaint. Page 5 of 15 Having considered the corpus of the action, the learned District Judge has determined that it is the land depicted in the earlier mentioned plan, which has been marked and produced as ‘X’ for the purposes of the action. The learned District Judge, having considered the title to the land as pleaded by the plaintiff and also the contesting title by the defendant, has determined that the plaintiff has proved her paper title to the land. Having considered the prescriptive claim to the land preferred by the defendant, it has been determined that the defendant has failed to prove the prescriptive title as claimed. The learned District Judge has accepted the evidence by the plaintiff that the nexus between the defendant and his claimed predecessors and that of the plaintiff and her predecessors was that of a licensor and a licensee. Having considered the evidence in its totality as he should have, the learned District Judge has decided that the plaintiff has proved her case in the balance of probability and had granted reliefs as sought by her. After having considered the appeal preferred by the defendant challenging the said judgment of the learned District Judge, the High Court has pronounced the impugned judgment on 28-08-2020. It has been determined that although the learned District Judge has concluded that the action before the District Court was primarily for the purpose of ejecting a licensee, it was not. It has been decided that the action was in fact a rei vindicatio action. The learned Judges of the High Court have agreed that the plaintiff has proved her title to the land and the corpus has also been correctly identified. Having considered the title pleaded by the defendant, it has been determined that he has failed to establish the paper title and also prescriptive rights as claimed by him. It has also been determined that the possession of the land by the defendant has been on the basis of a licensee. However, the learned Judges of the High Court have recognized that the learned District Judge has failed to provide proper answers to the issues framed before the District Court and has proceeded to re-answer the issues. Page 6 of 15 Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed on the basis that it has no merit. At the hearing of this appeal, the position taken up by the learned Counsel for the defendant was that there had been no dispute that the subject matter of this action is in the possession of the defendant. It was his contention that there was no evidence before the Court to establish that the defendant was a licensee as claimed by the plaintiff or that the said license was terminated. It was submitted that the learned District Judge too has correctly determined that there was no evidence as to the defendant being a licensee, but wrongly decided the action in favour of the plaintiff. It was also submitted that the paper title pleaded by the plaintiff had not been established as claimed. It was the position of the learned Counsel that the learned Judges of the High Court had failed to consider the evidence placed before the District Court in its correct perspective when deciding to re-answer the issues and dismiss the appeal preferred by the defendant. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff took up the position that the claimed predecessor in title of the defendant was a caretaker under the predecessor in title of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff came to the Court for a declaration of title and ejectment. It was his position that the plaintiff proved her title to the land, whereas the defendant’s claimed paper title or the prescriptive title has not been established to the satisfaction of the Court. Arguing that there is no basis before this Court to disturb the findings of the learned Judges of the High Court, as well as that of the learned District Judge of Kegalle, the learned Counsel moved for the dismissal of the action. Having considered the pleadings before the District Court, the facts, the circumstances and the relevant law, I am in agreement with the view of the learned Judges of the High Court that the action before the District Court was in fact a rei vindicatio action, although the plaintiff has claimed that the defendant was a licensee in the capacity of a caretaker. Page 7 of 15 I am in total agreement with the said determination as it is manifestly clear that the action of the plaintiff was an action to vindicate her title and to eject the defendant from the land based on her title. In this process, the plaintiff has averred as to the manner under which the claimed predecessor of the defendant and the defendant are in possession of the land. It is clear from the averments of the plaint that her intention had been not to eject the defendant only on the basis of an over holding licensee. When considering the evidence in that context, it is settled law that the person who claims title must establish his title as well as the identity of the land to which such a party claims title. As correctly determined by the learned District Judge as well as the learned Judges of the High Court, there had been no dispute as to the identity of the land. Both the plaintiff and the defendant have claimed the same land as stated in the schedule of the plaint, although there had been no admission as such. The evidence led before the Court has clearly established that the subject matter of this action has been depicted in plan No. 2189 dated 22-11-2007 marked ‘X’, which is the plan prepared for the purposes of this action. When it comes to the title to the said land, the plaintiff has claimed title based on the deed marked P-01, namely deed No. 20394 dated 28-05-1920. In the said deed of transfer, the transferor has recited his title as a title obtained through the fiscal sale No. 10684 of Court of Request in Kegalle. Based on the said title, the heirs of the said transferee, namely R. P. P. Weerasooriya, have transferred their inherited rights by the deed marked P-02 to R. C. P. P. Weerasooriya. The said Weerasooriya had transferred his right to the land to Kapuralalage Dharmawardhana by the deed No. 2212 dated 07-10-1985 (the deed marked P-03). The said Dharmawardhana by deed No. 3647 dated 06-02-2003 has transferred his acquired rights to the plaintiff of this action. (the deed marked P-06). The said deed is a deed executed subject to a pending partition action. Page 8 of 15 The evidence adduced in the action has established that the said partition action No. 27142 was an action instituted by Kuruppu Arachchilage Manthriratna, who is a brother of the defendant, against the defendant in order to partition the subject matter of this action. The earlier mentioned Dharmawardhana, who was the predecessor in title of the plaintiff, has intervened in the said partition action and has claimed the entirety of the land sought to be partitioned based on his title deed. The said partition action has been withdrawn on 31-07-2006, which has resulted in the dismissal of the said action. In view of the said dismissal, the plaintiff has claimed title to the subject matter of this action based on the deed marked P-06 and for the ejectment of the defendant as pleaded in her plaint. As against this title, the defendant has claimed title through one Mohotti Appuhami, who is his grandfather, and has claimed that he was born on the land and lived there for more than 56 years. It has been claimed that the said Mohotti Appuhami possessed the entire land and is the original owner. It has been his position that upon his death, his father Appuhami, being the youngest son of Mohotti Appuhami, held and possessed the entire land, and he transferred his right to him and his brother Manthriratna by deed No. 119 dated 01-11-1995. The said deed has been marked as V-01(අ). It has been stated that he obtained the rights of Manthriratna by deed No. 441 dated 17-03-2006 marked V-05. Although he has claimed that the predecessors of the plaintiff have previously filed partition case No. 27142 and it was dismissed, it is clear that the defendant has not told the truth to the Court in that regard. The documents marked and produced as P-04 and P-05 by the plaintiff establish the fact that the said case was a partition action filed by Kuruppu Arachchilage Manthriratna, the brother of the defendant, who executed the deed marked V-05 in favour of him. The said case had been filed against the defendant to get the land partitioned between themselves. I find that the evidence of the plaintiff has established that the plaintiff of that action or the Page 9 of 15 1st defendant, namely the defendant in this action, has failed to prosecute the partition action, and the added defendant, the predecessor in title of the plaintiff, has been allowed to proceed with the partition action. The said action has been withdrawn because the said predecessor, namely Kapuralalage Dharmawardhana, has claimed title to the entire land upon his title deed which requires no partitioning of the land. It is clear from the evidence of the defendant that he has claimed paper title to the land. Although he has given evidence to the effect that he and his forefathers had possession of the land for over 50 years, interestingly, he has not given evidence claiming prescriptive title to the land. He has also failed to give evidence as against whom and when the mentioned grandfather of him, namely Mohotti Appuhami, started to possess the land adverse to the rights of the actual title holder of the land. Upon the perusal of the deed No. 119, where Appuhami has transferred the land to the defendant and his brother Manthrirathna, it is clear that the said vendor has not pleaded his title other than saying that he held and possessed the land. The defendant’s evidence was to the effect that his father Appuhami inherited the land from his father Mohotti Appuhami. However, it has been admitted in evidence that Mohotti Appuhami had three sons, the defendant’s father being the youngest. Therefore, even if it is to believe that Mohotti Appuhami had any title to the land, the defendant’s father could have only inherited an undivided 1/3rd of the land. Therefore, for him to transfer the entire land to the defendant and his brother, he should spell out as to how he became entitled to the entire land in the deed he executed in favour of his sons. The above factual matrix clearly shows that it was the plaintiff who had established a clear title to the corpus of this action as against the claimed rights of the defendant. Page 10 of 15 The case of Leisa and Another Vs. Simon and Another (2002) 1 SLR 148 was a case where the plaintiff-appellants instituted action seeking declaration of title and ejectment of the defendants from the premises in question. The defendants claimed prescriptive rights. The plaintiff’s action was dismissed. On appeal it was held: 1. The contest is between the right of dominium of the plaintiffs and the declaration of adverse possession amounting to prescription by the defendants. 2. The moment title is proved the right to possess it, is presumed. … 5. For the Court to have come to its decision as to whether the plaintiff has dominium the proving of paper title is sufficient. … 7. Once paper title became undisputed the burden shifts to the defendants to show that they had independent rights in the form of prescription as claimed by them. … Per Wigneswaran, J., “Wille in his book ‘Principles of South African Law’ (3rd edition) at page 190 states as follows: “The absolute owner of a thing has the following rights in the thing: 1. To possess it; 2. To use and enjoy it; and 3. To destroy; and 4. To alienate it. In discussing the right to possession, he states, (…) “The absolute owner of a thing is entitled to claim the possession of it; or, if he has the possession he may retain it. If he is illegally deprived of Page 11 of 15 his possession, he may by means of vindicatio or reclaim recover the possession from any person in whose possession the thing is found. In a vindicatory action the claimant need merely prove two facts, namely, that he is the owner of the thing and that the thing is in the possession of the defendant.” His Lordship has discussed the effects of longstanding possession by a defendant at page 157 in the following manner, “As stated, earlier occupation from 1947 has no relevance. Possession and occupation must be distinguished. What is referred to as possession by the learned Counsel was in fact occupation by the 1st defendant. So long as such occupation was as a brother of the 1st plaintiff and therefore as a licensee of the 1st plaintiff, the long period of occupation would not make it adverse possession unless there had been an overt act of ouster as in the case of prescription among co-owners.” It is clear from the judgment of the learned District Judge that he was mindful as to the principles of law that should be considered in a vindicatory suit. He has well considered whether the claimed occupation of the land by the defendant and his claimed predecessors would amount to an overt act, which amounts to an ouster as required in law. It is my considered view that executing deeds without referring to any title would not amount to an overt act that ousts the title holder of a property. The learned District Judge has found evidence where the plaintiff’s immediate predecessor in title has enjoyed the fruits of the land after he became the owner. As such, I am unable to find anything wrong in the learned District Judge’s conclusion that the defendant and his claimed predecessors in title were licensees under the plaintiff and her predecessors of title, and the defendant had failed to establish that the said status has been changed so that the defendant would succeed in proving prescriptive title, and the defendant’s claimed paper title was also not proved. Page 12 of 15 After the matter was argued in appeal before the learned Judges of the High Court, it is clear that the learned High Court Judges too had considered the paper titles pleaded by the parties as well as the claimed apparent prescriptive title of the defendant. The High Court has drawn its attention to the fact that the paper title claimed by the plaintiff commencing with the deed marked P-01, which was a deed executed in 1920 by one Ukkubanda, and the argument that since the said Ukkubanda has pleaded his title in relation to a fiscal sale where there was no evidence that a fiscal’s conveyance had been executed, and hence, no title would have been passed to the claimed original owner. It has been decided that in view of the findings in the case of Abubucker Vs. Fernando (1987) 2 SLR 225, although a fiscal’s conveyance may not have been executed after the fiscal’s sale, there is clear evidence that the said Ukkubanda held and possessed the land after the sale and it can be reasonably inferred that he and his subsequent transferees of the land held and possessed it and had acquired prescriptive title before alienating the same to the plaintiff. In the case of Abubucker Vs. Fernando (supra), it was determined that if a fiscal’s conveyance is not executed in favour of the purchaser of a land at a fiscal sale, no title passes. If, however, the purchaser enters into possession after the sale and possessed the land for longer than the prescriptive period, title by prescription is established. I find that this was a correct determination, and hence, the learned Judges of the High Court were correct in determining that the plaintiff had established her title. The learned Judges of the High Court in the appellate judgment too had well considered whether the claimed paper title of the defendant can be accepted as a better title than that of the plaintiff in coming to a finding that it was not, for which I have no reason to disagree as considered earlier. The High Court judgment clearly shows that the learned Judges had considered whether the defendant can succeed on the basis of prescription, independently of his claim of paper title. Page 13 of 15 It had been determined that in fact, the defendant’s status would be as a licensee, as it had been clearly established that his father and grandfather had been in possession of the land in such capacity after gaining possession under the plaintiff’s predecessor in title, namely Weerasooriya, and they have failed to establish an overt act which alters that status. In the case of S.K. Chelliah Vs. M. Wijenathan 54 NLR 337, Gratiaen, J. observed; “Where a party invokes the provisions of section 3 of the Prescription Ordinance in order to defeat the ownership of an adverse claimant to immovable property, the burden of proof rests fairly and squarely on him to establish a starting point for his or her acquisition of prescriptive rights. If that onus has prima facie been discharged, the burden shifts to the opposite party, to establish that by reason of some disability recognized under section 13 prescription did not in fact run from the date on which the adverse possession first commenced. Once that has been established, the onus shifts once again to the other side to show that the disability has ceased on subsequent date and that adverse possession relied on had uninterruptedly continued thereafter for a period of 10 years.” As considered correctly, the plaintiff’s immediate predecessor in title has given evidence to establish the fact that he too enjoyed the produce of the land, which showed that he had dominium over the land despite the fact that the defendant being in occupation of the same. The defendant’s own evidence shows that he had failed to establish any overt act of his claimed predecessors in title other than stating that he is living on the land from his birth. Therefore, I am in agreement with the findings of the learned District Judge as well as that of the learned Judges of the High Court that the defendant has failed to establish any character that can be considered adverse to the rights of the plaintiff who has established her title to the land. Page 14 of 15 Another matter that has drawn the attention of the learned Judges of the High Court had been the defendant’s and his brother Manthriratna’s role in the partition action. The said Manthriratna has initiated the partition action after having claimed rights under the deed marked P-05. It has been established, as previously stated by me, that both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant of the partition action, being the two brothers who initiated it, have failed to prosecute the same. This has resulted in the plaintiff’s immediate predecessor in title, who intervened as the 2nd defendant of the action, proceeding with the action and withdrawing it on the basis that he owns the entire land sought to be partitioned and not the plaintiff and the 1st defendant in the said partition case. I am in total agreement with the learned Judges of the High Court that this conduct of the defendant in abandoning the partition action in the manner it occurred is also a clear indication of failure to maintain their prescriptive claim as against the rights of the plaintiff’s immediate predecessor in title. It is clear from the judgment of the learned District Judge that he has come to a correct finding as to the evidence placed before the Court and the law that should have been considered in that regard. I find that the learned Judges of the High Court too had considered the matters placed before the Court in its correct perspective by determining that they had no basis to interfere with the judgment of the learned District Judge. However, I find that as viewed correctly by the High Court, the learned District Judge, after analyzing the evidence and the law correctly, has failed to answer the issues before the Court in the proper manner. I am of the view that the High Court has correctly exercised its powers granted in terms of Article 139 of the Constitution where it has been stipulated as to the powers in appeal of the Court of Appeal, which applies to the High Court as well when exercising its appellate jurisdiction. Page 15 of 15 The relevant Article 139(1) reads as follows: 139. (1) The Court of Appeal may in the exercise of its jurisdiction affirm, reverse, correct or modify any order, judgment, decree or sentence according to law or it may give directions to such court of 1st instance, tribunal or other institution or order a new trial or further hearing upon such terms as the Court of Appeal shall think fit. Accordingly, I find that re-answering of the issues was a thing necessary to align the original Court’s findings and render it a proper judgment, which in my view was the correct approach that should be adopted in deciding an appeal by an appellate forum. For the reasons as considered above, I will now proceed to answer the questions of law under which the leave to appeal was granted in the negative. The appeal is dismissed for want of merit. The parties shall bear their own costs of the appeal.		Download
2025-11-03	SC/WRIT/3/2025	1. Kusum Priyadharshini Epa Weihana, 51/4, Pushpadana Mawatha, Kandy. [Petitioner in S.C. (Writ) 03/2025] 2. Isuru Pulasthi Bandara Polgasdeniya, No. 4/1, Mandakini Glow, Greenlands Lane, Colombo 05. [Petitioner in S.C. (Writ) 04/2025] 3. Chandula Ramali Rambukwella, No. 51/4, Pushpadana Mawatha, Kandy. [Petitioner in S.C. (Writ) 05/2025] Petitioners Vs. 1. Judge of the High Court, High Court No.1, Colombo 12. 2. Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, 36, Malasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. 3. Director General, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, 36, Malasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. 4. Mr. R Sumendra, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Assistant Director (Investigation 2), Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, 36, Malasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. 5. Justice W.M.N.P. Iddawala, Chairman, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, 36, Malasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. 6. Mr. K.B.Rajapakse, Commissioner, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, 36, Malasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. 7. Mr. Chethiya Goonasekera, Commissioner, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, 36, Malasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. 8. Officer-In-Charge, Investigation Officer, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, 36, Malasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. Respondents View More	Hon. Janak De Silva J		In the matter of an application made under Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka read along Section Article 160 of the Anti-Corruption Act No.09 of 2023.	Download
2025-10-31	SC/APPEAL/123/2019	Siril Jayawardena Karunaratne No. 49 A, Wattaranthanna Lane, Kandy. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. Nisha Kanthi Peiris No. 49, Wattaranthanna Lane, Kandy. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. A.L. Shiran Gooneratne J			Download
2025-10-30	SC/APPEAL/27/2020	R.M. Kamal Kumara Gokarella. “Thushara” Galagamuwa, Gokarella. (Appearing by his Power of Attoreny holder Gonaduwage Thushitha Jeewani Deepthika of “Thushara” Galagamuwa, Gokarella.) PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT - PETITIONER vs R.M. Bhadra Kumari Gokarella, Dambulla Road, Gokarella. DEFENDANT -RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT View More	Hon. M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J			Download
2025-10-30	SC/APPEAL/62/2014	Weerasinghe Kankanamge Weerasinghe, Pelwatta Road, Galahitiya, Godakawela. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT Vs. P.G. Ratnasiri, Pelwatta Road, Galahitiya, Godakawela. 1ST DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT K.G. Sandya Kumari, Pelwatta Road, Galahitiya, Godakawela. 2nd DEFENDANT – APPELLANT View More	Hon. Janak De Silva J			Download
2025-10-29	SC/APPEAL/150/2015	6. (sic) Budagoda Arachchige Don Sri Lal Wijewardhana, ‘Shamila Stores’, Bandarawela Road, Hali Ela. SUBSTITUTED 5th – DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT - PETITIONER vs A. Budagoda Arachchige Don Deepthi Chandrawansha Wijewardhana, No. 98/6, Lake Road, Wickramasinghepura, Battaramulla. B. Budagoda Arachchige Dona Yamuna Chandini Wijewardhana, Etampitiya Estate, Etampitiya. (Deceased) B/1- Dharamakula Raja Randeniya B/2 – Achini Sharmila Randeniya B/3 – Charit Anjana Randeniya Etampitiya Estate, Etampitiya C. Budagoda Arachchige Dona Manjula Kanthimani Wijewardhana, St. Jame’s Estate, Hali Ela. SUBSTITUTED RESPONDENTS- PLAINTIFFS – APPELLANTS - RESPONDENTS 1. Budagoda Arachchige Don Cyril Wijewardhana, No. 7, Bandarawela Road, Hali Ela, 2. Budagoda Arachchige Don Alfred Wijewardhana, No. 98/6, Ketawala Road, Hali Ela. 3. Themmadura Lalani Shanthi De Silva, Bandarawela Road, Hali Ela, 4. Thilini Sachira Wijewardhana, Bandarawela Road, Hali Ela, DEFENDANTS -RESPONDENTS- RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J			Download
2025-10-27	SC/APPEAL/27/2012	Dassanayake Mudiyanselage Antony of “Supervision”, Super Market Complex, Mawathagama. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. Mohamed Saheed Mahomed Abdulla No. 20, Kandy Road, Mawathagama (Now Deceased) APPLICANT-PETITIONER- APPELLANT-RESPONDENT 1A. Abdul Wahab Sithy Suraiha 1B. Mohammed Abdullah Fathima Mufriha 1C. Mohammed Abdullah Fathima Munfiha 1D. Mohamed Abdullah Mohamed Murasil 1E. Mohammed Abdullah Fathima Musliha 1F. Mohammed Abdullah Fathima Mufsiha All of No. 06, Church Road, Mawathagama. SUBSTITUTED 1A-1F APPLICANT-PETITIONER- APPELLANT-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J	This is an appeal preferred by the respondent-respondent-respondent-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-appellant) on being aggrieved by the judgment of the Court of Appeal pronounced on 18-03-2011 in Case No. CA (PHC) 11/1999. When this matter was considered for the granting of special leave to appeal on 31-01-2012, this Court granted leave to appeal on the questions of law as set out in paragraph 12(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the petition dated 04-04-2011. The said questions of law read as follows, 1. The said order is contrary to law and against the weight of evidence, 2. The Court of Appeal has erred in law when interpreting the section 66(b) of the Primary Courts Procedure Act No. 44 of 1979, Page 5 of 18 3. The Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the concurrent findings of the Primary Court of Pilessa and the High Court of Kurunegala held in favour of the Petitioner, on the evidence led and the material produced in the case, 4. None of the documents which the Court of Appeal has accepted as showing possession of the Respondent, in fact shows the possession of the Respondent, payment of electricity bills can be made by the person who has got the electricity connection even though he was not in possession, and also the payment of rates too does not show possession, 5. The Court of Appeal has failed to consider the evidence of the Petitioner’s documents marked 1වඋ1, 1වඋ5, 1වඋ8, 1වඋ11 and 1වඋ16 which were considered by the Primary Court. When this matter was taken up for argument before this Court, it was the submission of the learned President’s Counsel who represented the respondent-appellant that the Court of Appeal erred in law, as well as facts, in relation to the manner under which an application of this nature should be considered. It was his position that both the Primary Court, as well as the Provincial High Court of Kurunegala, where the revision application preferred by the applicant-petitioner-appellant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the applicant-respondent) was considered and dismissed, were correct as to the respective findings. It was his contention that this being a private plaint instituted in terms of section 66(1)(b) of the Primary Courts Procedure Act No. 44 of 1979, there should be evidence of breach of the peace or a likelihood of the breach of the peace, where there was none. It was his position that the respondent-appellant obtained possession of half of the building concerned with the consent of the applicant-respondent in January 1991 after he purchased the building from him. He submitted that subsequently, respondent-appellant also re-paid the mortgage amount due, to the Bank of Ceylon as a result of a loan obtained by the applicant-respondent. Page 6 of 18 It was his submission that the material relied on by the Court of Appeal to reverse the judgment of the High Court, as well as the order of the learned Judge of the Primary Court, were material which does not establish that the applicant-respondent was ousted from his possession of the entire building by the respondent-appellant as he claims, and clearly, the Court of Appeal has erred in that regard. It was the submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant-respondent that the material placed before the Court by the applicant-respondent has clearly established a likelihood of the breach of peace, and there was sufficient material before the Primary Court to assume jurisdiction in terms of section 66 of the Primary Courts Procedure Act. It was also submitted that the documents considered by the Court of Appeal have clearly proved that the applicant-respondent had possession of the building concerned and that he has come before the Primary Court within the required two months period of him being dispossessed of his possession. It was his position that there are no compelling reasons to disturb the findings of the Court of Appeal and the appeal should be disallowed. The applicant-respondent has preferred an application before the Primary Court of Pilessa under Case No. 57063 by way of an affidavit dated 13-05-1996. He has stated that he became the owner of the building morefully described in the schedule of his affidavit by deed No. 6120 dated 24-02-1989, held and possessed the building from that date onwards. He has stated that even before he purchased the building, he had the possession of the building where he conducted his own business as a tenant of the previous owners from 1966. He has submitted several receipts in relation to the payments made to the Local Authority for trade licenses, as well as assessment rates, and also payment of electricity bills in order to substantiate his possession of the building. The position taken up in his affidavit to the Primary Court has been that because he fell into financial difficulties, he mortgaged the property to Mawathagama Bank of Ceylon and obtained a loan of Rs. 600,000/-. He has further stated that due to his monetary requirements, he obtained a similar Page 7 of 18 sum from the respondent-appellant and transferred the property to him as a security for the sum obtained. It has been stated that the respondent-appellant agreed to re-transfer the property to him once he settles the Rs. 650,000/- mentioned in the deed of transfer. He has claimed that although the property was transferred to the respondent-appellant, it was he who maintained the possession of the property. It has been claimed that while this status quo remained, the respondent-appellant without his authority, repaid the mortgage amount due to the bank on 18-03-1996, using a blank paper signed by him and given to the respondent-appellant at the time he obtained the loan from him. It has been stated that thereafter, on 24-03-1996, the respondent-appellant forcibly entered half of the building and dispossessed him of that half and started possessing the said portion of the building. It has been further stated that although he attempted to settle this dispute amicably it failed, and he lodged a complaint in this regard to the Mawathagama police on 08-04-1996. It was on the said basis that the applicant-respondent has claimed the likelihood of the breach of peace and the intervention of the Primary Court in terms of section 66 of the Primary Courts Procedure Act for him to be placed in possession of the portion of the building he claimed he was forcibly dispossessed. When the respondent-appellant was notified by the Primary Court in relation to the application, he has tendered his affidavit dated 24-06-1996 where he has claimed that after purchasing the building from the applicant-respondent by deed No. 9217 dated 18-12-1994, he obtained possession of half of the building on 13-01-1996 where he commenced a television repair workshop. It has been his position that since the building was subjected to a mortgage in favour of the Bank of Ceylon, with the consent and agreement of the applicant-respondent, he settled that amount of Rs. 825,524.36/-. He has claimed that he is in possession of the electricity bills that were subsequently issued in his favour and has denied that he dispossessed the applicant-respondent from half of the building. It has been his position that Page 8 of 18 he came into possession of the said half with the full consent of the applicant-respondent after he purchased the property as stated above. Having considered the affidavits of the parties and the supporting documents tendered before the Courts, the learned Judge of the Primary Court, of her order dated 17-03-1997, has decided that she is unable to come to a finding from the documents and the affidavits tendered to Court that the respondent-appellant has dispossessed the applicant-respondent on the date as claimed by him. It has also been determined that there is no material before the Court to establish that there was a breach of the peace or the likelihood of the breach of the peace, whereas the matter reported is entirely of a dispute civil in nature. Accordingly, the application of the applicant-respondent has been dismissed by the learned Primary Court Judge. The learned Judge of the Provincial High Court of the North Western Province holden in Kurunegala, having considered the revision application filed by the applicant-respondent on the basis of being aggrieved of the order of the learned Judge of the Primary Court, held the same view and dismissed the said revision application of his order dated 16-12-1998. The applicant-respondent has preferred the appeal under consideration seeking to challenge both the orders pronounced by the learned Judge of the Primary Court and the learned Judge of the High Court. It appears from the impugned judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 18-08-2011, the main focus of the Court of Appeal had been whether the applicant-respondent has established that he was dispossessed from the building two months prior to filing of the application before the Primary Court. The Court has considered the electricity bills submitted by the applicant-respondent as well as the receipt relating to payment of assessment rates as relevant. It has been concluded that the respondent-appellant was not in possession of the building from 15-01-1996 as claimed by him, and it was the applicant-respondent who has established his possession in the premises two months prior to the case being filed before the Primary Court. Page 9 of 18 It has also been decided that based on paragraph 11 and 13 of the affidavit filed by the applicant-respondent, it can be concluded that the respondent-appellant has forcibly entered the premises by breaking the padlock used by the applicant-respondent, and there was clear evidence to support the view that breach of peace was threatened and likely. It has been determined that both the Courts have erred in that regard, and accordingly, both orders have been set aside and it has been directed that the applicant-respondent should be placed in possession of the building. In view of the above factual matrix, the question before this Court is whether the Court of Appeal had a sufficient basis to overturn the order of the Primary Court, as well as that of the appellate order of the High Court, on the basis that both the Courts erred as to the facts and the law in relation to an application in terms of section 66(1)(b) of the Primary Courts Procedure Act. Towards this end, I find it necessary to reproduce the relevant section 66 of the Primary Courts Procedure Act in full for the better understanding of the judgment. 66. (1) Whenever owing to a dispute affecting land a breach of the peace is threatened or likely- (a) the police officer inquiring into the dispute- (i) shall with the least possible delay file an information regarding the dispute in the Primary Court within whose jurisdiction the land is situate and require each of the parties to the dispute to enter into a bond for his appearance before the Primary Court on the day immediately succeeding the date of filing the information on which sittings of such Court are held; or (ii) shall, if necessary in the interests of preserving the peace, arrest the parties to the dispute and produce them forthwith before the Primary Court within whose Page 10 of 18 jurisdiction the land is situate to be dealt with according to law and shall also at the same time file in that Court the information regarding the dispute; or (b) any party to such dispute may file an information by affidavit in such Primary Court setting out the facts and the relief sought and specifying as respondents the names and addresses of the other parties to the dispute and then such Court shall by its usual process or by registered post notice the parties named to appear in Court on the day specified in the notice-such day being not later than two weeks from the day on which the information was filed. (2) Where an information is filed in a Primary Court under subsection (1), the Primary Court shall have and is hereby vested with jurisdiction to inquire into, and make a determination or order on, in the manner provided for in this Part, the dispute regarding which the information is filed. (3) On the date on which the parties are produced under subsection (1) or on the date fixed for their appearance under that subsection, the Court shall appoint a day which shall not be later than three weeks from the date on which the parties were produced or the date fixed for their appearance directing the parties and any persons interested to file affidavits setting out their claims and annexing thereto any documents (or certified copies thereof) on which they rely. (4) The Court shall, not later than one week of the filing of the information, cause a notice to be affixed in some conspicuous place on the land or part of the land which is the subject-matter of the dispute announcing that a dispute affecting the land has arisen and requiring any person interested to appear in Court on the date specified in such notice, such date being the day on which the case is next being called in Court: Page 11 of 18 Provided that where the information has been filed by a police officer, the notice referred to in the preceding provisions of this subsection shall also require that the person interested shall, in addition to appearing in Court, file affidavits setting out his claims and annexing thereto any documents (or certified copies thereof) on which he relies. (5) Where any affidavits and documents are filed on the date fixed for filing them, the Court shall, on application made by the parties filing affidavits, grant such parties time not exceeding two weeks for filing counter-affidavits with documents if any. The Judge of the Primary Court shall permit such parties or their attorney-at-law to peruse the record in the presence of the Registrar for the preparation of the counter-affidavits. (6) On the date fixed for filing affidavits and documents, where no application has been made for filing counter-affidavits, or on the date fixed for filing counter-affidavits, whether or not such affidavits and documents have been filed, the Court shall before fixing the case for inquiry make every effort to induce the parties and the persons interested (if any) to arrive at a settlement of the dispute and if the parties and persons interested agree to a settlement the settlement shall be recorded and signed by the parties and persons interested and an order made in accordance with the terms as settled. (7) Where the parties and persons interested (if any) do not arrive at a settlement, the Court shall fix the case for inquiry on a date which shall not be later than two weeks from the date on which the case was called for the filing of affidavits and documents or counter-affidavits and documents, as the case may be. (8) (a) Where a party or person interested is required to enter an appearance under this Part he may enter such appearance by an attorney-at-law. Page 12 of 18 (b) Where a party fails to appear or having appeared fails to file his affidavit and also his documents (if any) he shall be deemed to be in default and not be entitled to participate at the inquiry but the Court shall consider such material as is before it respecting the claims of such party in making its determination and order. The section clearly provides that for a dispute to be brought before the Primary Court in terms of section 66 of the Primary Courts Procedure Act, the dispute has to be one affecting land and also a situation where breach of the peace is threatened or likely. Section 66(1)(a) provides for the manner in which a police officer who is inquiring into such a dispute can file an information in that regard before the Court in order to seek an order from Court. Section 66(1)(b) is the provision where any party other than a police officer can come before a Primary Court seeking redress from the Primary Court in relation to a dispute affecting land where breach of the peace is threatened or likely. The difference between the two subsections has been well explained in the case of Velupillai and Others Vs. Sivanathan (1993) 1 SLR 123, where it was held; “Under section 66 (1)(a) of the Primary Courts Procedure Act, the formation of the opinion as to whether a breach of the peace is threatened or likely is left to the police officer inquiring into the dispute. The police officer is empowered to file the information if there is a dispute affecting land and a breach of the peace is threatened or likely. The Magistrate is not put on inquiry as to whether a breach of the peace is threatened or likely. In terms of section 66 (2) the Court is vested with jurisdiction to inquire into and make a determination on the dispute regarding which information is filed either under section 66 (1)(a) or 66 (1)(b). However, when an information is filed under section 66 (1)(b) the only material that the Magistrate would have before him is the affidavit Page 13 of 18 information of an interested person and in such a situation without the benefit of further assistance from a police report, the Magistrate should proceed cautiously and ascertain for himself whether there is a dispute affecting land and whether a breach of the peace is threatened or likely. The scope of the inquiry under this special jurisdiction is of a purely preventive and provisional nature pending the final adjudication of the rights of the parties in a civil court. The Magistrate is not involved in the investigation into title or right to possession which is the function of a civil court.” It is abundantly clear from the order of the learned Primary Court Judge and from the judgment of the High Court that both the Courts have considered whether there was sufficient material before the Court to satisfy whether there was a breach of the peace or such likelihood. It is clear from the documents tendered to Court by the applicant-respondent when he initiated proceedings in terms of section 66(1)(b) of the Act that he has tendered a copy of the police complaint he made on 08-04-1996 to Mawathagama police marking and producing it as පෙ-46. Apart from that, the applicant-respondent in his affidavit filed before the Primary Court has stated in paragraph 11 that the respondent-appellant forcibly evicted him from half of the building, and although he attempted to resolve the matter peacefully, it did not materialize and as a result, he lodged the above-mentioned police complaint. Having scrutinized the said material, it was the view of both the Primary Court, as well as the High Court that the applicant-respondent has failed to establish the necessary ingredients that makes him entitled to complain to the Primary Court in terms of section 66(1)(b). However, when the Court of Appeal decided to set aside both the said order and the judgment, it appears that the Court of Appeal have relied solely on the affidavit filed before the Court by the applicant-respondent. This reliance was to justify that there was a likelihood of breach of the peace, thereby aside the order of the Primary Court and the judgment of the High Court. Page 14 of 18 It must be noted that it is not only the contents of an affidavit that should be considered in determining such a matter, as such an affidavit would definitely claim that there was a breach of the peace or likelihood. It is clear that the learned Primary Court Judge has not only relied on what the affidavit says, but has independently considered whether it has any justification. The police complaint made by the applicant-respondent marked පෙ-46 makes it manifestly clear that it was a self-serving document as correctly viewed by the Primary Court and the High Court, which has been made in order to justify the claim of breach of the peace, and also to show that the applicant-respondent came before the Court within two months of him being allegedly disposed from half of the building. It is clear from the overall contents of the police complaint that there had been no breach of the peace, other than the attempts to settle the civil dispute that arose between the parties through negotiations. It is also clear that what prompted the applicant-respondent to lodge this complaint was the instructions he received from his lawyer, which goes on to show that this complaint was pre-planned with legal instructions. It is my view that there can be little value for such a self-serving document in deciding whether it provides sufficient proof of a likelihood of breach of the peace. The learned Primary Court Judge has, as she should have, inquired from the OIC of the relevant police station as to the steps the police took in relation to this complaint. It has been informed to the Court that the police have decided not to file action in terms of section 66 Primary Courts Procedure Act, which infers that they have not found a basis to consider any breach of the peace or likelihood of breach of the peace. Under the circumstances, with due respect to the judgment of the Court of Appeal, it is my considered view that the Court of Appeal erred when deciding that there was sufficient material before the original Court in relation to a likelihood of breach of the peace. Page 15 of 18 The next matter that needs consideration is the reliance on the electricity bills and the payment of assessment rates by the applicant-respondent to conclude that he had possession of the property between the relevant period of two months as required under section 66. The case has been initiated before the Primary Court on 13-05-1996 and the Court of Appeal has considered that the relevant two months period would be 13-03-1996 to 13-05-1996. It has been the position of the respondent-appellant that he took possession of half of the building on 15-01-1996 after he purchased the whole building from the applicant-respondent. Relying on the electricity bill for the month of March 1996 and the electricity disconnection notice, it has been determined that by 07-03-1996, the applicant-respondent was in possession of the building. It has also been determined that although the respondent-appellant has claimed that he was in possession of the building from January 1996, he has failed to produce any electricity bills for the months of January, February, March and April 1996. Similarly, it has been determined that although the respondent-appellant has produced a payment receipt of assessment rates dated 30-04-1996, the applicant-respondent has paid the same on 23-04-1996, which shows that the respondent-appellant has paid it after the payment made by the applicant-respondent. It was on that basis the Court of Appeal had decided on the question of two months possession prior to initiating proceedings before the Primary Court. There again, I am in no position to agree with such a view. It is my view that once a Court decides that there was a breach of the peace or likelihood of breach of the peace, the question of possession needs to be decided in the overall context of the matter before the Court, and having considered all the relevant documents. It is clear that the applicant-respondent has sold the property to the respondent-appellant for a valuable consideration. Although he has claimed that it was sold only as a security, there is no basis to accept such a contention. Page 16 of 18 It cannot be believed that anybody would pay such a consideration without having the possession of a building. It may be the very reason why the respondent-appellant has subsequently settled the mortgage that was due to the bank by paying over Rs. 800,000/-. When considering the fact that it was half of the building that the respondent-appellant has taken possession, I find that his stand that it was given on agreement has much value than that of the applicant-respondent’s contention. What is necessary to be considered is the fact that it was the applicant-respondent who owned the building before it was purchased by the respondent-appellant, and it may very well be that it was the applicant-respondent who obtained the electricity connection to the whole building and the assessment rates register would also bear his name as the owner. The fact that the applicant-respondent was in possession of half of the building shows that the electricity bills may have been collected by him rather than the respondent-appellant, which explains the applicant-respondent having the possession of the electricity bills, as well as the disconnection notice. When it comes to the payment of assessment rates, it is common knowledge that a Local Authority will accept payments made by anyone and issue receipts, which do not provide conclusive proof of the possession of a building as required in terms of section 66 of the Act. When considering the facts in the overall context, it is clear that the police complaint has been made with the intention of initiating proceedings under section 66. When the police decided not to act under section 66(1)(a) of the Act, the proceedings have been initiated under section 66(1)(b). It is my considered view that the learned Judge of the Primary Court was correct in dismissing the application of the applicant-respondent, and the learned High Court Judge was also correct in refusing the revision application filed in that regard. It is my view that an order made by a Primary Court in terms of section 66 of the Act serves only as a temporary order until the parties go before a competent Court and resolve their dispute. It is the Judge of the original Court Page 17 of 18 who would have the best opportunity of deciding the matter as the parties are before the Court and has the opportunity of inquiring into the matter and listening to the submissions of the parties. I am of the view that an appellate Court should intervene into a decision of an original Court only if it can be concluded that the decision has been reached without considering the material placed before the Court and had come to a finding not supported by facts and circumstances. It is well settled law that an appellate Court will be very slow to interfere with a judgment pronounced by a trial Judge as it is the trial Judge who has the benefit of hearing and determining the demeanour and deportment, and also the other relevant matters of evidence, unless the said judgment is not according to the law or can be termed as a judgment that has not been supported by evidence, and therefore, perverse. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J. having considered several case laws on this matter, in the case of Rev. E.H. Palitha and Others Vs. K. Kingsley Perera SC/Appeal/30/2022 decided on 31-01-2024 observed; “It is trite law that the findings of fact of the trial Judge who has the priceless advantage of seeing and hearing witnesses giving evidence, thereby getting the opportunity to observe inter alia the demeanour and deportment of witnesses, are regarded as sacrosanct and should not be lightly disturbed unless there are compelling reasons. There are no live witnesses before the appellate Court but only printed evidence. It is important to bear in mind that the trial Judge has the benefit of assessing the evidence in its overall context to reach the final decision, unlike the piece meal approach adopted in presenting the case before the appellate Court.” Under the circumstances, I find that the Court of Appeal had no basis to interfere with the findings of the Primary Court and the High Court based on the factual matters in the manner the Court of Appeal proceeded to decide the matter. Page 18 of 18 Hence, I answer the questions of law under which this appeal was considered in the affirmative. Accordingly, I set aside the judgment dated 18-03-2011 of the Court of Appeal and affirm the order dated 17-03-1997 by the learned Judge of the Primary Court of Pilessa, and the order dated 16-12-1998 by the learned High Court Judge of the High Court of North-Western Province holden in Kurunegala. Appeal Allowed. There will be no costs of the appeal.		Download
2025-10-24	SC/APPEAL/36/2020	1. Wanniarachchige Ranga Sampath Fonseka Presently at: Welikada (Male Unit). Accused-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. The Attorney General, The Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Menaka Wijesundera J			Download
2025-10-24	SC/FR/293/2020	Vindani Priyadarshika Sooriyarachchi No. 75/09, Ferguson Road, Colombo 14 Petitioner V. 1.⁠ ⁠Mangala Dehideniya Superintendent of Police Office of the Superintendent of the Police, Colombo-North Police Division, Colombo 14 2.⁠ ⁠Caldera Officer in Charge Grandpass Police Station, Colombo 14 3.⁠ ⁠Rajarathna Sub-Inspector of Police Grandpass Police Station, Colombo 14 4.⁠ ⁠Inspector General of Police Sri Lanka Police Head Quarters, Colombo 1 5.⁠ ⁠Hon. Attorney General Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12 Respondents View More	Hon. K. Priyantha Fernando J	The Petitioner in the instant case alleged that the fundamental rights guaranteed to her in terms of Articles 11, 12(1) and 13(2) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka had been infringed due to the actions of the Respondents. This Court was inclined to grant leave for the alleged violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution. 2. The Petitioner is currently residing in No. 75/09, Ferguson Road, Colombo 14. The 1st Respondent is the Superintendent of Police attached to the Colombo-North Police Division at the time of the incident, the 2nd Respondent was the Officer in Charge of the Grandpass Police Station at the time of the incident, the 3rd Respondent is the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the Grandpass Police Station, the 4th Respondent is the Inspector General of Police who has the overall command of the Sri Lankan Police Force and the 5th Respondent is the Hon. Attorney General who has been made party to this application in compliance with the Law. 3. The Petitioner states that, on 10.08.2020, one or more of all the Respondents unlawfully/illegally entered her house when the occupants of the house were not present. The Petitioner asserts that she had gone on a pilgrimage and the incident was notified to her by one of her neighbors. The Petitioner states that, the same neighbour also informed her that the 1st and 2nd Respondents had broken the locks of her house and unlawfully/illegally entered the premises and later on have put new locks to the door. The Petitioner states that one of her relatives whom she trusted with the house during the Petitioner’s absence was denied entry to the house, and the keys to the new locks were not handed over to the relative until the following day. 4. The Petitioner states that she was informed that the Respondents broke into her house without a proper search warrant or a Court order. Thereafter, she has complained to the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka on 11.08.2020, Police Head Quarters on 12.08.2020 and National Police Commission on 12.08.2020 of the alleged injustice caused to her. 5. The Petitioner’s submissions are categorised under three main grounds. First, it is contended that no illegal substance or suspicious item was discovered at the Petitioner’s residence. Second, the Petitioner submits that the entry into and search of her residence was carried out in the absence of a valid search warrant or a Court order. Third, it is 4 asserted that the Respondents failed to report the relevant facts to the Court in a timely manner, having done so only several weeks after the incident in question. 6. The Petitioner further submitted that the Respondents were unable to locate any illegal substance or items of a suspicious nature within the premises. In this regard, it is argued that the provisions of Section 77 of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance are inapplicable, as the Respondents lacked reasonable grounds to believe that any illegal substances were stored, possessed, sold, or manufactured at the Petitioner’s residence. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent had sufficient time to obtain a search warrant prior to entering the premises, as there was no risk of evidence being removed or evasion as there was no resident present at the premises. 7. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the decision in Anura Bandaranayake v Rajaguru, Inspector General of Police [1999] 1 SLR 104 and submitted that Section 125 of the Evidence Ordinance which protects a police officer from being compelled to disclose the source of information regarding an offence has no application in instances where an alleged violation of fundamental rights is under consideration. In that context, Counsel challenged both the legality and credibility of the information purportedly relied upon by the police. 8. On the foregoing basis, the Petitioner claims that her fundamental rights, as guaranteed under Article 12(1) of the Constitution, have been infringed. 9. It is the position of the learned Additional Solicitor General for the Respondents that the acts of the 1st and 2nd Respondents have been according to law and are based on probable cause and have not at any point been malicious or discriminatory in nature. 10. The learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent stated that, on 10.08.2020 the Respondents took part in a cordoned search which included a series of searches in the ‘75 Watta’ - Thotalanga area on instructions received from the Senior Superintendent of Police Colombo North division. At this time, the 2nd respondent has received information from a private informant that a quantity of heroin was brought to the house number 75/09 Watta Thotalanga. Upon reaching the said house, the Respondents have got no response from the residents of the house, despite the neighbours mentioning that there were residents present in the house that morning. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that, as there was no response from the house, invoking their powers vested on them by Section 77 of 5 the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, the Respondents have entered the house having broken the padlocks. It was submitted that they have not found any suspicious item and thereafter as there was no one to hand over the custody of the house, the Respondents have decided to place a police officer to guard the house and to insert the new padlock. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the keys of the new padlock had been kept with the 2nd respondent for safety reasons and the same had been informed to the Grama Niladari of the area. 11. At the hearing, the learned Additional Solicitor General for the Respondents submitted that, the breaking and entering the house of the Petitioner was permitted under the law and was based on reasonable belief of an offence under the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance and therefore the conduct of the Respondents was not Arbitrary. He further submitted that the breaking and entering was done pursuant to the powers vested in the 2nd respondent particularly under Section 77 (2) of the aforementioned act. 12. The learned Additional Solicitor General further contended that, the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any basis on which it could be inferred that he was singled out or discriminated against by the Respondents in the course of the said operation. It was submitted that the Respondents were engaged in a broader cordoned search of the area known as ‘ 75 Watta ’, which had been identified as an area reporting frequent cases of narcotics-related activity. The entry into the premises in question was carried out based on information that was reasonably believed to be credible. 13. It was additionally submitted that, as evidenced by document marked 2R4, the operation ultimately led to the recovery of 25.380 grams of heroin and 99.845 grams of ganja. Accordingly, the learned Additional Solicitor General argued that the actions of the Respondents were lawful, and did not amount to a violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 12(1) of the Constitution. 14. The present application concerns an alleged infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Article 12(1) of the Constitution. Article 12(1) of the Constitution states that, “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law.” 6 15. The Petitioner\'s complaint is that the 1st and 2nd Respondents unlawfully entered her residence in her absence, without a search warrant, and conducted a search which yielded no incriminating or suspicious material. It is the Petitioner\'s contention that, such conduct amounts to an arbitrary and unjustified act on the part of the police, thereby constituting a violation of her right to equality and equal protection of the law as enshrined in Article 12(1) of the Constitution. 16. Upon consideration of the material placed before this Court, including the document marked 2R2, it is evident that the 2nd Respondent received information from a personal contact alleging that approximately 3kg of heroin were being stored at the Petitioner’s residence. Acting upon this information, the police proceeded to conduct a search of the said premises. 17. It is to be noted that, according to the affidavit of the 2nd Respondent dated 10.06.2022, although the premises appeared unoccupied at the time of entry, subsequent inquiries with neighbours revealed that the house had been occupied earlier that same morning. The officer states that, in the given circumstances, and as there was a possibility the residents would abscond, he acted in terms of Section 77(2) of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, and entered the premises without a warrant. It is also pertinent to note that, while the Petitioner has asserted she was on a pilgrimage on the day of the incident, the Petitioner has not disclosed the specific time or date she left the premises to go on the pilgrimage. 18. Section 77(2) of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance states that, “ Where any police officer not below the rank of Sergeant or any excise officer not below the rank of Inspector or any officer of the excise striking force not below the rank of Preventive Officer has reason to believe that anything is, in contravention of this Ordinance or any regulation, kept, possessed, sold, or manufactured in any place or premises, or that any document directly or indirectly relating to or connected with any transaction or dealing which was, or any intended transaction or dealing which, if carried out, would be, an offence against this Ordinance, or in the case of a transaction or dealing carried out or intended to be carried out in any place outside Sri Lanka, would be an offence against the provisions of any corresponding law in force in that place, is in any place or premises, and that a search warrant 7 cannot be obtained under subsection (1) without affording the offender an opportunity of escape or of concealing evidence of the offence, he may after recording the grounds of his belief and at any time within the next twelve hours exercise all or any of the powers which could have been conferred on him by subsection (1)” 19. On the above premise, this Court is of the view that the reasonableness of police action must be assessed in light of the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was taken. When a police officer receives credible information of a serious offence such as the possession of large quantities of Heroine or any other narcotics, it is not only within his powers but indeed his duty to act expeditiously to prevent the commission of such offence and secure public safety. Section 77(2) of the aforesaid Ordinance empowers the police, in appropriate circumstances, to act without a warrant when there is reasonable belief that an offence under the Ordinance is being committed. 20. The affidavit of the 2nd Respondent and document marked 2R2 further shows that, following the forced entry and search, the police officers actually took measures to secure the house and its property by replacing the broken padlocks with new ones, kept the keys in their custody, and instructed the standing guard to inform the owner to retrieve the same. The Grama Niladhari of the area was also informed of these developments. “මා නැවත පැති ද ාර වසා දපර තිබූ ඉබ්බා ැමුවත් එය නිසි දෙස අගුල් දනාවටුනි. එම නිසා දපා. සැ 56206 සමරවික්‍රම පිටත්කර හැර අලුතින් ඉබ්බන් ද ද දනකු දෙන්වා දෙන පැති ද ාරට මා ඒවාදේ යතුරු මාභාරදයම තබා ෙතිමි . දමම නිවදසේ දේපෙ ආරක්ශා කර ෙැනීමට දපා. සැ 34170 රණසිිංහ, දපා.දකා.දකා 41426 කරුණාරත්න, සහ 85806 බන්ඩාර යන නිෙධාරීන් දෙන්වාදෙන නිසි උපද සේ ෙබාදී පැය 1300 ට සාක්කු සටෙන් දපාත් අත්සන් කර එම නිවස ඉදිරිපිට මාෙගදේ නතර කරන ෙදී.” 21. These actions, taken as a whole, indicate that the officers acted Bona fide, with no evidence of malice, arbitrariness, or discriminatory conduct directed at the Petitioner. 22. While this Court is mindful of the importance of safeguarding individual liberties of one’s home, it must also adopt a balanced and practical approach in interpreting the powers of law enforcement, especially in the case where credible information relating to serious offences such as drug trafficking is received. If officers are unreasonably restricted from acting on such information in certain circumstances, it could severely affect the enforcement of law and the protection of society at large. 8 23. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the conduct of the Respondents, particularly the 1st and 2nd Respondents, does not amount to a violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 12(1) of the Constitution. The actions taken appear to have been based on a reasonable belief and within the scope of authority vested in the officer under Section 77(2) of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. 24. Accordingly, I hold that the Petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in her Petition. The application is hereby dismissed.		Download
2025-10-24	SC/APPEAL/189/2015	Kariyawasam Majuwanage Prabath Chaminda Perera No. 431/11, Bodhiya Road Thalahena, Malabe Petitioner - Petitioner -Appellant Vs. 1. Bandara Kalu Thanthrige Dona Mala Kanthi Perera No. 401/2, E. W. Perera Mawatha, Pitakotte 2. Suriyarachchige Bineshika Anuranjitha Perera No. 401/2, E. W. Perera Mawatha, Pitakotte Presently of No. 5301 Spring Lake Pkwy, Apt. 506, Haltom City, TX 76117, USA Defendants - Respondents- Respondents View More	Hon. Sobhitha Rajakaruna J			Download
2025-10-23	SC/APPEAL/67/2019	Ranabahu Mudiyanselage Senarath Bandara Ranabahu, Metiyanagama, Karambe, Maho SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT - Vs - Ranabahu Mudiyanselage Ranjith Jaya􀆟ssa, Metiyanagama, Karambe, Maho SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Arjuna Obeyesekere J			Download
2025-10-22	SC/FR/90/2021	Thilina Rajapaksha, No. 109/10/1B, Amarasinghe Mawatha, Naramminiya Road, Kelaniya. Petitioner V. 1.⁠ K.G. Ravindra Kumara, Police Sergeant (34971), Police Station, Alawwa. 2. B.M.S.S. Wijebandara, Police Sergeant (30472), Police Station, Alawwa. 3. Police Officer 87445, (Police Constable Jayasundera), Police Station, Alawwa. 4. M.M.H. Jayatillake, Chief Inspector of Police, Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Alawwa. 5. Chandrasena Bandara, Assistant Superintendent of Police, ASP’s Office, Kurunegala. 6. C.D. Wickremaratne, Former Inspector General of Police, C/o Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 6A. Deshabandu Tennekoon, Former Inspector General of Police, C/o Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 6B. Priyantha Weerasuriya, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 7. Samanthi Mihindukula, Former Secretary of the National Police Commission, C/o Secretary, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, BMICH Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 7A. Thamara D. Perera, Former Secretary of the National Police Commission, C/o Secretary, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, BMICH Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 7B. Thanuja N. Fernando, Secretary, National Police Commission, Block No.9, BMICH Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 8. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. K. Priyantha Fernando J	The Petitioner in this application is originally from Polgahawela but resided temporarily at the above-captioned address and was the Executive Presenter/Producer (Current Affairs) of ‘Neth FM’, a private radio station located in Colombo 03. He alleges that the 1st to 4th Respondents, who are officers attached to the Police Station of Alawwa subjected him to grave humiliation committed several acts of violence and torture, as well as illegally arrested and unlawfully detained him. Accordingly, he alleges that the Respondents violated fundamental rights guaranteed to him under Articles 11, 12(1), 13(1), 13(2) and 14(1)(g) of the Constitution. This Court granted leave to proceed for the alleged violations of Articles 11, 12(1) and 14(1)(g). At argument stage Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he will only pursue the alleged infringement of Article 11 against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents, and the alleged infringement of Article 12(1) also only against the same Respondents. Further, Counsel informed this Court that he will not pursue the alleged infringement of Article 14(1)(g) against any of the Respondents. The Facts According to the Petitioner he left his hometown, Polgahawela on 01.03.2021 to head back to Colombo on his motorcycle bearing Registration No. NW BET 1298. Around 1.00 p.m. as he approached Walakumbura, Alawwa area, he was signaled to stop the motorcycle by the 1st and 2nd Respondents. According to the 5 Petitioner, the incident occurred as he overtook a car which had its left rear signal switched on, indicating it was going to turn left. The Petitioner states that upon stopping his motorcycle on the side of the road, he was asked to furnish his driving license by the 1st and 2nd Respondents. The said Respondents had claimed that the Petitioner overtook a vehicle crossing the white line on the road. The Petitioner has furnished his driving license but denied the said traffic offence on the premise that there was ample room within the boundaries of the carriage way for a safe overtaking. The Petitioner claims that he started videoing the incident from one of his mobile telephones when the Respondents persisted on the charge. The Petitioner claims that one of the Respondents told him that he would be charged with having failed to ride the motorcycle on the left-side of the road; and the other informed him that a charge of reckless or negligent riding will also be added and proceeded to verbally abuse him. At this point, the Petitioner claims that he informed the 1st and 2nd Respondents that he would report this to the higher officials of the Police. According to the Petitioner, the 1st and 2nd Respondents have asked him to stop filming and then proceeded to assault him and verbally abuse him. The Petitioner has refused to stop filming the scene on the premise that he was a “media-person”. However, the Petitioner claims that he was severely assaulted on the road by both the 1st and 2nd Respondents. As per the Petitioner’s recollection, his helmet, cap and face mask had come off as a result of the brutality of the assault. He also claims that he was momentarily blinded due to the same. At this point, according to the Petitioner, ongoing vehicles and pedestrians also crowded to observe the incident. Thereafter, the Petitioner had contacted the 4th Respondent, and the Petitioner was informed that two more Police Officers would arrive at the scene to mitigate it. Following this, the 3rd Respondent has arrived at the scene and has indicated that the Petitioner’s bags should be checked for any possession or transportation of drugs or cannabis. 6 The 1st to 3rd Respondents have then again assaulted the Petitioner, with the 3rd Respondent pressing his shoe to the Petitioner’s neck while the other two kicked him. The Petitioner was then hand cuffed and taken to the Police Station of Alawwa in a three-wheeler by the 1st Respondent. While in the three-wheeler, the Petitioner claims that the 1st Respondent had, over the phone, stated to someone that they would cause the Petitioner to be imprisoned by introducing some substance. At the Police Station, the Petitioner has been asked to furnish his Media Accreditation Card. He further states that he was not given a temporary driving license even though his driving license was taken into custody. The Petitioner has asked permission to contact his Office in Colombo but was initially denied permission. Later, upon contacting the Office, the Deputy Inspector-General of the Police Ajith Rohana has spoken to the Petitioner through the 4th Respondent and advised him to admit himself to the Hospital. Following this the 4th Respondent has apologized to the Petitioner and further requested him not to draw any media attention to the incident and had taken him to the Hospital. The Petitioner was initially taken to the Regional Hospital of Alawwa and then transferred to the Teaching Hospital of Kurunegala, where he realized his gold chain was missing. He received treatment until 06.03.2021 for the abrasions he sustained on the forehead, the back of the neck, the chest, the upper lip and below the eye. The Acting Magistrate had visited the Hospital on 03.03.2021 and had remanded the Petitioner until 08.03.2021 and later released him on surety bail on the same day. Subsequently, the Petitioner was discharged from the Hospital on 06.03.2021. The Petitioner states that the Medico Legal Report (MLR) marked “P23” indicates 10 injuries, out of which 8 were abrasions and a tender (dental). The 9th injury was a grievous injury as it was a dental fracture. The Petitioner maintains that the said MLR is consistent with the history given by the Petitioner. The Petitioner further states that the 4th Respondent has instituted action 7 against the Petitioner in the Magistrate’s Court of Polgahawela under the case bearing No. B 233. Further, to the best of his knowledge, another case bearing No. B. 280 has also been instituted in the same Magistrate’s Court. As per the copies of case B233/2021 (44786/MT) submitted, the Petitioner has been charged for using criminal force to deter a public servant in terms of Section 344 of the Penal Code, negligent driving in terms of Section 151(3) of the Motor Traffic Act, failing to drive on the left side in terms of Section 148(1) of the Motor Traffic Act and obstructing the vehicles coming from the opposing side of the adjacent carriage way in terms of Section 148(5) of the Motor Traffic Act. In these circumstances, the Petitioner alleges that on the totality of the facts and circumstances as herein described, the 1st to 6th Respondents in this case, subjected him to grave humiliation committed several acts of violence and torture, as well as illegally arresting and unlawfully detaining him. Accordingly, it is the Petitioner’s position that the Respondents have violated his Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 11, 12(1), 13(1), 13(2) and 14(1)(g) of the Constitution. However, as mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of this judgment, this Court will only consider the violations of Articles 11 and 12(1) of the Constitution. In response, the 1st to 3rd Respondents have submitted that they deny the allegations made by the Petitioner. According to the Respondents, the 1st and 2nd Respondents, while on duty on 02.03.2021 near Walakumbura, Alawwa, observed that the Petitioner was violating the Motor Traffic Act. He was allegedly driving at an excessive speed and overtaking some vehicles by crossing the white line on the center of the road. The Respondents claim that the Petitioner was asked to produce his driving license and the other relevant documents following which a temporary license was issued. The Respondents further claim that at this point the Petitioner resisted the issuance of a spot fine and turned abusive towards the Police and 8 proceeded to push the 1st Respondent to the ground. The Respondents claim that the national identity card and the media identity card had discrepancies in terms of their numbers and name. Upon inquiring about the discrepancies, the Petitioner had become even more aggressive and abusive towards the Respondents and proceeded to video record the incident. Upon informing the 4th Respondent about the incident, the 3rd Respondent and another Police Officer were sent to the scene. The Respondents have then detained the Petitioner and taken him into custody for using criminal force on a public officer with the intention of preventing or deterring the discharge of duty. The Petitioner was taken to the Alawwa Police Station with great difficulty in a three-wheeler. In relation to the injuries sustained by the Petitioner, the position taken up by the Respondents is that the Petitioner behaved violently and unruly and that the injuries were self-inflicted by knocking his head against the three-wheeler and that the contents of the MLR marked “P23” and the Petition do not corroborate. Alleged Violation of Fundamental Rights In the case of Velmurugu v. The Attorney General and Another [1981] 1 SLR 406, it was held that the standard of proof that is required in cases filed under Article 126 of the Constitution for infringement of Fundamental Rights is proof by a preponderance of probabilities as in a civil case and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. It was further held in Gunawardene v. Perera and Others [1983] 1 SLR 305 at 313 by Soza J. that; “…It is generally accepted that within this standard there could be varying degrees of probability. The degree of probability required should be commensurate with the gravity of the allegation sought to be proved. This court when called upon to determine questions of infringement of fundamental rights will insist on a high degree of probability as for instance a court having to decide a question of fraud 9 in a civil suit would. The conscience of the court must be satisfied that there has been an infringement.” Alleged violation of Article 11 Article 11 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka states: “No person shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Furthermore, Article 11 is an unqualified and non-derogable right as per Athukorala J. in Sudath Silva v. Kodituakku Inspector of Police and Others [1987] 2 SLR 119 at 126: “…It prohibits every person from inflicting torturesome, cruel or inhuman treatment on another. It is an absolute fundamental right subject to no restrictions or limitations whatsoever. (…) The police force, being an organ of the State, is enjoined by the Constitution to secure and advance this right and not to deny, abridge or restrict the same in any manner and under any circumstances (...) It is therefore the duty of this court to protect and defend this right jealously to its fullest measure with a view to ensuring that this right which is declared and intended to be fundamental is always kept fundamental (...) This court cannot, in the discharge of its constitutional duty, countenance any attempt by any police officer however high or low, to conceal or distort the truth induced, perhaps, by a false sense of police solidarity.” [Emphasis mine] This Court, in assessing the claim of Article 11 violation in this instant case, takes the following facts into consideration. Petitioner claims that he was assaulted and the injuries sustained by him that are shown in the MLR marked “P23” are inflicted by the assault by the 1st to 3rd Respondents. The version presented by the said Respondents is that they did not assault the 10 Petitioner in the manner described by him. However, it is their position that the Petitioner knocked his head on a three-wheeler and that the injuries were self-inflicted. When considering the injuries mentioned in the MLR, it is clear that all these injuries cannot be self-inflicted. Further, one injury is even a grievous injury as it is a dental fracture which required extensive treatment. Therefore, it is clear that the 1st to 3rd Respondents caused the said injuries as stated by the Petitioner. Further, the Medical Officer who examined the Petitioner has stated that these injuries are consistent with the history given by the Petitioner. In these circumstances, I declare that the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the Petitioner by Article 11 have been violated by the 1st to 3rd Respondents of the instant case. Alleged Violation of Article 12(1) Article 12(1) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka states: \"All persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law.\" The interpretation of Article 12 has expanded over the years as beyond its literal meaning. This is evident in the case of Wijerathna v. Sri Lanka Ports Authority [SC/FR/ 256/2017 S.C. Minutes of 11 December 2020] as follows: “…The concept of ‘equality’ was originally aimed at preventing discrimination based on or due to such immutable and acquired characteristics, which do not on their own make human being unequal. It is now well accepted that, the ‘right to equality’ covers a much wider area, aimed at preventing other ‘injustices’ too, that are recognized by law. Equality is now a right as opposed to a mere privilege or an entitlement, and in the context of Sri Lanka a ‘Fundamental Right’, conferred on the people by the Constitution, for the purpose of curing not only injustices taking the manifestation of 11 discrimination, but a host of other maladies recognized by law. While all Fundamental Rights are of equal importance and value, the ‘right to equality’ reigns supreme, as it can be said that, all the other Fundamental Rights stem from the ‘right to equality’. The ability of human beings to live in contemporary society (as opposed to merely existing), and develop and reap the fruits of social, scientific, economic and political developments, is based on their ability to exercise fully the ‘right to equality’. Similarly, for human civilizations may they be national or international, to reap the full benefits of knowledge, skills, experience, talents and wisdom that people possess, people of such societies must enjoy the ‘right to equality’.” Further, in the case of Ariyawansa and Others v. The People’s Bank and Others [2006] 2 Sri LR 145 at 152 Bandaranayake J. stated that, “The concepts of negation of arbitrariness and unreasonableness are embodied in the right to equality as it has been decided that any action or law which is arbitrary or unreasonable violates equality.” Thus, considering the unreasonable and arbitrary conduct of the 1st to 3rd Respondents and their treatment of the Petitioner without adhering to the due legal procedures affects the equal protection guaranteed to the Petitioner under Article 12(1) of the Constitution. Whereby I hold that Article 12 (1) of the Constitution was violated by the 1st to 3rd Respondents against the Petitioner. Declarations and Compensation In the above premise, I declare that the fundamental rights that have been guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 11 and 12 (1) of the Constitution were violated by the 1st to 3rd Respondents. As per Article 126(4) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is empowered to grant such relief as it may deem just and equitable in the circumstances in respect of any petition referred to it under Article 126(2). Therefore, in the circumstances of this case, considering the injuries, the discomfort and the losses that were suffered by the Petitioner due to the arbitrary acts of the 12 Respondents, I order the 1st to 3rd Respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000 each, from their personal funds, totaling to a sum of Rs. 75,000 to the Petitioner within the period of two months from the date of this judgment. Further, the Honourable Attorney General is directed to cause the conduct of a criminal investigation into the incident, upon the completion of which, consider the institution of criminal proceedings against the Respondents. Application is Allowed		Download
2025-10-22	SC/APPEAL/138/2015	Murugesu Sunderalingam, Valakamparai Temple, West Street, Tholpuram, Chulipuram. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Thuraiappah Surendran, Paralai Veedi, Chulipuram. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J	The plaintiff instituted this action in the District Court of Mallakam seeking a declaration of title to the land described in the schedule to the plaint, ejectment of the defendant therefrom, and damages. The defendant did not challenge that the plaintiff is the owner of the land. His position was that he is a bona fide possessor who entered into possession with the leave and licence of the plaintiff’s predecessor in title, one Ampalanathan, and that he has been residing on the land since 1992 after constructing a house thereon. The defendant claimed that he is entitled to remain in possession until a sum of Rs. 750,000 is paid to him as compensation for the improvements made by constructing the said house. At the trial, the said Ampalanathan gave evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. He testified that the defendant and his family, together with many others, had been displaced, most likely due to the civil disturbances prevailing at that time in the North, and were temporarily accommodated in a temple. After some time, they were requested to vacate the temple. With the consent of the new owner of the land, to whom Ampalanathan had sold the property, the defendant was permitted to occupy the land in suit for a period of six months. Initially, a temporary hut was erected, but thereafter, without any permission from Ampalanathan or his successors in title, the defendant proceeded to construct the existing house. This evidence directly contradicts the defendant’s assertion that he was a bona fide possessor throughout the period of his occupation. The District Court accepted the testimony of Ampalanathan and rejected the version put forward by the defendant. The main question that arises for consideration is whether the defendant is entitled to compensation for the improvements effected on the land. Upon conclusion of the trial, the District Court declared that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the land, but nevertheless awarded the defendant a sum of 3 SC/APPEAL/138/2015 Rs. 400,000 as compensation for the improvements. It is this award of compensation that forms the principal matter in controversy before the High Court and this Court. On appeal by the plaintiff, the High Court of Civil Appeal set aside the order awarding compensation, holding that the defendant had not established that he was a bona fide possessor so as to be entitled to compensation for improvements. The High Court further observed that, in any event, there was no evidence upon which the District Court could have determined the quantum of compensation. It is against this judgment of the High Court of Civil Appeal that the defendant has preferred the present appeal. A previous Bench of this Court had granted leave to appeal on the following questions of law: (a) Did the plaintiff as owner of the land allow the defendant to carry out necessary improvements on the land? (b) Did the High Court fail to consider the fact that the defendant carried out the improvements in the honest belief that he was entitled to do so under the law? (c) Can the plaintiff take advantage without making compensation for improvements effected by the defendant in good faith believing himself to be entitled to enjoy them for a term or in perpetuity? On the facts and circumstances of this case, I am in agreement with the finding of the High Court that the defendant cannot be regarded as a bona fide possessor beyond the expiry of the six-month period during which he was permitted to occupy the land as a matter of goodwill, given that he and his family had no other place to go and had been stranded at the time. Although he was requested to vacate the land at the end of that period, he failed to do so and continued in unlawful possession. Thereafter, his 4 SC/APPEAL/138/2015 occupation was mala fide, and he accordingly forfeited any claim to the rights of a bona fide possessor. A mala fide possessor is one who occupies or exercises control over property in bad faith, knowing that he has no valid title or lawful right to do so, or being in circumstances where he cannot reasonably claim ignorance of its unlawfulness. By contrast, a bona fide possessor is one who, under an honest and genuine belief founded upon reasonable justification, assumes possession of property in the mistaken impression that he has a valid title or right to do so. The distinction is critical, for the law affords protection and certain equitable remedies to bona fide possessors, while denying such benefits to those whose possession is tainted by mala fides. Roman-Dutch law classifies improvements into three categories: necessary improvements (impensae necessariae), useful improvements (impensae utiles), and ornamental improvements (impensae voluptuariae). Necessary improvements are those essential for the preservation or protection of the property, without which the property would inevitably deteriorate. For instance, repairing a boundary wall to prevent collapse, installing a roof to protect a building from ruin, or constructing drainage to avert flooding. However, this category should be understood subject to the condition that the owner in fact intended to preserve the property. If the owner did not intend to preserve the property, the expenditure cannot be regarded as a necessary improvement. Thus, if a possessor repaired a crumbling roof of a house which the owner nevertheless intended to demolish and replace with a new house, such repairs would not constitute an improvement at all. Useful improvements are those that, while not indispensable, substantially enhance the value, productivity, or reasonable utility of the property, such as putting up a permanent dwelling on vacant land, building an irrigation system to increase agricultural yield, or adding rooms to a house to make it more functional. Ornamental improvements are those made merely for 5 SC/APPEAL/138/2015 decoration, luxury, or personal gratification, such as constructing a fountain, carrying out elaborate landscaping, or erecting decorative pillars. As a general rule, the right to claim compensation for improvements is confined to bona fide possessors having civilis possessio, and does not extend to mala fide possessors. Only bona fide possessors are entitled to exercise the right of retention (ius retentionis) until compensation is paid. Where improvements are necessary improvements (impensae necessariae), both bona fide and mala fide possessors are entitled to compensation, since such improvements preserve the very existence of the property, provided that the owner intended its preservation. Where improvements are useful (impensae utiles), only the bona fide possessor is entitled to compensation, unless the true owner, with full knowledge of the improvements, has stood by and allowed them without objection, in which event the doctrine of unjust enrichment, grounded in equity, may permit compensation even to a mala fide possessor. It may be relevant to note that the Roman-Dutch jurists are divided on payment for useful improvements: Groenewegen, Van Leeuwen, Voet, and Schorer maintain that a mala fide possessor is entitled to compensation for useful improvements, whereas Grotius and Van der Keessel take the opposite view. As a general principle, where the improvements are ornamental or superfluous (impensae voluptuariae), no compensation is payable. In a rei vindicatio action, once paper title of the plaintiff is admitted or proved, the defendant shall prove on what right he is in possession of the property. The burden rests on the defendant to establish the amount of compensation, which shall be limited to either the enhanced value of the land attributable to the improvements or the actual cost incurred in effecting them, whichever is the lesser. Vide The General Ceylon Tea Estates Co. Ltd v. Pulle (1906) 9 NLR 98, Carimjee v. Abeywickreme (1920) 22 NLR 286, Wijeyesekere v. Meegama 6 SC/APPEAL/138/2015 (1939) 40 NLR 340, Anglo-Ceylon and General Estates Co. Ltd v. Abusalie (1954) 55 NLR 345, William v. Attadasi Thero (1962) 65 NLR 181. Whatever the nature of the improvement, the owner cannot be compelled to accept improvements against his will and thereby be forced to pay compensation. If the owner does not need improvements, the improver may be allowed to exercise the right of removal (ius tollendi), provided this can be done without causing material injury to the property, and subject to restoring the property to its original condition. The principle rests on the equitable notion that, while an owner cannot be compelled to accept and pay for improvements he does not desire, neither should a bona fide possessor be deprived altogether of the benefit of his expenditure. The ius retentionis and the ius tollendi thus operate as complementary doctrines: the former ensures fairness to the bona fide possessor by securing compensation for necessary improvements or useful improvements which the owner elects to retain, while the latter safeguards the owner’s autonomy by preventing the imposition of unwanted improvements upon his property. Vide Walter Pereira, Laws of Ceylon, 2nd edition (1913), pages 352-380, Wille’s Principles of South African Law by J.T.R. Gibson, 7th edition (1977), Juta & Co. Limited, page 498, G.L. Peiris, Some Aspects of The Law of Unjust Enrichment in South Africa and Ceylon (1972), pages 11-69. In Sirisena Navalage v. Kalawana [2012] 2 Sri LR 98, Dep J. (as he then was), at 107–108, observed: As he was not a bona fide possessor he is not entitled to any compensation. He had been in occupation of the land unlawfully for more than two decades and he would have reaped the benefit of the improvements carried out by him at his own risk. Therefore, I hold that the Defendant is not entitled to any compensation for the improvements. 7 SC/APPEAL/138/2015 In Wanigaratne v. Wanigaratne [1997] 2 Sri LR 267 at 271-272, Edussuriya J. noted: In this case the appellants are not bona fide possessors as it was decided that the respondent’s predecessor in title (the father) had never led the appellants to believe that this property would be given to them, and therefore the respondent cannot be ordered to pay compensation for buildings which were constructed by the appellants who are mala fide possessors. Further trespassers cannot foist on the owner what they consider to be necessary improvements, done without the owner’s consent and claim compensation. It could well be that the owner had other plans and may have to demolish the “improvements” effected by the trespassers because they are not necessary improvements. Besides there is no evidence that they are necessary improvements. If Courts of Law were to hold that owners of land should pay compensation to trespassers who have put up buildings thereon, then we would be paving the way for trespassers to build as they like, because at the end of the day they can walk away with compensation, after having been in forcible possession for a period of years and having rented out such buildings and earned thereby, as in this case. In the same case, Senanayake J. at pages 274-275 added: In the instant case the appellants were trespassers on the land, therefore they were mala fide possessors. It is well settled law and decided in the case of The General Tea Estates Co. Ltd. v. Pulle 9 NLR 98 that a mala fide possessor was not entitled under the Roman Dutch Law, as administered in Ceylon to compensation for impensa utiles. Pereira Acting Puisne Justice observed in a case reported in 2 Balasingham’s Report 149 “a mala fide possessor is one who 8 SC/APPEAL/138/2015 possesses well knowing that he has no right to do so in as much as the property possessed belongs to another and it would be unreasonable to allow him to force on the true owner improvements which very useful though they be are effected according to his own taste or whims and his fancy and may be such as the true owner himself would never have cared to effect.” More recently, in Susiripala v. Sumanawathie (SC/APPEAL/61/2014, SC Minutes of 20.01.2022), I restated the principle in the following terms: Only bona fide possessors are entitled to compensation for useful improvements and the ius retentionis (right of retention) is available to them until compensation is paid by the owner. Even if the defendant is a bona fide possessor, the plaintiff does not want the buildings on the land perhaps because she does not have the financial capacity to pay compensation. The buildings cannot be thrust upon her and she cannot be compelled to pay compensation to the defendant. The High Court allowed the defendant to remove the buildings. The ius tollendi (right to remove improvements) is available to the improver when compensation cannot be awarded. The appeal before us falls squarely within this established framework. In the present case, the defendant has been in unlawful occupation at least since 1993. The defendant, not being a bona fide possessor beyond the period of permissive occupation, cannot compel the plaintiff to accept or pay for the so-called useful improvements. As the plaintiff does not desire to retain the improvements, the defendant’s entitlement, even assuming arguendo that he were to be regarded as a bona fide possessor, extends only to the ius tollendi—the right to remove the improvements—provided that such removal can be done without causing material injury to the land. Equity cannot be invoked to shield a wrongdoer or to impose an unwarranted burden upon the true owner. 9 SC/APPEAL/138/2015 I answer the questions of law raised in this appeal against the defendant. I affirm the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the appeal subject to the condition that the defendant may remove the improvements without causing material injury to the land and hand over vacant possession of the land to the plaintiff on or before 28.02.2026. In the event of failure to comply, the plaintiff shall be entitled to obtain writ to eject the defendant and all those holding under him forthwith.		Download
2025-10-22	SC/CHC/APPEAL/2/2017	Arunesh Seelanathakuruppu 450/24 Gehan Mawatha, Koswatte, Talangama North, Battaramulla. PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT vs 1. Bartleet Asset Management (Pvt) Ltd. 2. Bartleet Religare Securities (Pvt) Ltd. Both of -No. 65, Braybrooke Place, Colombo 02. DEFENDANT - RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J			Download
2025-10-21	SC/HCLA/101/2024	Sooriyage Sujith Chaminda Kumara No. D 20/10, Mapitigama, Gonagala, Ruwanwella. Applicant-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Malwatte Valley Plantations, No. 280, Dam Street, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda PC J		In an Appeal under and in terms of Article 127(2) of the Constitution read with section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990.	Download
2025-10-17	SC/APPEAL/38/2016	1. Warnakulasooriya Stanley Joseph Thamel, 2. Warnakulasooriya Suji Nilosha Thamel, 3. Warnakulasooriya Suraj Dinuka Thamel, All of Pahalagama, Udubaddawa. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANTS Vs. 1. Warnakulasooriya Vinsel Thamel, (Deceased) 1A. Pandiwela Lekamge Janaka Pandiwela. 2. Pandiwela Lekamge Janaka Pandiwela, Both of Pahalagama, Udubaddawa. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J	This is an appeal preferred by the defendant-respondent-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) on the basis of being aggrieved by the judgment pronounced on 10-02-2014 by the High Court of the North Western Province holden in Kurunegala while exercising its civil appellate jurisdiction. When this matter was considered for the granting of Leave to Appeal on 19-02-2016, this Court granted leave on the questions of law as set out in sub-paragraphs a, b, and c of paragraph 17 of the petition dated 21-03-2014. In addition, the learned Counsel for the 1A and the 2nd plaintiff-appellants-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) was also allowed to submit a consequential question of law for determination. The said questions of law read as follows, 1. Have Their Lordships of the Provincial High Court erred in law when forming the question “whether deed No. 376 can revoke deed of gift No. 2234 dated 06-06-1982”, as one of the main questions to decide the case, as it was not an issue framed by the respondents at the trial stage. Page 4 of 15 2. Have their Lordships of the Provincial High Court erred in law by going against the inveterate practice of our Courts to decide the case upon on the framed issue and not upon the entire pleadings of the submissions of the Counsel. 3. Have their Lordships of the Provincial High Court erred in law when failing to appreciate the District Court judgment when it is in length that there is no issue as to whether the persons are governed by the common law or the Kandyan law in the framed issues. 4. Whether the deed No. 376 was successful in revoking deed No. 2234 without a decision of a Court of law. The plaintiffs-appellant-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs), in their action instituted before the District Court of Kuliyapitiya of the plaint dated 03-11-2005 have prayed for a declaration that two deeds bearing No. 376 and 377 be declared null and void, and for a declaration that the 2nd plaintiff is entitled to the land in suit subject to the life interest of the 1st plaintiff, among other reliefs sought. During the pendency of the action, the 1st plaintiff has passed away, and the 2nd plaintiff has been substituted in place of the 1st plaintiff as well. It has been averred in the plaint that the 1st plaintiff, being the owner of the subject matter of the action, gifted the same by the deed of gift No. 2234 dated 04-06-1982 to the 2nd plaintiff subject to his life interest. It has been claimed that on or about July 1998, the defendants, after making certain false representations and by misleading the 1st plaintiff, obtained his signature for several documents, and the 1st plaintiff came to know subsequently that two deeds, namely, deed No. 376 and 377 dated 03-07-1998, had been prepared and registered. The deed No. 376 had been prepared as a revocation of the deed of gift No. 2234, while deed No. 377 has been prepared as a deed of gift by the 1st plaintiff to the defendants. It had been the position of the plaintiffs of the action that this was not a willful act of the 1st plaintiff and the said deed Nos. 376 and 377 were null and void, and have no force in law. Page 5 of 15 In paragraph 8 of the plaint, they have set out the reasons as to why they claim as such in the following manner. a. The deeds had not been prepared in accordance with section 2 of the Prevention of Frauds Ordinance. b. The defendants of the action obtained the signature of the 1st plaintiff by misleading him and by providing false and incorrect facts. c. The 1st plaintiff signed the said deeds as a result of the misunderstanding of the matters as stated above. At the trial, the parties have admitted the corpus of the action and the jurisdiction of the Court, and also of the fact that the 1st plaintiff was the owner of half share of the land mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. It has also been admitted that the 1st plaintiff has signed the deed of gift No. 2234 (P-03) mentioned in the 3rd paragraph of the plaint. An admission also has been recorded to the effect that deed No. 376 and 377 have been executed as stated in paragraph 6 of the plaint. It is clear from the issues raised by the parties that the plaintiffs have relied on the matters stated in paragraph 8 of the plaint, as reproduced above, to claim that the questioned deeds No. 376 and 377 are null and void. The issues raised by the defendants show that they have relied on the said two deeds on the basis that the said deeds are deeds executed in accordance with the law, and it is the defendants who are entitled to the land mentioned in the schedule of the plaint as stated in their answer. After the trial, the learned District Judge of Kuliyapitiya of his judgment dated 05-02-2009 has determined that the main question need determination would be whether the questioned deeds, namely, deed No. 376 dated 03-07-1998 marked P-04, which is a deed of a revocation of a gift, and deed No. 377 of the same date marked P-05, which is a deed of gift written in favour of the defendants, are legally valid deeds. Page 6 of 15 After having analyzed the evidence led before the Court, the learned District Judge has determined that the said two deeds are deeds executed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Frauds Ordinance, and hence, they are legally valid deeds. It has been determined that the plaintiffs have failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the said deeds were prepared fraudulently or by misrepresentation of facts to the 1st plaintiff, and therefore, the plaintiffs’ contention as to the said allegations has not been established. The learned District Judge has also considered the contention that the executer of the deeds marked as P-03, P-04, and P-05, the 1st plaintiff of the action, was not a person governed under the provisions of Kandyan Law, and hence, he had no legal status to revoke the deed marked P-03 on his own accord. He has also observed that the deed of gift marked P-03, namely, deed No. 2234, was not an irrevocable deed of gift. However, it has been determined that there was no issue before the trial Court as to whether the 1st plaintiff had a right to revoke the deed P-03 on his own accord, and an issue whether the 1st plaintiff was a person governed under the provisions of Kandyan Law or not are matters that should have been put in issue and substantiated by the plaintiffs, if they sought a judgment as prayed on that basis. In view of the above, the learned District Judge has decided to disregard the contention as to the validity of the revocation of P-03 by the deed marked P-04 argued on the said basis. After having considered the evidence, the learned District Judge has determined that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case, and had answered the issues raised by the plaintiffs in the negative while answering the issues of the defendants in the affirmative. Accordingly, the action of the plaintiffs had been dismissed and the counterclaim of the defendants had been allowed. Page 7 of 15 When the judgment of the learned District Judge of Kuliyapitiya was appealed against by the plaintiffs, the learned Judges of the High Court, after having considered the facts placed before the Court, as well as the relevant law, have proceeded to pronounce the impugned judgment on 10-02-2014. It appears that the learned Judges of the High Court have considered whether deed No. 376 (P-04) can legally revoke the deed of gift No. 2234 (P-03) and whether the said deed No. 376 and 377 (P-05) are from its very beginning null and void. It has also been considered whether the action filed by the plaintiffs to get the deeds P-04 and P-05, which were deeds executed on 03-07-1998, has been prescribed as the action should have been instituted in that regard within 3 years of the execution of the deed in terms of section 10 of the Prescription Ordinance. Having considered whether the 1st plaintiff who executed the deed marked P-03 in favour of the 2nd plaintiff had any right to revoke the same by way of another deed, it has been decided that although there was no specific issue in that regard, it was a matter that should have drawn the attention of the learned District Judge. The learned Judges of the High Court have considered the well settled law that although a deed of gift is generally irrevocable, it can be revoked with the permission of a competent Court. It has been determined that the principles of Kandyan Law where a person who is subjected to Kandyan Law can revoke a deed of gift on its own motion does not apply in this instance as the 1st plaintiff, namely Warnakulasooriya Vinsel Thamel, was not a person subjected to Kandyan Law of property. It was the view of the learned Judges of the High Court that since the case has been initiated to challenge the validity of deeds marked P-04 and P-05, the Court can look into such a matter. Page 8 of 15 It has been determined that the 1st plaintiff cannot revoke the deed of gift P-03 which was in favour of the 2nd plaintiff on his own motion, and accordingly, the judgment of the learned District Judge of Kuliyapitiya should stand set aside. After having set aside the judgment, the learned Judges of the High Court have proceeded to re-answer the issues raised between the parties in line with the above determinations and in favour of the plaintiffs of the action giving reliefs in favour of the 2nd plaintiff of the action. At the argument of the appeal before this Court, the main contention of the learned Counsel who represented the defendants was that the question whether the 1st plaintiff was governed under the provisions of the Kandyan Law or not was never a matter raised as an issue by either party or pleaded in the plaint or the replication. It was argued that matters that were not in issue cannot be subjected to a subsequent appeal, and therefore, the learned Judges of the High Court have erred by going on a voyage of discovery as they did in the appellate judgment. It was also submitted that, even in the evidence, the Notary who executed the two deeds has stated that he executed the deed of revocation on the basis that the plaintiff was a person governed under the provisions of Kandyan Law. It was also pointed out that after determining that the action to set aside the two deeds marked as P-04 and P-05 had been prescribed in terms of section 10, the appeal should have been dismissed by the learned Judges of the High Court on that ground alone, and the plaintiffs could not have maintained the action before the District Court. It was submitted that the judgment of the learned High Court Judges should be set aside and the judgment of the learned District Judge of Kuliyapitiya should be affirmed. It is quite apparent to me that the question whether the 1st plaintiff, after having executed a deed of gift in favour of the 2nd plaintiff could have revoked it in the manner it has been done, was a matter that was not specifically put in issue on the basis that being a non-Kandyan he could not have done so. Page 9 of 15 It is also clear that when the plaintiffs instituted proceedings before the District Court, they have challenged the deeds marked P-04 and P-05 not on the incapacity of the 1st plaintiff to revoke the deed of gift which was in favour of the 2nd plaintiff, but on the basis that the deeds P-04 and P-05 were not deeds prepared in accordance with section 2 of the Prevention of Frauds Ordinance, and on the premise that they were deeds executed due to false representation made to the 1st plaintiff by the defendants. It is clear from the evidence led before the District Court and the judgment of the learned District Judge, the question whether the 1st plaintiff could have revoked the deed of gift marked P-03 on his own motion without invoking the jurisdiction of a competent Court in that regard has not come up by way of any issues, but has drawn the attention of the learned District Judge. On the basis that there had been no issues raised as to whether the 1st plaintiff comes under the provisions of Kandyan Law or not, the learned District Judge has decided not to consider the validity of the deed of cancellation of the gift on such a basis. However, when the matter was argued before the High Court, the learned Judges of the High Court have considered this as a relevant question upon which the matter should have been decided. It was the contention of the learned Counsel for the defendants that the question of applicability of Kandyan Law is a question of mixed facts and law, and only a pure question of law can be considered for the first time in an appeal, and hence, such a matter could not have been considered at the stage of the appeal without having put the matter in issue at the trial stage. In support of his contention, he cited the case of Arulampikai Vs. Thambu (1944) 45 NLR 457 at 461, which stated: “Under our procedure all the contentious matters between the parties to a civil suit, is so to say, focused in the issues of law and fact framed. Whatever is not involved in the issues is to be taken as admitted by one party or the other and I do not think that under our procedure it is open to a party to put forward in the Court below under someone or other of Page 10 of 15 the issues framed and when such a ground that is to say, a ground that might have been put forward in the Court below is put forward in appeal for the 1st time, the cautions indicated in the case of Tasmania (1890) 15 AC 223 may well be observed.” It is abundantly clear to me from the plaint and the issues raised by the plaintiffs before the District Court that they relied purely on their pleadings in paragraph 8 of the plaint, which I have reproduced earlier in the judgment. They have claimed that the disputed deeds should stand null and void on that basis and nothing else. The defendants have raised their issues based on the same paragraph 8 of the plaint claiming that the deeds relied on by them are deeds executed in accordance with the Prevention of Frauds Ordinance and the Notaries Ordinance. Although it is settled law that issues need not be confined to the pleadings alone, there should be an issue or issues on a particular matter that needs determination by the trial Court so that the opposing party is put on notice. In such a situation the opposing party should be in a position to raise his or her own issues countering such an issue. In the instant action, it has not been put in issue by the plaintiffs whether the 1st plaintiff who executed the initial deed of gift marked P-03 could have revoked the same by executing the deed marked P-04 or whether the 1st plaintiff is not a person governed under the provisions of Kandyan law. As a result, there was no necessity for the opposing party to raise issues defending the validity of the deeds marked P-04 and P-05 on such a basis, other than claiming that their deeds are valid. It is the 2nd plaintiff who has given evidence in order to assert the position taken up by the plaintiffs. In his evidence-in-chief a question has been asked whether the 1st plaintiff was a person subjected to the provisions of Kandyan Law, for which he has answered that he is unaware. The plaintiffs have called two other witnesses in order to establish their case. The Registrar of the District Court of Kuliyapitiya has been called to produce a case record. The other witness called has been the Notary who executed the challenged deeds marked P-04 and P-05. Page 11 of 15 He has testified that he executed the said deeds. When he was subjected to cross-examination by the defendant’s Counsel, several questions had been put to him to show that the Notary executed the deed of cancellation of the previous deed of gift on the basis that the executant of the cancellation namely Warnakulasooriya Vincent Thamel was a person governed under the provisions of Kandyan law and that was the reason for him to prepare the said deed as previous deed of gift had no specific statement that it was an irrevocable deed of gift. This line of friendly questioning by the defence Counsel, irrespective of the fact that there were no issues on such a basis may be having taken a hint from the question asked from the 2nd plaintiff by the Counsel who represented the plaintiffs. Even after such evidence being placed before the Court, no application has been made to record any further issues. When the case for the plaintiffs was closed, only the 1st defendant had given evidence for the defence to assert that the deeds upon which they claim title are valid. In the judgment of the District Court, it clearly appears that the learned District Judge has considered the facts and the relevant law in that regard in relation to the issues placed before the Court for determination by the parties. Under the circumstances, I find it relevant to consider the case of Dona Podi Nona Ranaweera Menike Vs. Rohini Senanayake (1992) 2 SLR 190, where it was held: 1. A matter that has not been raised before might, nevertheless, be a ground of appeal on which the appellate court might base its decision provided it is a pure question of law; or, if the point might have been put forward in the Court below under one of the issues raised, and the Court is satisfied, i. That it has before it all the facts bearing upon the new contention, as completely as would have been the case if the controversy had arisen at the trial. Page 12 of 15 ii. That no satisfactory explanation could have been offered by the other side, if an opportunity had been afforded it, of adducing evidence with regard to the point raised for the first time in appeal. The matter is not one depending simply on the issue whether the new point was one of law, on the other hand, or a question of fact or a mixed question of law and fact, on the other. In the averments of the plaint, the plaintiffs had not averred that they are not persons subjected to the Kandyan Law and therefore, the 1st plaintiff could not revoke the deed of gift marked P-03 on his own motion. Although the plaintiffs have come before the Court on a different basis challenging the deeds marked P-03 and P-04, it is my considered view that the learned District Judge should have drawn his attention to the relevant legal provisions in order to determine whether the 1st plaintiff could have revoked his own deed of gift by the deed of revocation marked P-04, when the case was determined in favour of the defendants effectually giving legal effect to the deed of revocation marked P-04. It needs to be noted that it is the duty of a trial judge to settle issues relevant to the determination of the matter before the Court and the issues need not be confined to the pleading only when framing such an issue relevant to the determination of an action. It needs to be noted that the right for a person to subsequently revoke his own deed of gift is an exception to the rule. It is well settled law that in terms of our Common Law, a deed of gift is usually irrevocable. The exception is the right for a person who is governed under the provisions of the Kandyan Law to revoke such a deed of gift on his own free will unless he has specifically stated in the deed of gift that the deed is irrevocable. It is also well settled law that although a deed of gift is generally irrevocable, it is revocable through an action filed before a competent Court in that regard. Page 13 of 15 It was held in Dona Podi Nona Ranaweera Menike Vs. Rohini Senanayake (Supra): a. Although a gift is generally irrevocable it is revocable, i. if the donee failed to give effect to a direction as to its application (donatio sub mode), or ii. on the ground of the donee’s ingratitude or iii. if at the time of the gift the donor was childless but afterwards became the father of a legitimate child by birth or legitimation. A donor is entitled to revoke a donation from account of ingratitude, i. if the donee lays manus impias (impious hands) on the donor ii. if he does him an atrocious injury iii. if he willfully causes him great loss of property iv. if he makes an attempt on his life v. if he does not fulfill the conditions attached to the gift vi. other equally grave causes b. Other conveyances not made out of pure liberality like a conveyance propter nuptias are irrevocable on account of the donee’s ingratitude or on account of appearance of progeny by birth or legitimation. I find that the learned Judges of the High Court have correctly discussed the principles of Kandyan Law and its applicability to the deed of revocation in question, the irrevocability of a deed of gift under common law principles and the mode of revoking such a deed. High Court has considered that such a revocation is not automatic, and it requires a decision of a competent Court. However, none of these are matters where evidence has been led before the trial Court or put in issue. Therefore, I am in agreement with the learned Counsel for the defendants that these are matters mixed facts and law and matters that cannot be considered for the first time in appeal when there was no evidence on offer to come to such findings. Page 14 of 15 However, I am mindful that the learned Judges of the High Court have been very much aware of the fact that if the judgment of the District Court is allowed to stand as it is, it would in effect give legal sanctity to a deed executed by a person who cannot revoke a deed of gift in the manner as it was done by executing the deed of revocation marked P-04. I find that it was in that context the learned Judges of the High Court have decided to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the District Court, and also to answer the issues raised afresh, so that the judgment would be in favour of the appellants. I am of the view that there was no legally tenable basis before the High Court to proceed on such a path for the reasons as considered aforesaid. I find that the only option that should have been considered by the learned Judges of the High Court was to explore the possibility of ordering a retrial if it was prudent to do so, which I think a matter that this Court should not venture into. For the reasons as considered above, I find no basis to agree with the judgment of the learned Judges of the High Court. Accordingly, I answer the questions of law no. 1, 2, 3 in the affirmative, while answering the 4th question of law raised on behalf of the plaintiff holding that this was not an issue under which the issues were framed before the trial Court. However, although the appellate judgment is set aside, I am of the view that the judgment of the learned District Judge of Kuliyapitiya where the plaint of the plaintiffs had been dismissed and the counterclaim of the defendants had been allowed by answering their issues in their favour cannot also be allowed to stand in its totality for the reasons earlier discussed. Accordingly, while allowing the judgment of the learned District Judge on the dismissal of the plaint, I set aside the part of the judgment where the learned District Judge has allowed the counterclaim of the defendants by answering the issues raised by them in their favour. Page 15 of 15 Therefore, I hold that the claim of the plaintiffs before the District Court and also the counterclaim by the defendants should stand dismissed, and no party shall be entitled to any relief by the District Court. The appeal is partly allowed up to the above extent. There will be no costs of the appeal.		Download
2025-10-17	SC/APPEAL/155/2022	Gallage Anil Chandradasa No. 56/1, Raenagala Road Imbulgoda 2nd Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant V. Galle Acharige Amaradasa No. 174, Temple Road Bangalawatte Kottawa Plaintiff – Respondent- Respondent 1 a) Sankapala Acharige Greta, of No. 174, Temple Road, Bangalawatte, Kottawa 1 b) Gallege Chandrika Amaradasa, of No. 210, Olympus, Millenium City, Oruwela, Athurugiriya 1 c) Gallage Senpathi Ameradasa 1 d) Gallage Dulipa Shyamali Ameradasa 1 e) Gallege Yasala Rangani Ameradasa All of No.174, Temple Road, Bangalawatte, Kottawa Substituted 1a), 1b), 1c), 1d), 1e) Plaintiff- Respondent-Respondents 1. Paththaperuma Arachchilage Neville Arunasiri Paththaperuma No. 198, Ihala Yagoda Gampaha 1st Defendant Petitioner-Respondent View More	Hon. K. Priyantha Fernando J	1. The 2nd Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the as 2nd Defendant- Appellant), appealed to this Court seeking to, inter alia, set aside the judgment dated 08.02.2021 of the Provincial High Court of Western Province holden in Gampaha and the order dated 24.07.2020 by the District Court of Gampaha. The Facts 2. The Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff - Respondent) by his plaint dated 27.04.2018 instituted action in the District Court against the 1st and 2nd Defendants to eject the Defendants and all those holding under them from the premises in suit, alongside the payment of arrears of rent, damages, continuing damages, for an enjoining order and an interim injunction preventing the defendants from carrying out constructions on the land. 3. Plaintiff- Respondent stated that he became the owner of land described in the 1st schedule to the plaint under the final decree of Case No. 5 19457/P, and that the 2nd Defendant – Appellant became the owner of the land described in the 2nd schedule. 4. The 1st Defendant – Appellant – Respondent (hereinafter referred to as 1st Defendant - Respondent) has entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff – Respondent in 2013 in respect of the land described in the 1st schedule subject to the conditions in the agreement. The Plaintiff – Respondent has alleged that the 1st Defendant – Respondent was in breach of some conditions and had acted in collusion with the 2nd Defendant – Appellant in attempting constructions on the land in suit. For these reasons the Plaintiff – Respondent has informed the 1st Defendant – Respondent to vacate the premises and handover the possession to Plaintiff – Respondent, which the 1st Defendant – Respondent had refused to do whereby cause for action has arisen. 5. Both the 1st and 2nd Defendants then filed their answers. The 1st Defendant - Respondent denied most averments, stating that the Plaintiff had no valid cause of action, and that the Plaint was not in line with Section 46 of the Civil Procedure Code. The 1st Defendant - Respondent has further claimed the Plaintiff – Respondent fraudulently induced him to enter into the lease agreement over land that he had no rights to, which also had no access road. The 1st Defendant – Respondent has also sought a refund of his advance payment but the Plaintiff – Respondent had failed to return it. 6. The 1st Defendant - Respondent also stated that the 2nd Defendant owns the amalgamated land described in the 3rd schedule to the plaint that he has allegedly acquired prescriptive rights over. The 1st Defendant - Respondent, states that he has been operating a spare parts business in the land described in the 3rd schedule as a tenant under the 2nd Defendant- Appellant. The 1st Defendant – Respondent has alleged that the Plaintiff – Respondent breached the terms of the lease agreement, causing him a financial loss of about Rs. 200,000. Therefore, as a cross6 claim, the 1st Defendant - Respondent has sought a declaration of lawful leasehold rights for the land described in the 3rd schedule to the plaint under the 2nd Defendant, recovery of Rs. 200,000 in damages, and Rs. 36,000 already paid to the Plaintiff - Respondent. He has further prayed that the causes of action be heard together under Section 35 of the Civil Procedure Code. 7. The 2nd Defendant – Appellant has filed a separate answer denying most of the averments in the plaint, further stating that as per the final decree in Case No. 19457/P in 1995, the 2nd Defendant – Appellant became entitled to the lands described in the 1st and 2nd schedules to the plaint which the 2nd Defendant – Appellant has later amalgamated into one land which is described in the 3rd schedule to the plaint. He has also claimed to have acquired prescriptive rights over the said land. 8. The 2nd Defendant – Appellant, denying that any damage had been caused to the Plaintiff – Respondent claimed Rs. 100,000 for maliciously instituting this action. Further he claimed a declaration of title in respect of the land described in the 2nd schedule to the answer, declaration that the 1st Defendant – Respondent holds leasehold rights under the 2nd Defendant – Appellant, for damages and for a commission to survey and prepare a plan regarding the land described in the 3rd schedule. 9. Thereafter, the Plaintiff – Respondent by motion dated 29.08.2019 has filed a draft amended plaint whereby the 2nd Defendant – Appellant states that major changes to the plaint were made. He states that it changed the nature and character of the action and sought certain reliefs such as a declaration of title to the land described in the 1st schedule to the amended plaint. 7 10. Defendants have objected to the amendments stating the Plaintiff – Respondent is guilty of laches and attempting to change the nature of the action to a rei vindicatio action. This matter has then been fixed for inquiry. The learned District Judge by order dated 24.07.2020 allowed the amended plaint as both plaints sought for the ejection of the Defendants and as it did not change the nature of the action. It was further held that Court was entitled to exercise the discretion granted by section 93 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code and that the Defendants too were able to amend their answers if necessary. 11. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned order dated 24.07.2020, the 2nd Defendant – Appellant has filed a Leave to Appeal application to the High Court which was taken for support for leave on 08.02.2020 and was dismissed on the same day with costs. 12. Being aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the 2nd Defendant- Appellant preferred the instant appeal to this Court. This Court granted leave to appeal on the questions of law set out in subparagraphs (a) and (d) of paragraph 15 of the petition dated 18.03.2021. Questions of Law “(a) Did the Learned High Court Judges of the High Court had erred in failing to appreciate that the Original Plaint is in the nature of an action which only seeks ejectment of the 1st and 2nd Defendants and does not seek any declaration in respect of the rights for the land and the Amended Plaint seeks to change the nature of the action to a rei vindicatio action; (d) did the Learned High Court Judges of the High Court err in failing to appreciate that grave prejudice would be caused to the 1st and 2nd Defendants in the event the proposed amendments are allowed and the 8 plaint will be back dated with the amendments and the 2nd Defendant’s plea of prescription would be at disadvantage” 13. Given the nature of the grievances of the 2nd Defendant in the instant case, I am of the opinion that both questions of law mentioned above ultimately lead to the question of whether amending the plaint could cause any prejudice to the 2nd Defendant - Appellant’s plea of prescription and whether it changes the nature of the action as claimed by the 2nd Defendant – Appellant. 14. Notwithstanding the above, concerning the question of law raised in subparagraph a), I must first note that the original plaint and the amended plaint both sought to eject the defendants and all their agents from the land in suit whereby I do not see sufficient reason to conclude that a change of the nature of action has occurred by the amendment. 15. Section 3 of the Prescription Ordinance of 1871 (as amended), a plea of prescription requires merely ten years of uninterrupted and undisturbed possession: “ Proof of the undisturbed and uninterrupted possession by a defendant in any action, or by those under whom he claims, of lands or immovable property, by a title adverse to or independent of that of the claimant or plaintiff in such action (that is to say, a possession unaccompanied by payment of rent or produce, or performance of service or duty, or by any other act by the possessor, from which an acknowledgment of a right existing in another person would fairly and naturally be inferred) for ten years previous to the bringing of such action, shall entitle the defendant to a decree in his favour with costs...” (emphasis mine) 9 16. In the instant matter, in the answer filed in the District Court dated 17.01.2019 the 2nd Defendant - Appellant has stated that he has held uninterrupted and undisturbed possession of the land described in the 3rd Schedule since 1995 whereby he has prescriptive rights to the same. In these circumstances, his alleged claim of prescription would be successful by the year 2005 and any added duration of possession would have no significant legal bearing unless his possession was to start any time after 1995 contrary to his answer in the District Court. The plaint was filed in 2018 (23 years from 1995) and amended in the year 2019 whereby I am unable to see any reasonable basis to hold that the 2nd Defendant – Appellant was prejudiced by the amendments, in seeking prescriptive titles as the required ten-year period is well over. 17. I must note that the learned Counsel for the 2nd Defendant – Appellant submits the case of Pathirana v. Jayasundara [1956] NLR 169 to further their position, where it was held at page 172 that: “…Upon the question of amendment of pleadings generally, Withers J. said in Ratwatte v Owen —“ After the plaint has once been accepted, I think as a general rule that it should not be amended till after the issue has been settled. The office of an amendment will generally be at that stage to square the plaint with the issue, if necessary ” , thus indicating that the discretionary power to permit an amendment of the plaint should not be exercised unless firstly, a particular issue does arise upon the original plaint and secondly, further pleadings are necessary in order to explain or clarify matters relevant to the particular issue. Subsequent decisions show that the general rule as so stated is not to be regarded as inflexible and that relaxation is permissible in order to secure the more expeditious termination of disputes. But no such relaxation is proper if it would be prejudicial to a plea of prescription available to a Defendant.” 18. However, the facts of Pathirana v. Jayasundara [1956] NLR 169 are materially different to the case at hand, Pathirana v 10 Jayasundara concerned a situation where there was an overholding lease between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Defendant, the tenant, in that case has in his answer claimed both title and prescriptive rights on his behalf, whereas in the case at hand, the 2nd Defendant is a third party that was never a party to the original contract of leasehold between the Plaintiff- Respondent and the 1st Defendant – Respondent. While the 2nd Defendant - Appellant has claimed ownership both by way of declaration of title and prescriptive rights, there appears to be no such claim of title by the original leaseholder, the 1st Defendant – Respondent in the case at hand. I am of the opinion that the motive in disallowing the amendments in Pathirana v Jayasundara is to ensure that a tenant overholding should not lose the protection of prescriptive title by surprise. In a situation where a third party comes in and claims ownership by title or prescription, status quo alters significantly and concerns different to those raised in Pathirana v Jayasundara arise whereby the same position cannot be maintained. 19. Further, as the learned District Judge has correctly decided, the Courts could exercise their discretion as per S. 93 of the Civil Procedure Code Act No. 53 of 1980 in deciding on allowing the amendments. Further, the Defendants had the liberty to amend their answer had they found such was necessary and as stated above, the High Court has affirmed the stance of the learned District Judge. 20. However, I must note that this position is taken giving due regard to the particular circumstances of the case at hand. As per the recent decision in Rajapaksha Appuhamilage Lionel Ranjith v. Suraweera Arachchige Dona Leelawathi and others [SC/Appeal/100/2020 S.C. Minutes of 14.05.2025] no amendment is to be allowed unless the Court is satisfied that grave and irremediable injustice will be caused if such amendment is not permitted and there will be no laches caused by such amendment. 11 21. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the learned Judges of the District Court and High Court were correct, and that the nature of the action hasn’t changed nor has any prejudice occurred to the claim of prescription by 2nd Defendant – Appellant whereby both questions of law noted in subparagraphs (a) and (d) of paragraph 15 of the petition dated 18.03.2021 are answered in the negative. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed subject to costs. 22. The Registrar is directed to forward the case record to the District Court of Gampaha to proceed with the merits of the initial case. Appeal is Dismissed.		Download
2025-10-17	SC/APPEAL/9/2020	Harischandra Senarathne Bulathsinhala, No. 311, “Siri Medura”, Kotte Road, Nugegoda. Plaintiff-Petitioner- Respondent-Appellant Vs. Piyasena Hapuarachchi (Deceased), No. 82, Rahula Road, Mulleriyawa New Town, Angoda. 4th Respondent-Petitioner-Respondent Dinuka Malith Hapuarachchi, No. 92/A, Rahula Road, Mulleriyawa New Town, Angoda. Substituted 4th Respondent - Petitioner-Respondent 1. Anthony Didacus Baldsing, No. 57, Kiththanpahuwa, Wellampitiya. Defendant-Respondent- Respondent 2. Duruwaththage Swarnalatha Perera Baldsing, No. 34/3, N.P. Perera Mawatha, Mulleriyawa New Town, Angoda. 3. Patabendige Sriani Nelumkanthi Mohandiram, No. 120, Pansala Road, Mahabuthgamuwa, Angoda. 2nd & 3rd Respondents- Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. A. L. Shiran Gooneratne J			Download
2025-10-17	SC/APPEAL/155/2022	Gallage Anil Chandradasa No. 56/1, Raenagala Road Imbulgoda 2nd Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant V. Galle Acharige Amaradasa No. 174, Temple Road Bangalawatte Kottawa Plaintiff – Respondent- Respondent 1 a) Sankapala Acharige Greta, of No. 174, Temple Road, Bangalawatte, Kottawa 1 b) Gallege Chandrika Amaradasa, of No. 210, Olympus, Millenium City, Oruwela, Athurugiriya 1 c) Gallage Senpathi Ameradasa 1 d) Gallage Dulipa Shyamali Ameradasa 1 e) Gallege Yasala Rangani Ameradasa All of No.174, Temple Road, Bangalawatte, Kottawa Substituted 1a), 1b), 1c), 1d), 1e) Plaintiff- Respondent-Respondents 1. Paththaperuma Arachchilage Neville Arunasiri Paththaperuma No. 198, Ihala Yagoda Gampaha 1st Defendant Petitioner-Respondent View More	Hon. K. Priyantha Fernando J	1. The 2nd Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the as 2nd Defendant- Appellant), appealed to this Court seeking to, inter alia, set aside the judgment dated 08.02.2021 of the Provincial High Court of Western Province holden in Gampaha and the order dated 24.07.2020 by the District Court of Gampaha. The Facts 2. The Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff - Respondent) by his plaint dated 27.04.2018 instituted action in the District Court against the 1st and 2nd Defendants to eject the Defendants and all those holding under them from the premises in suit, alongside the payment of arrears of rent, damages, continuing damages, for an enjoining order and an interim injunction preventing the defendants from carrying out constructions on the land. 3. Plaintiff- Respondent stated that he became the owner of land described in the 1st schedule to the plaint under the final decree of Case No. 5 19457/P, and that the 2nd Defendant – Appellant became the owner of the land described in the 2nd schedule. 4. The 1st Defendant – Appellant – Respondent (hereinafter referred to as 1st Defendant - Respondent) has entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff – Respondent in 2013 in respect of the land described in the 1st schedule subject to the conditions in the agreement. The Plaintiff – Respondent has alleged that the 1st Defendant – Respondent was in breach of some conditions and had acted in collusion with the 2nd Defendant – Appellant in attempting constructions on the land in suit. For these reasons the Plaintiff – Respondent has informed the 1st Defendant – Respondent to vacate the premises and handover the possession to Plaintiff – Respondent, which the 1st Defendant – Respondent had refused to do whereby cause for action has arisen. 5. Both the 1st and 2nd Defendants then filed their answers. The 1st Defendant - Respondent denied most averments, stating that the Plaintiff had no valid cause of action, and that the Plaint was not in line with Section 46 of the Civil Procedure Code. The 1st Defendant - Respondent has further claimed the Plaintiff – Respondent fraudulently induced him to enter into the lease agreement over land that he had no rights to, which also had no access road. The 1st Defendant – Respondent has also sought a refund of his advance payment but the Plaintiff – Respondent had failed to return it. 6. The 1st Defendant - Respondent also stated that the 2nd Defendant owns the amalgamated land described in the 3rd schedule to the plaint that he has allegedly acquired prescriptive rights over. The 1st Defendant - Respondent, states that he has been operating a spare parts business in the land described in the 3rd schedule as a tenant under the 2nd Defendant- Appellant. The 1st Defendant – Respondent has alleged that the Plaintiff – Respondent breached the terms of the lease agreement, causing him a financial loss of about Rs. 200,000. Therefore, as a cross6 claim, the 1st Defendant - Respondent has sought a declaration of lawful leasehold rights for the land described in the 3rd schedule to the plaint under the 2nd Defendant, recovery of Rs. 200,000 in damages, and Rs. 36,000 already paid to the Plaintiff - Respondent. He has further prayed that the causes of action be heard together under Section 35 of the Civil Procedure Code. 7. The 2nd Defendant – Appellant has filed a separate answer denying most of the averments in the plaint, further stating that as per the final decree in Case No. 19457/P in 1995, the 2nd Defendant – Appellant became entitled to the lands described in the 1st and 2nd schedules to the plaint which the 2nd Defendant – Appellant has later amalgamated into one land which is described in the 3rd schedule to the plaint. He has also claimed to have acquired prescriptive rights over the said land. 8. The 2nd Defendant – Appellant, denying that any damage had been caused to the Plaintiff – Respondent claimed Rs. 100,000 for maliciously instituting this action. Further he claimed a declaration of title in respect of the land described in the 2nd schedule to the answer, declaration that the 1st Defendant – Respondent holds leasehold rights under the 2nd Defendant – Appellant, for damages and for a commission to survey and prepare a plan regarding the land described in the 3rd schedule. 9. Thereafter, the Plaintiff – Respondent by motion dated 29.08.2019 has filed a draft amended plaint whereby the 2nd Defendant – Appellant states that major changes to the plaint were made. He states that it changed the nature and character of the action and sought certain reliefs such as a declaration of title to the land described in the 1st schedule to the amended plaint. 7 10. Defendants have objected to the amendments stating the Plaintiff – Respondent is guilty of laches and attempting to change the nature of the action to a rei vindicatio action. This matter has then been fixed for inquiry. The learned District Judge by order dated 24.07.2020 allowed the amended plaint as both plaints sought for the ejection of the Defendants and as it did not change the nature of the action. It was further held that Court was entitled to exercise the discretion granted by section 93 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code and that the Defendants too were able to amend their answers if necessary. 11. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned order dated 24.07.2020, the 2nd Defendant – Appellant has filed a Leave to Appeal application to the High Court which was taken for support for leave on 08.02.2020 and was dismissed on the same day with costs. 12. Being aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the 2nd Defendant- Appellant preferred the instant appeal to this Court. This Court granted leave to appeal on the questions of law set out in subparagraphs (a) and (d) of paragraph 15 of the petition dated 18.03.2021. Questions of Law “(a) Did the Learned High Court Judges of the High Court had erred in failing to appreciate that the Original Plaint is in the nature of an action which only seeks ejectment of the 1st and 2nd Defendants and does not seek any declaration in respect of the rights for the land and the Amended Plaint seeks to change the nature of the action to a rei vindicatio action; (d) did the Learned High Court Judges of the High Court err in failing to appreciate that grave prejudice would be caused to the 1st and 2nd Defendants in the event the proposed amendments are allowed and the 8 plaint will be back dated with the amendments and the 2nd Defendant’s plea of prescription would be at disadvantage” 13. Given the nature of the grievances of the 2nd Defendant in the instant case, I am of the opinion that both questions of law mentioned above ultimately lead to the question of whether amending the plaint could cause any prejudice to the 2nd Defendant - Appellant’s plea of prescription and whether it changes the nature of the action as claimed by the 2nd Defendant – Appellant. 14. Notwithstanding the above, concerning the question of law raised in subparagraph a), I must first note that the original plaint and the amended plaint both sought to eject the defendants and all their agents from the land in suit whereby I do not see sufficient reason to conclude that a change of the nature of action has occurred by the amendment. 15. Section 3 of the Prescription Ordinance of 1871 (as amended), a plea of prescription requires merely ten years of uninterrupted and undisturbed possession: “ Proof of the undisturbed and uninterrupted possession by a defendant in any action, or by those under whom he claims, of lands or immovable property, by a title adverse to or independent of that of the claimant or plaintiff in such action (that is to say, a possession unaccompanied by payment of rent or produce, or performance of service or duty, or by any other act by the possessor, from which an acknowledgment of a right existing in another person would fairly and naturally be inferred) for ten years previous to the bringing of such action, shall entitle the defendant to a decree in his favour with costs...” (emphasis mine) 9 16. In the instant matter, in the answer filed in the District Court dated 17.01.2019 the 2nd Defendant - Appellant has stated that he has held uninterrupted and undisturbed possession of the land described in the 3rd Schedule since 1995 whereby he has prescriptive rights to the same. In these circumstances, his alleged claim of prescription would be successful by the year 2005 and any added duration of possession would have no significant legal bearing unless his possession was to start any time after 1995 contrary to his answer in the District Court. The plaint was filed in 2018 (23 years from 1995) and amended in the year 2019 whereby I am unable to see any reasonable basis to hold that the 2nd Defendant – Appellant was prejudiced by the amendments, in seeking prescriptive titles as the required ten-year period is well over. 17. I must note that the learned Counsel for the 2nd Defendant – Appellant submits the case of Pathirana v. Jayasundara [1956] NLR 169 to further their position, where it was held at page 172 that: “…Upon the question of amendment of pleadings generally, Withers J. said in Ratwatte v Owen —“ After the plaint has once been accepted, I think as a general rule that it should not be amended till after the issue has been settled. The office of an amendment will generally be at that stage to square the plaint with the issue, if necessary ” , thus indicating that the discretionary power to permit an amendment of the plaint should not be exercised unless firstly, a particular issue does arise upon the original plaint and secondly, further pleadings are necessary in order to explain or clarify matters relevant to the particular issue. Subsequent decisions show that the general rule as so stated is not to be regarded as inflexible and that relaxation is permissible in order to secure the more expeditious termination of disputes. But no such relaxation is proper if it would be prejudicial to a plea of prescription available to a Defendant.” 18. However, the facts of Pathirana v. Jayasundara [1956] NLR 169 are materially different to the case at hand, Pathirana v 10 Jayasundara concerned a situation where there was an overholding lease between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Defendant, the tenant, in that case has in his answer claimed both title and prescriptive rights on his behalf, whereas in the case at hand, the 2nd Defendant is a third party that was never a party to the original contract of leasehold between the Plaintiff- Respondent and the 1st Defendant – Respondent. While the 2nd Defendant - Appellant has claimed ownership both by way of declaration of title and prescriptive rights, there appears to be no such claim of title by the original leaseholder, the 1st Defendant – Respondent in the case at hand. I am of the opinion that the motive in disallowing the amendments in Pathirana v Jayasundara is to ensure that a tenant overholding should not lose the protection of prescriptive title by surprise. In a situation where a third party comes in and claims ownership by title or prescription, status quo alters significantly and concerns different to those raised in Pathirana v Jayasundara arise whereby the same position cannot be maintained. 19. Further, as the learned District Judge has correctly decided, the Courts could exercise their discretion as per S. 93 of the Civil Procedure Code Act No. 53 of 1980 in deciding on allowing the amendments. Further, the Defendants had the liberty to amend their answer had they found such was necessary and as stated above, the High Court has affirmed the stance of the learned District Judge. 20. However, I must note that this position is taken giving due regard to the particular circumstances of the case at hand. As per the recent decision in Rajapaksha Appuhamilage Lionel Ranjith v. Suraweera Arachchige Dona Leelawathi and others [SC/Appeal/100/2020 S.C. Minutes of 14.05.2025] no amendment is to be allowed unless the Court is satisfied that grave and irremediable injustice will be caused if such amendment is not permitted and there will be no laches caused by such amendment. 11 21. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the learned Judges of the District Court and High Court were correct, and that the nature of the action hasn’t changed nor has any prejudice occurred to the claim of prescription by 2nd Defendant – Appellant whereby both questions of law noted in subparagraphs (a) and (d) of paragraph 15 of the petition dated 18.03.2021 are answered in the negative. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed subject to costs. 22. The Registrar is directed to forward the case record to the District Court of Gampaha to proceed with the merits of the initial case. Appeal is Dismissed.		Download
2025-10-17	SC/FR/379/2018	P.A. Costa No. 263/10, Makumbura Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Urban Development Authority 6th and 7th Floors, “Sethsiripaya”, Battaramulla. 2. Road Development Authority of Sri Lanka “Maga Neguma Maha Medura”, Denzil Kobbakaduwa Mawatha, Koswatta, Battaramulla. 3. M.M.K. Dilrukshi Walpola Divisional Secretary-Maharagama, Divisional Secretariat, Maharagama. 4. Hon. Minister of Lands Ministry of Lands, “Mihikatha Medura” Land Secretariat, No. 1200/6, Rajamalwatte Road, Battaramulla. 5. D.G.L. Dassanayake Project Director, 3K Project, Greater Colombo Urban Transport Development Project, Ministry of Megapolice and Western Development, 17th and 18th Floors, “Suhurupaya”, Subuthipura Road, Battaramulla. 6. D.K.G. Somasiri Deputy Director-Lands, Urban Development Authority, 6th and 7th Floors, “Sethsiripaya”, Battaramulla. 7. T.D.E. Naveen Sanjaya The Chairman, Provincial Road Development Authority-Western Province, No. 59, St. Sebastian Hill, Colombo 12. 8. P.D.D.S. Muthukumarana Chief Valuer, Valuation House, No. 748, Maradana Road, Colombo 10. 9. P.M.P. Udayakantha Surveyor General, No. 150, Kirula Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 10. Officer-in-Charge Polie Station Homagama. 11. Pujith Jayasundara Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 12. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Janak De Silva J	Page 1 of 6 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application under Article 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. P.A. Costa No. 263/10, Makumbura Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. S.C. (F.R) Application No. 379/2018 PETITIONER Vs. 1. Urban Development Authority 6th and 7th Floors, “Sethsiripaya”, Battaramulla. 2. Road Development Authority of Sri Lanka “Maga Neguma Maha Medura”, Denzil Kobbakaduwa Mawatha, Koswatta, Battaramulla. 3. M.M.K. Dilrukshi Walpola Divisional Secretary-Maharagama, Divisional Secretariat, Maharagama. 4. Hon. Minister of Lands Ministry of Lands, “Mihikatha Medura” Land Secretariat, No. 1200/6, Rajamalwatte Road, Battaramulla. Page 2 of 6 5. D.G.L. Dassanayake Project Director, 3K Project, Greater Colombo Urban Transport Development Project, Ministry of Megapolice and Western Development, 17th and 18th Floors, “Suhurupaya”, Subuthipura Road, Battaramulla. 6. D.K.G. Somasiri Deputy Director-Lands, Urban Development Authority, 6th and 7th Floors, “Sethsiripaya”, Battaramulla. 7. T.D.E. Naveen Sanjaya The Chairman, Provincial Road Development Authority-Western Province, No. 59, St. Sebastian Hill, Colombo 12. 8. P.D.D.S. Muthukumarana Chief Valuer, Valuation House, No. 748, Maradana Road, Colombo 10. 9. P.M.P. Udayakantha Surveyor General, No. 150, Kirula Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. Page 3 of 6 10. Officer-in-Charge Polie Station Homagama. 11. Pujith Jayasundara Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 12. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS BEFORE : YASANTHA KODAGODA, PC, J. A.H.M.D. NAWAZ, J. JANAK DE SILVA, J. COUNSEL : Rasika Dissanayake with Sandun Senadipathi for Petitioner instructed by Sanjeewa Kaluarachchi Ms. Ganga Wakishta Arachchi, DSG for Respondents ARGUED & DECIDED ON : 17.10.2025 Page 4 of 6 JANAK DE SILVA, J. The Petitioner is the owner of the corpus forming in the subject matter of this application. The core complaint of the Petitioner is that certain officials from the Urban Development Authority and Police entered the corpus on 23.10.2018 and demolished the parapet wall that formed part of the boundary. Leave to proceed has been granted under Article 12(1) of the Constitution. Admittedly, the corpus was acquired by the State pursuant to an order made under proviso (a) to Section 38 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended. The corpus has been identified as lot No. 30 in the Advanced Tracing Bearing No.CO/MHR/2012/1014 referred to in the said order. It shows an extent of 0.0076 hectares. According to this advance tracing, the house of the Petitioner did not fall within the area acquired by the State. Admittedly, the Petitioner handed over vacant possession of the corpus to State officials on 02.07.2013. However, subsequent communication between the Petitioner and State officials indicate that the Petitioner has entertained some concern as to whether any part of the two storied house he has constructed on the corpus is also included within the area acquired by the State. In these circumstances, the Petitioner has attempted to convince State officials to divest any part of the corpus acquired by the State which included part of his house. The Petitioner complains that whilst he was pursuing administrative relief to get the State to divest a portion of the corpus, the demolition of the parapet wall was done without any advance notice. According to Section 40A(a) of the Land Acquisition Act as amended, where an Order of the Minister under Section 38 is published in the Gazette, then where that Order is in regard to the taking possession of a particular land, that Order shall, for so long only as it is not subsequently revoked under section 39, be received in all courts as conclusive evidence of the title of the State to that land. Page 5 of 6 Therefore, as at 23.10.2018 the State was the absolute owner of the part of the corpus forming the subject matter of the acquisition order. Accordingly, the State was entitled to perform any act on that part of the corpus consistent with its common law rights of ownership. By letter dated 20.09.2013 marked P23, the Urban Development Authority informed the Petitioner, that while taking steps to divest an extent of 0.3 perches from the land acquired by the State, the Petitioner should take steps within seven days of the receipt of the said letter to demolish the parapet wall as it had become a hindrance to the road development work that was taking place. This is a clear statement that the portion of the corpus containing the parapet wall was not going to be divested. However, the Petitioner failed to do so. The demolition of the parapet wall took place more than one month after the Petitioner was given such notice. As the demolition has admittedly occurred on the land acquired by the State, possession of which was handed over to the State, we do not see any unlawful act on the part of the State. We further observe that the communication regarding the divestment of the portion of the land acquired by the State was taken by the officials consequent to certain representations made by the Petitioner. In particular, it had been the position of the Petitioner that he and his wife were unfortunate victims of the Central Bank bomb blast on 31.01.1996 and still suffer from post-traumatic effects of that incident. We have much empathy to the mental trauma the Petitioners have undergone due to this unfortunate tragedy. Undoubtedly the demolition of the wall may have evoked painful memories. However, the material placed before Court does not establish any violation of Article 12(1). In fact, the State had attempted to accommodate the request of the Petitioner and sought to divest part of the corpus already acquired by the State. Page 6 of 6 For all the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the application without costs. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT YASANTHA KODAGODA, P.C., J. I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT A.H.M.D. NAWAZ, J. I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT		Download
2025-10-16	SC/FR/130/2016	Ayumi Kalpana Manawadu, 27/1, Kuduwamulla Road, Katubedda, Moratuwa. PETITIONER Vs. 1. University of Peradeniya, Galaha Road, Peradeniya. 2. Prof. Upul Dissanayake, Vice Chancellor, University of Peradeniya, Galaha Road, Pearadeniya. 2A.Prof. M.D. Lamawansa, Vice Chancellor, University of Peradeniya, Galaha Road, Peradeniya. 2B. Professor Terrence Madhujith Vice Chancellor, University of Peradeniya, Galaha Road, Peradeniya. 3. Prof. R. L. Wijeyeweera, Deputy Vice Chancellor, University of Peradeniya, Galaha Road, Pearadeniya. 3A. Prof. S.H.P.P Karunaratne Deputy Vice Chancellor, University of Peradeniya, Galaha Road, Pearadeniya. 3B.Prof. W.M.T. Madhujith, Deputy Vice Chancellor. 3C. Professor Ranjith Pallegama Deputy Vice Chancellor. 4. Prof. Leelananda Rajapaksha, Dean, Faculty of Engineering, 4A.Prof.G.B.B.Herath ,Dean, Faculty of Engineering, 4B. Dr. Udaya Dissanayake, Dean, Faculty of Engineering. 4C. Prof. Lilantha Samaranayake, Dean, Faculty of Engineering. 5. Prof. P. B. R. Dissanayake, Faculty of Engineering, 6. Prof. K. G. H. C. N. Seneviratne, Faculty of Engineering, AND OTHERS View More	Hon. Janak De Silva J	The Petitioner is a graduate of the Faculty of Engineering, University of Peradeniya. She seeks to impugn the decision to award the E.O.E. Pereira Gold Medal (Gold Medal) to the 312th Respondent. The Gold Medal was inaugurated by the friends and well-wishers of Prof. E.O.E. Pereira, formerly Dean, Faculty of Engineering and later Vice Chancellor, University of Ceylon, Peradeniya, in recognition of the long and distinguished service rendered by Professor Pereira to the University of Ceylon and the Engineering profession. The Gold Medal is awarded annually to the most outstanding student graduating from the Faculty of Engineering, University of Peradeniya, on the basis of scholastic as well as extra-mural excellence. In response to a notice issued by the 310th Respondent (Senior Assistant Registrar) on 15.02.2016 (P4), the Petitioner duly submitted her application for the Gold Medal on 19.02.2016 (P5). Page 39 of 56 On 26.02.2016, the Faculty Board after going through the applications, decided to adopt a marking scheme based on that used for the “Peradeniya University Gold Medal”(P6B and P6C). The Petitioner was thereafter informed by the 310th Respondent on 02.03.2016 (by a letter dated 26.02.2016) to re-submit her application under the revised criteria (P6B and P6C) on or before 03.03.2016 (P6A). A notice of this was put on the notice board along with documents marked P6B and P6C. On 09.03.2016 the Faculty Board recommended the Gold Medal to be awarded to the 312th Respondent. The Petitioner, by letter dated 14.03.2016, appealed against the alteration of the selection criteria and the decision taken by the Faculty Board (P8). Following this, the Senate at its meeting on 23.03.2016, granted approval to the Faculty Board’s recommendation. Subsequently, on 02.04.2016, the University Council, resolved not to interfere with the decision of the Faculty Board. The Petitioner thereafter instituted this application on 20.04.2016, seeking inter alia to quash the decision to award the Gold Medal to the 312th Respondent and to direct that it be awarded to her. The Petitioner alleges that the procedure in recommending and approving the 312th Respondent as the recipient of the Gold Medal violated her legitimate expectations, is ultra vires, arbitrary and irrational. The Petitioner seeks relief by way of quashing the impugned decisions contained in P6B and P6C together with the subsequent decisions of the Faculty Board, the Senate, and the Council awarding the Gold Medal to the 312th Respondent. The Petitioner further prays for a direction compelling the University authorities to re-evaluate the applications under the valid statutory framework as set out in P2C, or in the alternative, to grant the Gold Medal directly to the Petitioner, an order for costs and such other relief as this Court may deem just and equitable. Page 40 of 56 Leave to proceed has been granted under Article 12(1) of the Constitution. An interim order was issued restraining the 1st Respondent from awarding the Gold Medal until the final hearing and determination of this application. Time Bar Learned DSG and President’s Counsel raised a preliminary objection that the application is time barred, as it was not filed within one month of the alleged infringement as required by Article 126(2) of the Constitution. It was submitted that the operative date of infringement was 02.03.2016, when the Petitioner was required to re-submit her application under the new marking scheme as she was aware of the new criteria at that point in time. On this basis, it is submitted that the filing of the application on 20.04.2016 falls outside the constitutionally mandated time limit. The Petitioner, however, contends that the infringement was of an imminent and continuing nature and only crystallized upon the decision of the Senate on 23.03.2016. Article 126(1) of the Constitution vests sole and exclusive jurisdiction on this Court to hear and determine any question relating to the infringement or imminent infringement by executive or administrative action of any fundamental right or language right declared and recognized by Chapter III or Chapter IV of the Constitution. In terms of Article 126(2) of the Constitution, any person may invoke this jurisdiction where his fundamental right or language right has been infringed or is about to be infringed by executive or administrative action. A person is not compelled to invoke this jurisdiction at the stage where the infringement is imminent. He may well choose to stay his hand until it is clear that the fundamental right or language right is infringed and then invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Page 41 of 56 This Court while observing that the one-month limitation prescribed by Article 126(2) must be strictly construed, has at the same time, recognised that where an infringement is imminent or where its consequences are still unfolding, time will run from the date of the final operative act. In Dayaratne and others v. National Savings Bank and Others [ (2002) 3 Sri LR 116 at 126] , Fernando, J. held that: “An aggrieved person has the right to challenge an infringement not only when it is imminent but also after it has occurred. The failure to challenge an imminent infringement in time will never bar a subsequent actual infringement…” Quite similar to the present case, in Dayaratne (supra), the time began to run only when the names of the promotes were announced, and not even when the interview panel recommended their names. The recommendations were not held to amount to an infringement as the Board of Directors might have refused to accept them subsequently. Subsection (e) in P6B explicitly states that “the final selection of the recipient of the award shall be confirmed by the Senate on the recommendations of the Faculty Board of the relevant faculty”. In the present case, in addition to the Petitioner appealing against initial recommendations, the decision of the Council on 02.04.2016 represents the final determination of the University authorities in relation to the award of the Gold Medal. This application was filed on 20.04.2016. Therefore, it has been filed within the one-month of the alleged infringement as prescribed by the Constitution. Accordingly, the preliminary objection on time bar is overruled. Before proceeding to examine the issues that arise for consideration, I must clarify a fundamental matter that arose during the hearing. At one point of time, it was not clear Page 42 of 56 whether there were two gold medals that were to be awarded by the Faculty of Engineering, i.e. the Gold Medal and the University of Peradeniya Gold Medal. In response to this question posed by Court, learned DSG after obtaining instructions from the representative of the 1st Respondent present in Court, submitted that the effect of P6B and P6C was the establishment of a new medal titled “Peradeniya University Gold Medal” for all the faculties including the Faculty of Engineering and that the Gold Medal ceased to be on offer thereafter. However, upon a consideration of the paragraph 28 of the affidavit of the 2nd Respondent, it is clear that the Gold Medal is separate and distinct to the Peradeniya University Gold Medal. This stands to reason, as the Gold Medal was established through the donations of the friends and well-wishers of Prof. E.O.E. Pereira, formerly Dean, Faculty of Engineering and later Vice Chancellor, University of Ceylon, Peradeniya and established by a Statute whilst the Peradeniya University Gold Medal was established by Regulations. Issues Upon consideration of the pleadings, affidavits, and submissions of learned Counsel, the following issues arise for determination: 1. Whether the adoption of the new marking scheme in selecting the recipient of the Gold Medal for the year 2015 was consistent with the governing Statute. 2. Whether the constitution of the Selection Committee was valid in law. 3. Whether the allocation of marks, including the award of marks for an interview that was not conducted, was procedurally improper, arbitrary or unreasonable. 4. Whether the petitioner holds legitimate expectation with regards to any previous marking criteria. Page 43 of 56 In answering the first issue, a key issue that arises is the interplay between the Statute governing the Gold Medal (P2C) and the Regulations relied upon by the Respondents (P6B and P6C). P2C is the governing statue of the award in question, as agreed by both parties, which is titled as the “EOE Pereira Gold Medal Statue”. P6B is titled as the “Regulation governing the award of Peradeniya University Gold Medal for most outstanding student graduating from each faculty.” P6C is titled as the “Selection Criteria of the Peradeniya University Gold Medal for Most Outstanding student graduating from each faculty” It is the position of the Petitioner that the governing instrument in respect of the Gold Medal is the Statute of the Scholarship Board of 1971 (P2C), approved by the Senate Advisory Committee in 1973. The Petitioner contends that documents marked P6B and P6C, which introduce a revised marking scheme are inconsistent with P2C and ought to be quashed. It is further contended on behalf of the Petitioner that P6B and P6C were framed in respect of a different award, namely the “Peradeniya University Gold Medal,” and not the Gold Medal, and therefore have no application to the present matter. Accordingly, the adoption of P6B and P6C in selecting the 312th Respondent was ultra vires and of no legal effect. The Respondents, however, whilst acknowledging that the document marked as “Peradeniya University Gold Medal”( P6B) was mistakenly laid upon the Petitioner, submit that while P2C establishes the award, it does not provide a marking scheme or intelligible criteria for selection. They submit that in the absence of a prescribed scheme, the Faculty Board was entitled to adopt a suitable mechanism for evaluation, and that the adoption of a scheme similar as in P6C to that employed for the Peradeniya University Gold Medal is rational and reasonable. Page 44 of 56 The 2nd Respondent, who was the then Vice chancellor of the University of Peradeniya, states that the Scholarship Sub-Committee of the Senate of the University of Peradeniya, at its 68th meeting on 14.02.2011, drafted regulations which were subsequently tabled at the 82nd meeting of the Senate on 08.12.2014 and duly approved. He further states that the contents of the document marked P6B were not adopted by the selection committee in respect of the Gold Medal, but only the marking scheme approved by the scholarship sub-committee and the senate marked P6C. The learned counsel for the Respondent, relying on sections 136 , 140 and 142 of the Universities Act, submit that Statutes made under the Act are deemed to be Ordinances promulgated by the University Grants Commission, and that Regulations may be made subject to such Ordinances. It was further submitted that P2C has been substantially adhered to, and that the decision to adopt these Regulations merely provided guidance in the absence of detailed criteria. In other words, Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the said Statute, being a Statute made under the Universities Act, carries the force of an Ordinance in terms of section 140 of the Act. By contrast, the Regulations relied upon by the Respondents, namely P6B and P6C, are subordinate instruments in terms of section 136 of the Act. On this basis, the Respondents contend that the adoption of P6B and P6C was neither ultra vires nor arbitrary. In terms of sections 136 and 140 of the Universities Act, Statutes enjoy primacy over regulations. Regulations such as P6B and P6C cannot displace the governing Statute. However, since P2C lacks any prescribed criteria, the adoption of supplementary guidelines cannot be regarded as wholly ultra vires. What remains in issue is whether the procedure in following them was reasonable, consistent, and fairly applied. Given the absence of any detailed marking scheme in P2C, it was permissible for the Faculty to supplement the Statute with a marking scheme, provided it was not inconsistent with the governing Statute. However, the adoption of supplementary criteria Page 45 of 56 carries with it a duty to apply such criteria fully, fairly, and consistently. In the present instance, such criteria were introduced only after applications had already been invited and submitted, and indeed after the Faculty Board had scrutinised the applications. Furthermore, the Respondents appear to have selectively adopted certain portions of P6C while disregarding others, thereby failing to follow the scheme as a whole. Such partial adoption undermines the legality of the process. The implications of this failure will be considered in detail under the subsequent issues of procedural impropriety, irrationality, and arbitrariness. Moreover, the full scheme, both P6B and P6C were made known to the candidates in two distinct ways: first, by being directly furnished to the candidates including the Petitioner along with the request to re-submit her application; and secondly, by being published on the Faculty notice board when the revised criteria were introduced. Once the University itself chose to publish and circulate the entirety of the scheme, applicants held a legitimate expectation that it would be applied in full. Constitution of the Selection Panel P6C prescribes a selection panel consisting of five senior academics with the Dean as ex officio Chairman. The panel was to be appointed by the Faculty Board. The record indicates that, rather than a Faculty Board appointment, between 26.02.2016 and 09.03.2016, the committee that evaluated applications for the Gold Medal comprised the Dean and the Heads of Departments (nine members), and that the Faculty Board itself later recorded the recommendation of the 312th Respondent. The Petitioner asserts that no Faculty Board meeting took place in the interregnum to effect the formal appointment of the panel as required by P6C. Page 46 of 56 The selection process stipulated in P6C is as follows; Applicants are called from graduates who have obtained GPA 3.5 and above. Marks are given for involvement in following activities. The medal is awarded for the graduate who obtained the highest percentage. 1. Academic excellence- 50% 2. Sports- 12.5% 3. Registered Societies and Union- 5% 4. Arts, Drama, Music, Literary and Creative work- 12.5% 5. Research Publications- 10% 6. Interview performance- 10% It further goes on to say that “The marks will be allocated by a panel of five senior academics appointed by the Faculty Board. Dean of the Faculty will function as the chairman ex-officio” The Petitioner contends that the absence of a proper Faculty Board meeting to appoint the selection panel and the actual composition of the evaluating committee represent fundamental procedural defects. It is submitted that a panel not lawfully appointed under the governing instrument could not make a lawful recommendation. Since no such meeting was held within this time frame, it was submitted that no selection panel was lawfully constituted, and accordingly, the recommendation of the 312th Respondent as the awardee lacks legal validity and is bad in law. Moreover, the Petitioner submitted that the adoption of the new marking scheme (P6C) was wholly ultra vires, inasmuch as it was made under the guise of a regulation relating to a different medal and by a committee not recognised under the governing Statute (P2C). It was submitted that the Faculty Board, by usurping the role of the selection panel Page 47 of 56 prescribed by Statute, acted outside jurisdiction. On this basis, it was submitted that the entire process was void and without legal effect. In my view, the practice of extracting certain provisions while disregarding others after the regulations as a whole were notified to applicants, constitutes arbitrariness. This piecemeal adoption has resulted in inconsistency both in relation to the composition of the selection panel and in the allocation of marks. For instance, while the composition of the selection committee was ostensibly to follow the P6C, in practice the Dean and all Heads of Departments comprised the panel, in excess of what P6C itself envisaged. Procedural Impropriety Interview Apart from the failure to follow the composition of the selection committee according to P6C, no interview was in fact conducted, although P6C necessitated an interview to be held, due to alleged insufficiency of time. The Respondents acknowledge the inability of conducting an interview on the pretext that there was an urgency in concluding a decision with regards to the recipient of the Gold Medal, as the convocation was to be held soon. The urgency of the forthcoming convocation, as referred to in the affidavit of the Vice Chancellor, does not excuse departure from the mandatory procedure laid down in the governing regulations. Compliance with procedural rules is not a matter of formality but of legality; it ensures fairness, transparency, and accountability in the conferment of honours. Page 48 of 56 As Bandaranayake, J. (as she was then) held in Dr. Karunanada v. Open University of Colombo [(2006) 3 Sri LR 225 at 243]: “Procedural fairness cannot be regarded as a matter which is unimportant. Procedural safeguards should be the cornerstones of individual liberty and their right to equality. Her ladyship further moves to cite Frankfurter , J. in McNabbs vs United States 318 U.S. 332 (1943) which states that “ the history of liberty has largely been the history of the observance of procedural safeguards”. In Dayarathna and Others v. Minister of Health and Indigenous Medicine and Others [(1999) 1 Sri LR 393 at 401], Amerasinghe, J. held as follows: “There must be certainty and predictability if the rule of law is to prevails, which article 12 of the constitution which among other things, is obviously intended to satisfy. Article 12 of the constitution requires substantive as well as formal equality: laws, regulations and executive and administrative rules, procedures and schemes must not discriminate between individuals on invidious or irrationals grounds; and officials are required to apply those laws, rules, procedures and schemes consistently and even-handedly unless the deviation can be objectively and reasonably justified on the grounds that a legitimate end is being pursued and that the means to achieve that end are proportionate.” In this instance, failure to conduct the interview as stipulated by the marking criteria adopted by the Respondents vitiates the procedural requirements. I hold that, while purporting to rely on P6B and P6C, the Respondents did not consistently apply them in their entirety, but adopted only portions as suited. This selective application was procedurally improper, arbitrary, and inconsistent with the requirements of fairness and equal treatment. Page 49 of 56 Exclusivity of certain eligible candidates Furthermore, although the revised regulations (P6B and P6C) extended eligibility to candidates securing a Second-Class Upper Division with a GPA of 3.5 or above, the University in practice limited consideration to candidates with a First-Class only. This inconsistency between the announced criteria and the actual application thereof is relied upon by the Petitioner as evidence of procedural impropriety. Learned Counsel submits that such differential treatment is antithetical to the requirement of equal treatment and procedural fairness, and has materially prejudiced the Petitioner. The Respondents reiterate that only the marking criteria was adopted out of the scheme. They further maintain that no prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner in this instance, since both the Petitioner and the 312th Respondent, who was eventually awarded the Gold Medal, were themselves First Class graduates. It is therefore submitted that the limitation of eligibility to First-Class holders, though not fully consonant with the broader criteria, did not adversely affect the Petitioner’s own standing. Even if both principal candidates were First-Class holders, the Court must determine whether the exclusion of an eligible class of candidates reflects a deeper procedural malaise that undermines confidence in the decision-making process; the presence or absence of prejudice to the Petitioner is relevant but not always determinative of legality. This exclusion of Second-Upper candidates, contrary to the adopted marking scheme, makes the process tainted and procedurally improper. As Fernando, J. held in Bennet Rathnayake v. The Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation and others [ (1999) 2 Sri LR 93 at 107], “Uncertainty as to procedure and criteria tends to result in a denial of the equal protection of the law”. Page 50 of 56 Furthemore, the material before Court shows that upon the adoption of the revised criteria, only the ten students who had applied under the initial notice were personally informed, while eligibility under the new scheme was extended to graduates with a Second-Class Upper Division and a GPA of 3.5 or above. Such students were not individually notified; instead, a notice was placed on the Faculty notice board. While this may have sufficed during an academic term when students were regularly present on campus, by this time all academic activities had concluded. The Respondents submit that they assumed other students might nevertheless visit the University for various purposes, but this assumption does not discharge the duty to communicate effectively. In the present age, universities are equipped with electronic communication systems, and the failure to utilise such means to notify eligible students of an opportunity of this nature amounts to a lapse in administrative responsibility. The duty to notify is not satisfied by passive methods when more direct and reliable means are available. Such lapses reflects that the administrators were going through some procedural steps merely to project a due process in calling for applications. Arbitrariness The Petitioner challenges the allocation of the marks for the interview, which was never held, yet in respect of which the 312th Respondent received the full allocation of 10 marks. She submits that she was only awarded 8 marks, and that this disparity is irrational and arbitrary. As explained above, the Respondents acknowledge that no interview was held. They state that all candidates were given a base allocation of 8 marks, and that additional marks were awarded only where students had received prizes or awards not otherwise accounted for in the other categories. It is submitted that the 312th Respondent was given Page 51 of 56 two extra marks for having obtained the Professor Bartholomeusz Prize for Engineering Mathematics in 2015, which had not been considered elsewhere in the marking scheme. As explained in City of Livingston v. Park Conservation District, 2013 MT 234, 371 Mont. 303, 307 P.3d 317, “A decision is arbitrary if it comes about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will” The allocation of marks for an interview that was never held is manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary. To award a candidate the full 10 marks, while another received only 8, despite no interview being conducted, is a decision no reasonable authority could have made. To award additional marks under this head, even for a legitimate achievement such as a faculty prize, is to alter the purpose of the category and to blur the boundaries of assessment. While it may be desirable to recognise unaccounted achievements, doing so under the guise of “interview marks” is both arbitrary and unreasonable. If prizes or awards merited recognition, they should have been expressly incorporated into the scheme, rather than accommodated in an improvised and inconsistent manner. Such an approach undermines the integrity and transparency of the process and taints the entire process. Commenting on the applicability of the equality clause in terms of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) in Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujiba [AIR (1981) SC 487] held that: \"Wherever therefore there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the legislature or of the executive or of an \'authority\' under Article 12, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such State action. In fact, the concept of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional Page 52 of 56 scheme and is a golden thread which runs through the whole of the fabric of the Constitution” The Petitioner further submits that the new criteria was vitiated by irrationality and unreasonableness on the basis that academic achievements were allocated excessive weightage of 50% of the marks and the inclusion of a separate percentage for research publications is unreasonable. Reliance is placed on the affidavit marked P2D of Senior Professor S.B.S. Abeykoon, former Vice Chancellor and former Dean of the Respondent University, wherein it is affirmed that the attainment of a First-Class degree had historically been regarded as the benchmark of academic excellence and was treated as a prerequisite for eligibility for the Gold Medal. The 2nd Respondent in his affidavit also asserted this position with regards to the non-entertainment of applicants of anything lower than a First-Class. However, under the amended criteria embodied in P6B and P6C, 50% of the marks were separately allocated for academic excellence, thereby rendering the possession of a First-Class an element to be assessed rather than an absolute threshold for eligibility. Similarly, the Petitioner alleges that carving out 10% specifically for research, without adequate justification, distorted the balance between scholastic and extra-mural performance envisaged by the Statute. It is argued on the basis that different research projects carry differing weightage and it is irrational to consider them on an equal setting, as such achievements fall within the broader rubric of academic excellence and should not have been treated as a separate criterion. Here I must observe that this contention falls within the ambit of “purely academic matters” which the Court is reluctant to intervene, as acknowledged in the case of Dr. Karunananda (supra). This is not to say for a moment that academic decisions are beyond challenge. Page 53 of 56 In the academic context, we are cautious before interfering with qualitative judgments but will intervene where the decision is manifestly arbitrary or lacks any rational basis. Based on this precept, I note that whilst the Petitioner’s contention that in the past practice, greater emphasis had been placed on sports and extra-curricular activities once a First-Class was attained, and this contention reflects the Petitioner’s perception of the historical approach, the Court finds it difficult to accept that the primary emphasis of the award should be shifted away from academic achievement in a university context. The Gold Medal is awarded within a Faculty of Engineering, where scholastic excellence is necessarily central. Extra-mural achievements are important and were rightly intended to be considered, but they cannot be elevated above the academic purpose of the institution. The Court observes that the expression “extra-mural” in isolation ordinarily connotes activities undertaken outside the classroom or the formal curriculum, and in some contexts even outside the university itself. In the context of P2C, however, the reference to extra-mural activities must be understood more broadly to include pursuits beyond formal academic coursework, such as participation in sports, arts, societies, clubs, publications, research, and other student activities. It cannot be read as confined exclusively to sporting achievements. Accordingly, the Court does not find the Petitioner’s criticism of the weightage accorded to academics and research to be sustainable. Legitimate Expectation The Petitioner submits that, unlike the other thirty medals in the Faculty which are based solely on academic achievement, the Gold Medal was intended to recognise the most outstanding student by combining academic excellence with extra-curricular achievement, particularly in sports. She contends that historically, eligibility was confined to First-Class graduates, with sports performance being the decisive factor, and no separate marks were given for research or other academic prizes. Page 54 of 56 The Respondents contend, however, that P2C simply requires consideration of both scholastic and extra-mural excellence, and that “extra-mural” is not confined to sports. They argue that activities such as arts, societies, clubs, publications, research, and prizes equally fall within its scope, and that the Petitioner’s narrow interpretation is inconsistent with the language of the Statute. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that there was a consistent practice in the Faculty, where sports (75% of marks), amongst other extra-curricular activities were accorded greater weight in the evaluation. It was submitted that the Petitioner had a legitimate expectation that the same practice would be followed, and that the sudden departure from it, without notice, amounts to a violation of the petitioner’s legitimate expectations. The affidavit of Mr. S.B.S. Abeykoon, former Vice Chancellor and former Dean of the Faculty, affirms that the marking practice historically treated the attainment of a First-Class as sufficient proof of academic excellence, with greater weight thereafter being accorded to sports and extra-curricular activities, thereby supporting the Petitioner’s contention as to the intended criteria. The Respondents, on the other hand, submit that there was no settled or uniform practice in awarding the medal from year to year, but rather an ad hoc adoption of different schemes. Accordingly, the Petitioner cannot rely on any legitimate expectation. For an expectation to be legitimate it must be founded upon a promise or practice by the public authority that it said to be bound to fulfil the expectation. According to P2C(2)(d), the criteria is broadly mentioned as “In making the award, both the scholastic and extra mural excellence of the student shall be taken into account.” In the instant case, in scrutinizing the evidence presented to this court by both parties, although in most years on the surface level it seems that sports have been considered with greater weightage, no consistent or transparent marking criteria had been prescribed. The marking sheets that were produced in evidence are not sufficiently Page 55 of 56 detailed to disclose a concrete basis upon which percentages were to be allocated for academic performance, sports, and other extra-curricular activities. While such administrative laxity is regrettable and emphasizing that the 1st Respondent ought to adopt clear, consistent, and accountable procedures in the preparation of marking schemes, the absence of a settled practice or binding representation prevents the Petitioner from establishing a legitimate expectation. Infringement of Article 12 The failure to apply eligibility criteria consistently, together with the arbitrary allocation of interview marks, raises concerns of unequal treatment. I hold that the right to equality under Article 12(1) of the Constitution is infringed not only by overt discrimination but also by failure to ensure transparency, fairness and consistency in the application of rules. The record reveals administrative ambiguity: marking sheets with inadequate explanatory detail, mistaken service of a non-applicable document, lack of transparent publication of criteria, and in particular the unlawful allocation of marks for an interview that was never held. I observe that as a matter of equal protection of law, awarding bodies should adopt and publish clear, measurable, and intelligible marking schemes in advance, ensure lawful constitution of selection panels, and provide timely, non-selective notice to all eligible candidates. Administrative institutions are accountable to the standards of rationality, transparency and equality; shortcomings in these respects undermine confidence in awards of institutional prestige and the fairness of the process. For the reasons more fully set out above, I hold that the procedure adopted in awarding the Gold Medal for the year 2015 was vitiated by procedural impropriety and arbitrariness, resulting in a violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article Page 56 of 56 12(1) of the Constitution. However, given the defects in the process, I am not in a position to direct that the Gold Medal for 2015 be awarded to the Petitioner. Accordingly, the decisions of the Faculty Board, the Senate, and the Council to award the medal to the 312th Respondent are hereby quashed. Neither the Petitioner nor the 312th Respondent shall be entitled to receive the Gold Medal in respect of the 2015 convocation. In view of the lapse of time, and the impracticality of calling for fresh applications, no further selection shall be made for that year. In the circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. Before parting with this matter, the Court observes that the confusion which has arisen stems primarily from the absence of a clear and consistently applied marking scheme. Universities, in conferring medals of this nature, must ensure that criteria are transparent, uniformly applied, and publicly available in advance. This Court therefore strongly recommends that the University of Peradeniya takes appropriate steps to formulate and publish clear regulations governing the award of the E.O.E. Pereira Gold Medal, so that future recipients are selected through a process that is fair, consistent, and beyond reproach.		Download
2025-10-16	SC/FR/359/2016	D. K. Surangika Nalani 1/3, Vavulugala Baddegama. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Piyasiri Manawadu Acting Officer in Charge Terrorism Investigation Division Boosa Unit Boosa. 2. Nalaka De Silva Deputy Inspector General Terrorism Investigation Division New Secretariat Building Colombo 01. 3. Jagath Vishantha Assistant Superintendent of Police Acting Director Terrorism Investigation Division New Secretariat Building Colombo 01. 4. K. N. O. Perera Chief Inspector, Officer in Charge Terrorism Investigation Division New Secretariat Building Colombo 01. 5. Pujitha Jayasundara Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters Colombo 01. 5(A) C. D. Wickramaratne Inspector General of Police (ceased to hold office). 5(B) Deshabandu Tennakoon Inspector General of Police (ceased to hold office). 6. The Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Sobhitha Rajakaruna J	The Petitioner was a lady Sub-Inspector of the Sri Lanka Police and residing in Baddegama during the time she filed the instant Application. She alleges that while working at the Boosa Detention Unit of the Terrorist Investigation Department (TID), the 1st Respondent repeatedly made inappropriate advances and indecent suggestions toward her in person, Page 3 of 8 which she rejected. The Petitioner further claims that the 1st Respondent made lewd remarks over the phone, explicitly expressing a desire for sexual relations with her and intimidating her by warning her against reporting these incidents to superior officers. Anyhow, she reported the 1st Respondent’s alleged behaviour to the 2nd Respondent, who dismissed her complaint. The other segment of the Petitioner’s complaint is the delay in accommodating her request for a transfer due to her pregnancy. She states that she had to commute over 100 km daily, spending more than eight hours travelling, which led to a miscarriage of her four-and-a-half-month-old foetus. As a result, she claims that she suffered severe mental trauma and distress. The Petitioner asserts that the Respondents violated her fundamental rights under Article 12(1) of the Constitution by failing to investigate the 1st Respondent for sexual harassment, despite her rejection of his advances. Instead, they initiated an inquiry against her based on a complaint by the 1st Respondent, resulting in a punitive black mark on her record. Furthermore, the Petitioner to justify her alleged infringement of fundamental rights asserts that the Respondents arbitrarily delayed her transfer; failed to release her from the TID to a suitable division to accommodate her pregnancy; and only transferred her as requested after she suffered a miscarriage, thereby infringing her fundamental rights. Regardless of the multiple claims raised by the Petitioner in the instant Application, this Court granted Leave to Proceed on 10.01.2017 for the alleged violations of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(g), in respect of the Petitioner’s transfer. Summary of the Facts Narrated by the Petitioner In the Petition filed on 13.10.2016, the Petitioner alleges that while working at the Boosa Detention Unit of the TID, the 1st Respondent repeatedly made inappropriate suggestions and advances toward her. According to the Petitioner, when she rebuffed his persistent advances by mentioning her marital status, he grew angry, threatened her with the words, “I will see about you,” and cautioned that complaining to senior officers would be futile as they would not believe her. The Petitioner further complains of an incident on 06.06.2016, after which the 1st Respondent falsely recorded in the administration unit that she had scolded him and insulted his rank. Consequently, the Petitioner also lodged a complaint in the Information Book. Page 4 of 8 The Petitioner reported these incidents and the conduct of the 1st Respondent to the former Officer in Charge of Boosa Unit of TID, the 2nd Respondent, and the 3rd Respondent. She asserts that the 2nd Respondent did not entertain her complaint. Subsequently, she was transferred to Vavuniya, but following an appeal to the Department of Grievances, this transfer was revoked. As a result, the Petitioner reported to TID Headquarters, Colombo on 30.06.2016. She states that after her posting to Colombo, the lack of suitable barracks for pregnant women required her to travel over 100 km daily, spending more than eight hours commuting. She states that she was also assigned physically strenuous tasks, such as climbing multiple flights of stairs when the elevator was out of service. Consequently, on 01.07.2016 the Petitioner requested a transfer to Galle or Elpitiya, but by letter dated 05.07.2016 the DIG refused her request, citing a pending inquiry against her. It seems that the inquiry against the Petitioner concerns a verbal altercation between her and the 1st Respondent. An inquiry was conducted based on the Charge Sheet issued against the Petitioner, and a portion of the proceedings of such inquiry is marked as ‘X11’ and ‘X12’. The Petitioner argues that the Respondents acted arbitrarily and capriciously by neglecting to investigate the 1st Respondent’s alleged sexual harassment and by hindering her transfer through their failure to reassign her from the TID to an appropriate division. The Petitioner states that she preferred an appeal to the Director of TID and the 2nd Respondent on 01.07.2016, along with a completed 51A form, requesting a transfer from the TID to a Police station in Galle or Elpitiya. She explains that the journey by bus and train was extremely taxing, yet she persisted to avoid jeopardising her job. According to the Petitioner, she had a miscarriage and lost her four-and-a-half-month-old foetus on 13.09.2016. The Petitioner states that owing to the aforesaid loss, her mental trauma and agony were aggravated, and she suffers from the same to the present day. The contention of the Petitioner is that the Respondents’ inaction, along with their actions against her, including her subsequent transfers, were motivated by improper intentions related to her rejection of the 1st Respondent’s sexual advances. The Petitioner asserts that the actions of the Respondents outlined in her Petition were directed against her solely because she is a female police officer, thereby violating her rights under Article 12(2) of the Constitution. She further contends that the Police Department lacks specific provisions, whether through law, subordinate legislation, or executive Page 5 of 8 action, to promote the advancement of women, as provided for under Article 12(4). Additionally, she claims that her fundamental rights under Article 14(1)(g), which ensure her freedom to engage in any lawful occupation, profession, trade, business, or enterprise without obstruction, have been infringed. Statements of Objection of the Respondents The 1st and 2nd Respondents have submitted separate affidavits. The 1st Respondent, denying the Petitioner\'s allegations, states that she was transferred to the TID on 14.07.2010, then to the Boosa unit of TID on 10.01.2011, and later to Colombo on 01.07.2016. He notes that he was appointed as Acting Officer in Charge of the Boosa TID unit on 01.01.2016, and had been serving there for approximately six months. In his affidavit, the 1st Respondent affirms that on 06.06.2016, the Petitioner spoke to him disrespectfully in the presence of two junior officers in the same unit, as recorded in the routine information book entry marked 1R1. The said incident prompted him to file a complaint against the Petitioner with the 3rd Respondent. He maintains that he did not violate the Petitioner’s fundamental rights and performed his duties lawfully and justly throughout the relevant period. In his affidavit, the 2nd Respondent states that the Petitioner was transferred to the Vavuniya Unit of the TID, the only other TID unit with female officers, making it the most appropriate assignment during the preliminary inquiry conducted by the Colombo TID Headquarters. The Petitioner reportedly failed to report for duty at the TID unit in Vavuniya. Instead, she worked at the Colombo TID Headquarters from 01.07.2016 to 04.07.2016, before taking multiple days of leave. The 2nd Respondent notes that several pregnant female officers travel from various parts of the country to work at the Colombo TID Headquarters, a six-story building equipped with two 24-hour elevators. He also points out that, despite the Petitioner’s complaints about travelling over 100 km daily, she attended lectures at the Negombo/Katana Police Academy every Saturday from 8:00 AM to 5:15 PM, during the relevant period. The 2nd Respondent claims that the Petitioner did not report any harassment by the 1st Respondent to him at the time of the transfer. Additionally, he mentions that pregnant female officers are allowed to report to work one hour early and leave one hour late, and they are transferred to a police station closer to their residence two months before giving birth, remaining there for one year afterwards. Page 6 of 8 The learned Additional Solicitor General (‘ASG’) submitted that the preliminary inquiry, concluded on 15.08.2016, recommended that the Petitioner be served with a charge sheet. However, the 2nd Respondent, acting on sympathetic grounds, issued only a ‘black mark’ against her, which could be expunged based on future satisfactory conduct. The ASG argued that the Petitioner’s transfer from the TID was not due to any fault of the Respondents and that she was consistently protected under Article 12(1) of the Constitution, meaning her fundamental rights were not violated by the Respondents’ actions concerning the transfer. Alleged Violation of Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(g) of the Constitution I am mindful that this Court needs to examine the alleged violations of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(g) upon which Leave to Proceed was granted, specifically concerning the Petitioner’s transfer. Even to consider whether the alleged lewd remarks made by the 1st Respondent have a direct or implied link to the actions taken by the authorities in reference to the transfer of the Petitioner, such remarks or allegations must be substantiated against the 1st Respondent with sufficient evidence. The Petitioner places reliance on the judgment of P. S. Manohari Pelaketiya v H. M. Gunasekera and Others (SC FR 76/2012, SC Minutes of 28.09.2016) in which the Supreme Court has decided that sexual harassment or workplace stress and strain occasioned by oppressive and burdensome conduct under colour of executive office would be an infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner of the said case. The learned ASG distinguishes the facts of the above case and submits that the Petitioner in the said Pelaketiya v Gunasekara case has successfully proved the sexual harassment suffered by her, whereas the Petitioner of the instant case has failed to establish such allegations. Nevertheless, given the unique circumstances of this case and the way it has been presented before this Court, I take the view that I am not mandated to examine any infringement of fundamental rights of the Petitioner considering the alleged grounds of not holding an inquiry against the 1st Respondent, upon the lewd remarks allegedly made by him. Public officers often approach the Court through fundamental rights applications, claiming that their transfers were arbitrary, unreasonable, or driven by political motives. The Supreme Court has consistently stepped in when such transfers are deemed an abuse Page 7 of 8 of authority or a form of punishment. In terms of the Departmental Order No. A.11 (‘2R3’) of Sri Lanka Police, the officers are not entitled to transfer as a matter of right. The said document ‘2R3’ stipulates ‘privilege transfers’ and ‘transfers on health grounds’. In terms of Part IV(1) of the said ‘2R3’, an officer wanting a transfer of health grounds may apply on Police Form 51, attaching a medical certificate from a medical officer. Such medical certificates should indicate reasons for recommending the transfer, specifically stating climate, etc. It should be noted that the authorities eventually approved the Petitioner’s requested transfer on 01.07.2016, allowing her to serve at the Baddegama Police Station in the Elpitiya Division. As previously stated, the Petitioner had applied for this transfer using Form 51A, which is based on health grounds and not on any other reasons adduced in the Petition and the affidavit of the Petitioner. The letter dated 04.07.2016 from the Acting Director of the TID to the Deputy Inspector General of Police TID (marked ‘X5’) recommended the Petitioner’s transfer. However, the Transfer Order was issued only on 06.09.2016 (marked ‘X16’), which was within 2 months and 6 days from the request of the Petitioner. The Respondents attributed the delay to the provisions in Part I(8) of the said Departmental Order, which prohibits transferring a police officer between Provinces/Divisions while serious charges are pending. The Acting Deputy Inspector General of Police of TID recorded an entry to this effect (marked ‘X6’). The reason asserted by the Respondents as an excuse for the delay in concluding the disciplinary inquiry against the Petitioner, was the Petitioner’s extended absence from work on leave, as they were unable to record her statement until 08.08.2016. I must now focus on a letter dated 28.09.2016, signed by the Petitioner (found on pages 46 to 54, starting from page 54, of the appeal brief). In this letter, on page 7, the Petitioner explicitly states that she first learned of her pregnancy on 27.06.2016. She provided copies of two letters from a specialist Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, marked ‘X2’ (dated 26.06.2016 and 10.07.2016), which advise her to avoid long-distance travel and strenuous activities. These letters, issued under the heading “To whom it may concern,” contain largely similar content and they are not accompanied with a diagnosis card. However, the said Gynaecologist did not provide specific reasons for these recommendations. Based on extensive reading, I have noted that a Gynaecologist should be able to identify causes of imminent miscarriage through proper examination, however, the letters marked ‘X2’ and Page 8 of 8 ‘X17’, issued by the same Gynaecologist, provide no substantive reasons or clinical findings. Moreover, the Petitioner’s final medical document (‘X13’) has not been issued by the said Gynaecologist, but by the Teaching Hospital, Galle. Therefore, a reasonable doubt arises whether such documents were prepared solely to favour her. Thus, I am not convinced by the arguments raised by the Petitioner that revolve around the letters of the said Gynaecologist. Likewise, I am unable to draw a substantial connection between the alleged delay in approving the Petitioner’s requested transfer and her pregnancy, which she learned about on 27.06.2016. Based on the above, I find that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof required to establish a violation of fundamental rights under Article 12(1) and Article 14(1)(g) of the Constitution concerning her requested transfer. Additionally, the Petitioner has not presented convincing evidence to show that the purported delay (from 01.07.2016 to 06.09.2016) in issuing the Transfer Order was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Therefore, I am not persuaded that the Respondents\' actions in respect of the request for a transfer by the Petitioner infringed her fundamental rights under Article 12(1) and Article 14(1)(g). Hence, I dismiss the instant Application without costs.		Download
2025-10-16	SC/APPEAL/205/2017	Hapugastenna Plantations PLC, P.O. Box 2, Nambapana, Ingiriya. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT- APPELLANT Vs. R. A. Gunatilaka, No. 59, Galpotta road, Nawala. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J	This is an appeal preferred by the respondent-appellant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) on the basis of being aggrieved of the judgment pronounced on 01-10-2015 by the Provincial High Court of the Western Province Holden in Colombo in respect of the appeals bearing No. HC/ALT/46/2014 and HC/ALT/48/2014. Both these appeals preferred before the High Court had emanated from the order pronounced by the learned President of the Labour Tribunal of Colombo on 30-04-2014. In HC/ALT/46/2014, the appellant, being the respondent named before the Labour Tribunal, has preferred an appeal against the order where the Labour Tribunal declared that the services of the applicant before the Labour Tribunal have been constructively terminated by the appellant and therefore, allowing him compensation. In HC/ALT/48/2014, the applicant-respondent-respondent of the appeal before this Court (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) has preferred an appeal against the same order on the basis that he is not satisfied with the sum granted as compensation in his favour by the Labour Tribunal. Page 4 of 13 From the impugned judgment, the learned Judge of the High Court has decided to dismiss both the applications for the reasons stated in the judgment. It is against the dismissal of the appeal preferred by the appellant in Case No. HC/ALT/46/2014, this appeal has been preferred. When this matter was considered before this Court for the granting of leave to appeal on 23-10-2017, this Court granted leave on the questions of law set out in paragraph 8 (a) to (f) of the petition dated 07-11-2015. The appellant was also allowed to add two more questions for the consideration of the Court. The respondent, who was the applicant before the Labour Tribunal, was also allowed to formulate one question of law. The said questions of law allowed read as follows. 1. Did the learned High Court Judge err in law by failing to come to the finding that the order of the learned President of the Labour Tribunal was not just and equitable? 2. Did the learned High Court Judge err in law by failing to consider and/or correctly evaluate the evidence placed before the Court? 3. Did the learned High Court Judge err in law by failing to take into account relevant circumstances and misdirected himself by taking into account irrelevant circumstances? 4. Did the learned High Court Judge err in law by coming to the finding that the petitioner had constructively terminated the respondent? 5. Did the learned High Court Judge err in law by failing to take into account that the respondent has accepted that he was retired from service and had instituted action in the Labour Tribunal as an afterthought? 6. Did the learned High Court Judge err in law by failing to come to the finding that the petitioner had retired from service upon attaining the requisite age of retirement? Page 5 of 13 7. In any event, the Labour Tribunal possessed of jurisdiction in as much as the evidence disclosed the retirement situation and not one of termination? 8. Is the quantum of compensation excessive and not computed according to law? 9. Does the respondent have a right to justifiable expectation that his employment should be continued in the circumstances of this case beyond 60? At the hearing of this appeal, this Court heard the submissions of the learned President’s Counsel who represented the appellant and also that of the learned President’s Counsel who represented the respondent. This Court also had the privilege of considering the written submissions tendered to the Court by the parties. This is a case where the respondent has filed an application before the Labour Tribunal of Colombo on 08-03-2011 seeking redress. In the application, he has stated that after joining the plantation sector as a Trainee Planter under the Sri Lanka State Plantations Corporation, he was employed by the said corporation as an Assistant Superintendent with effect from 06-06-1978. After serving the plantation sector over the years, his final assignment has been under the Hapugastenna Plantations PLC and Udupussellawa Plantations PLC, which were subsidiaries of James Finlays Group of Companies as the General Manager (Administration). He has stated in his application before the Labour Tribunal that whilst working as the General Manager (Administration), the appellant, who was his employer sent him on retirement with effect from 15-10-2010 without prior notice on his completion of 60 years of age. Claiming that there are several other employees who are above 60 years of age and still working at the appellant company, he too had a reasonable expectation that he would also be retained after the completion of 60 years, he has taken up the position that retiring him on completion of 60 years is Page 6 of 13 arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, mala fide, and against the policy of the appellant company who is an equal opportunity employer. On the above-mentioned basis, he has prayed before the Labour Tribunal for the following reliefs. a) Declare that retiring the applicant on completion of 60 years is unjust and unreasonable, b) Reinstate the applicant with back wages, c) Grant costs and, d) Such other and further reliefs as the tribunal seems fit. Answering the above application before the Labour Tribunal, the appellant has taken up the position that the Labour Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the matter since there is no proper application filed in terms of section 31B (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The appellant has also taken up a preliminary objection on the basis that the respondent, who was the applicant before the Labour Tribunal, duly retired from service, and therefore, cannot maintain the application before the Labour Tribunal. In relation to the above objections as to the maintainability of the application before the Labour Tribunal, an order has been pronounced on 05-08-2011 overruling the said objections. It has been determined that the claim of the applicant is on the basis that, retiring him at the completion of 60 years of age, the appellant has terminated his services, and therefore, that is a matter that needs to be looked into. Accordingly, after the completion of the inquiry, the learned President of the Labour Tribunal pronouncing his order on 30-04-2014 has considered the policy of the appellant company to retain some of the employees beyond their retirement age, and has determined that the respondent also had a legitimate expectation of him being retained as such. It has been determined that retiring the respondent at his completion of 60 years of age would therefore amount to constructively terminating his services without a good and sufficient reason. Page 7 of 13 Accordingly, it has been decided to grant relief to the respondent by awarding him compensation. The learned President of the Labour Tribunal has decided to grant compensation to the respondent based on his last drawn salary for a period of 12 months in a sum of Rs. 1,584,000/-. The matter before this Court now is to determine whether the respondent, being the applicant before the Labour Tribunal, had a right to go before the Tribunal in terms of section 31B (1) and if so, whether the decision of the learned President of the Labour Tribunal to conclude that the appellant has constructively terminated his services and to order compensation can be justified. In the impugned judgment, the learned Judge of the High Court has determined that the learned President was correct in overruling the preliminary objections on the basis that this was a matter which needed to be looked into. It has been determined that it was the Labour Tribunal who was in a much better position to inquire into factual matters and reach a just and equitable finding, and an appellate forum will not disturb the findings unless it carries serious discrepancies. It has been held that although the position of the appellant was that the company policy is to retire its employees after reaching the mandatory retirement age of 60 years, when considering executive grade officers of the company, the said policy has rarely been implemented, and hence, the respondent had a legitimate expectation of being employed beyond 60 years of age. The High Court has justified the learned President’s determination that the appellant has failed to inform the respondent that he would be retired, giving him 12 months’ notice in that regard. It has been determined further that the Labour Tribunal was correct in granting relief to the respondent on the basis of a just and equitable remedy and there is no basis for the High Court to interfere with the order. Page 8 of 13 At the same time, in determining the respondent’s appeal, it has been held that the amount of compensation granted was sufficient. Accordingly, both the appeals have been dismissed by the learned Judge of the High Court. Section 31B (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act has provided for the manner in which a workman can file an application before the Labour Tribunal on the grounds stated therein. The said section reads as follows: 31B. (1) A workman or a trade union on behalf of a workman who is a member of that union, may make an application in writing to labour tribunal for relief or redress in respect of any of the following matters:-(See section 7 of Act No. 32 of 1990 relating to pending actions (set out in Annexure to this Chapter). See also Act No. 19 of 1990 in this connection.) (a) the termination of his services by his employer; (b) the question whether any gratuity or other benefits are due to him from his employer on termination of his services and the amount of such gratuity and the nature and extent of such benefits, where such workman has been employed in any industry employing less than fifteen workmen on any date during the period of twelve months preceding the termination of the services of the workman who makes the application or in respect of whom the application is made to the tribunal; (c) the question whether the forfeiture of a gratuity in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1983 has been correctly made in terms of that Act, (d) such other matters relating to the terms of employment, or the conditions of labour, of a workman as may be prescribed. Page 9 of 13 Although the respondent has failed to specifically aver under what provision of the said section he is complaining to the Labour Tribunal, it is clear that if at all, it should be in terms of section 31B (1) (a) as the complaint does not relate to a question about the payment of gratuity, terms of employment or conditions of labour. Since the appellant has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the application before the Labour Tribunal and a determination has been made overruling it, where the learned Judge of the High Court has also considered it in his judgment, I find it relevant to consider whether there was any justification in the said preliminary objection raised and the order pronounced in that regard, before proceeding with other facts of the matter. There cannot be any doubt that the respondent had retired from the appellant company after reaching the mandatory age of retirement upon reaching the age of 60 years on 15-10-2010. Although the respondent has claimed that he was not informed of his imminent retirement and he had a legitimate expectation of being re-employed beyond the age of 60 years, the letter marked R-06, which was a letter written on 03-08-2010 by the respondent to the Chairman of Finlays Tea Estates Lanka Pvt Ltd, and the reply he got in that regard on 04-08-2010 (the document marked R-07) suggest otherwise. From the reply letter, he has been informed that only the employees who are necessary to be retained beyond 60 years of age in view of the positions they occupy would be retained. He has been informed that upon his retirement, the company will not maintain a position of the General Manager (Administration), and therefore, his services will not be necessary and that he would not be retained. He has also been informed of him being given two extensions beyond 58 years of age previously. Accordingly, the respondent has retired on the due date, and after his retirement, he has obtained his gratuity and other entitled payments (the documents marked R-08 and R-09). Page 10 of 13 I find that it was more than 4 months thereafter that the respondent had initiated the Labour Tribunal proceedings. This goes on to show that there was no basis for the respondent to claim that he had a legitimate expectation of his services being extended beyond his mandatory retirement age. It is clear that he knew very well that he would have to retire after reaching the age of retirement. The judgment pronounced on 07-09-2007 in SC Appeal No. 97/2006 was a judgment based on exactly the same facts. The applicant in that case went before the Labour Tribunal on the same basis and the Labour Tribunal held that his services were unjustly terminated and thereby ordered compensation. After having considered the relevant facts and the law, Andrew Somawansa, J. stated; “The evidence led at the inquiry as well as the subsequent conduct of the respondent clearly demonstrates that the respondent was retired from his service. Thus, he ceased to be an employee of the petitioner by virtue of his retirement and not because of termination of service by his employer the petitioner. In the circumstances, the respondent had no legal right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal as he had failed to satisfy the requirements as set out in section 31B (1) (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act and also in terms of the said section the Labour Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the respondent’s application. Thus, it appears that the learned President of the Labour Tribunal had erred in coming to a conclusion that there was termination when in fact the evidence conclusively shows that it was retirement and not termination. The learned High Court Judge also affirmed the order of the Labour Tribunal without considering this aspect of the matter. As such the order of the learned President of the Labour Tribunal as well as the judgment of the learned High Court Judge are perverse and cannot be permitted to stand.” It is therefore manifestly clear that from the very outset of this action, the respondent has had no basis to maintain the application before the Labour Page 11 of 13 Tribunal although the learned President of the Labour Tribunal held otherwise, and the learned Judge of the High Court exercising his appellate jurisdiction also justified the order in dismissing the appeal. It is settled law that an appellate Court will not interfere with a decision of a Labour Tribunal unless the said determination is perverse. This aspect was well considered in the case of Jayasuriya Vs. State Plantations Corporations (1995) 2 SLR 379, which reads as follows. (2) “In the context of the principle that the Court of Appeal will not interfere with a decision of a Labour Tribunal unless it is \"perverse\" it means no more that the Court may intervene if it is of the view that, having regard to the weight of evidence in relation to the matters in issue, the Tribunal has turned away arbitrarily or capriciously from what is true and right and fair in dealing even-handedly with the rights and interests of the workman, employer and, in certain circumstances, the public. The Tribunal must make an order in equity and good conscience, acting judicially, based on legal evidence rather than on beliefs that are fanciful or irrationally imagined notions or whims. Due account must be taken of the evidence in relation to the issues in the matter before the Tribunal. Otherwise, the order of the Tribunal must be set aside as being perverse. (3) The Industrial Disputes Act No. 43 of 1950 S. 31D states that the order of a Labour Tribunal shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court except on a question of law. While appellate Courts will not intervene with pure findings of fact, they will review the findings treating them as a question of law: if it appears that the Tribunal has made a finding wholly unsupported by evidence, or which is inconsistent with the evidence and contradictory of it; or where the Tribunal has failed to consider material and relevant evidence; or where it has failed to decide a material question or misconstrued the question at issue and had directed its attention to the wrong matters; or where there was an erroneous misconception amounting to a misdirection; or where it failed to consider material documents or misconstrued them or where the Page 12 of 13 Tribunal has failed to consider the version of one party or his evidence; or erroneously supposed there was no evidence. ” It is clear to me that this was a matter where the learned President of the Labour Tribunal could have determined it based on the said preliminary objection alone. It is my considered view that the learned President of the Labour Tribunal was fundamentally flawed in his determination as to the said objection and the learned Judge of the High Court was also wrong in justifying the order of the Labour Tribunal. Be that as it may, the evidence placed before the Labour Tribunal clearly establishes the fact that there could have been no legitimate expectation by the respondent as for him being re-employed after the retirement. The evidence clearly establishes that the appellant has retained the services of employees whose services are essential to be retained beyond the retirement age. However, it has been only done after the retirement of such employees by re-employing them on contract basis and not otherwise. Since it has been clearly informed to the respondent that his substantive position of General Manager (Administration) would not be retained after his retirement, there was no necessity for the appellant to keep him in service. The documents that have been submitted to the Labour Tribunal also show that the respondent had been preparing for his impending retirement knowing very well that he would be retired on the due date. The letter marked R-16 shows that he has requested his employer, namely the appellant, to allow him to purchase a vehicle belonging to the company on a concessionary basis, which has been allowed by the company having considered his long-standing service to the company and the industry. He has been allowed to purchase the vehicle below the price submitted by other prospective buyers when the said vehicle was offered for sale. I am of the view that there was no basis whatsoever before the Labour Tribunal for the learned President of the Labour Tribunal to come to a finding that the services of the petitioner have been constructively terminated by the appellant. Page 13 of 13 For the reasons as considered above, I answer the questions of law No. 1 to 6 in the affirmative. The question of law No. 7 is also answered in the affirmative. Answering the question of law No. 8 would not arise in view of the answers to the above questions of law. In answering the question of law No. 9, I hold that the respondent had no right to justifiably expect that his employment should be continued beyond the retirement age of 60 years. Accordingly, I allow the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 01-10-2015 pronounced by the learned Judge of the Provincial High Court of the Western Province Holden in Colombo while exercising its appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, I set aside the order dated 30-04-2014 pronounced by the learned President of the Labour Tribunal of Colombo as both the said appellate judgment and the order cannot be allowed to stand. There will be no costs of the appeal.		Download
2025-10-15	SC/APPEAL/74/2025	Siriwardhana Kasee Brahmana Ralalage Lalitha Kumari, Kumbukulawa, Polpithigama. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT–PETITIONER- APPELLANT vs Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Sunil Rathnayake Kumbukulawa, Polpithigama. PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT – RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT View More	Hon. M. Sampath K.B. Wijeratne J			Download
2025-10-14	SC/APPEAL/43/2020	Puvaneswari widow of Pasupathi, Yuvasakthi Lane, Sudumalai South, Manipay. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. Sinnathamby Thangarasa, Yuvasakthi Lane, Sudumalai South, Manipay. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Janak De Silva J			Download
2025-10-13	SC/FR/169/2024	S. Malavipathirana No.37A, Rupasiri Mawatha, Mirihana, Nugegoda. Petitioner Vs. 1. Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka, PO Box 02, Belihul Oya. And 27 Others Respondents View More	Hon. Menaka Wijesundera J			Download
2025-10-10	SC/APPEAL/37/2023	N.W.D.T. Nanayakkara, No. 390/2, Harischandra Mawatha, New Town, Anuradhapura. APPLICANT – APPELLANT – APPELLANT Vs. North Central Provincial Road Passenger Transport Authority, Provincial Council of the North Central Province, Secretariat Building, Anuradhapura. RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Arjuna Obeyesekere J	1) This appeal arises from a judgment delivered by the High Court of the North Central Province holden in Anuradhapura [the High Court] on 26th July 2022. While the ques􀆟ons of law have been reproduced in paragraph 17 below, the primary issue that arises for determina􀆟on in this appeal is whether the High Court erred in law when it failed to order the reinstatement in service of the Applicant – Appellant – Appellant [the Applicant] in spite of the finding of the Labour Tribunal, with which the High Court agreed, that the termina􀆟on of the services of the Applicant was unfair. Facts in brief 2) By le􀆩er dated 30th September 2004, the Respondent – Respondent – Respondent [the Respondent] had appointed the Applicant to the post of Accountant with effect from 1st October 2004 [V1]. Her services had been confirmed on 1st October 2007 by le􀆩er dated 25th September 2007 [V2]. Pursuant to approval being granted by the Department of Management Services for the cadre posi􀆟ons of the Respondent, the Applicant had been issued with a fresh le􀆩er of appointment to the same post of Accountant with effect from 1st January 2009 [V3]. 3) Pursuant to an anonymous complaint followed by the findings of a preliminary inves􀆟ga􀆟on, the Applicant had been placed on compulsory leave on 12th December 2013 with half pay. It is admi􀆩ed that the Applicant had an unblemished record of service un􀆟l then. The Applicant had been interdicted on 29th May 2014 and had been issued with a charge sheet containing the following thirteen charges: (i) Conversion of salaries of employees of the Respondent contrary to Circular Nos. 30, 30(i) and 30(ii)/2006 issued by the Department of Management Services; (ii) As a result of the said irregular conversion of salaries, a sum of Rs. 5,286,235 had been overpaid as salaries to the employees of the Respondent, thereby causing a loss to the Respondent, for which loss the Applicant is responsible; 4 (iii) As a result of ac􀆟ng contrary to the said Circulars, the Applicant had received an addi􀆟onal sum of Rs. 378,470 as salary for the period of 1st January 2007 to 30th September 2009; (iv) Drawing a sum of Rs. 54,948 as fuel allowance for which allowance the Applicant was not en􀆟tled; (v) Drawing a sum of Rs. 90,000 as transport allowance for which allowance the Applicant was not en􀆟tled; (vi) – (viii) Failure to recover a sum of Rs. 357,000 due as rental for premises given on lease; (ix) Payment of salary increments to four employees over and above what has been approved by the Board of Directors of the Respondent; (x) Failure to recover a sum of Rs. 982,962 due as rental for premises given on lease; (xi) Misappropria􀆟ng monies belonging to the Respondent; (xii) Ac􀆟ng contrary to direc􀆟ons and orders given by the Board of Directors of the Respondent; (xiii) As a result of the above, bringing the Respondent and the Public Service to disrepute. 4) The Respondent did not allege that it had lost confidence in the Applicant as a result of the above charges, but instead alleged that the Applicant had brought the Respondent and the Public Service into disrepute as a result of her alleged acts of misconduct . 5) At the disciplinary inquiry that followed her interdic􀆟on, the Applicant was found guilty of eleven of the above charges, but the Applicant was exonerated of charge Nos. (xi) and (xiii) which alleged that she had misappropriated monies belonging to 5 the Respondent, and bringing the Respondent and the Public Service to disrepute. The services of the Applicant were terminated by le􀆩er dated 24th October 2016 with effect from the date of her interdic􀆟on. She was 51 years of age at the 􀆟me her services were terminated. 6) I must perhaps men􀆟on at this stage that the finding of not guilty in respect of the aforemen􀆟oned two charges together with the absence of a charge rela􀆟ng to the Respondent having lost confidence in the Applicant are two factors that I shall consider when arriving at a decision in this ma􀆩er. Applica􀆟on to the Labour Tribunal and the appeal to the High Court 7) Aggrieved, the Applicant filed an applica􀆟on before the Labour Tribunal, Anuradhapura. The Respondent led the evidence of the Inves􀆟ga􀆟on Officer, the Inquiry Officer and two others, and the Applicant gave evidence on her behalf. 8) The finding of the Labour Tribunal that the termina􀆟on of the services of the Applicant is unfair and unjus􀆟fied has been affirmed by the High Court and is no longer in issue. However, in order to place in context my decision, I shall briefly refer to the principal accusa􀆟on against the Applicant contained in the aforemen􀆟oned first three charges, that being the failure on the part of the Applicant to act in terms of Circulars issued by the Department of Management Services in calcula􀆟ng the salaries of employees of the Respondent resul􀆟ng in the overpayment of the salaries of the said employees and thereby causing a financial loss to the Respondent. 9) It transpired in evidence that the aforesaid employees had been in the employment of the Respondent at the 􀆟me the Department of Management Services formally approved the cadre posi􀆟ons of those employees including the Applicant in 2008. The posi􀆟on taken up by the Respondent was that in accordance with the said Circulars, the employees in ques􀆟on should have been placed at the bo􀆩om step of the salary scale from the point approval was granted by the Department of Management Services. However, since these employees were already in service and had earned several salary increments, in calcula􀆟ng the salaries, it was alleged that the Applicant had taken into considera􀆟on their period of service prior to 2009, 6 which then meant that the said employees were placed at a higher salary step and payments made accordingly. 10) Thus, the crux of the first three charges alleged against the Applicant was twofold. The first was that the said employees and the Applicant herself should have been placed at the star􀆟ng point of their respec􀆟ve salary scales from 2009, effec􀆟vely ignoring the period of service of the said employees prior to the formal approval of their cadre posi􀆟ons by the Department of Management Services. The second was that as a result thereof, an overpayment had been made, causing loss to the Respondent. 11) While the Respondent did not produce before the Tribunal the relevant Circulars of the Department of Management Services that the Applicant is said to have violated, it transpired during the cross examina􀆟on of the Inves􀆟ga􀆟on Officer that the said Circulars were silent with regard to the manner in which the star􀆟ng salary must be determined in respect of employees who had been in employment prior to the formal approval of the cadre posi􀆟ons. As a result of the said failure to produce the said Circulars, the Labour Tribunal had opined that it was unable to determine if the basis of the first three charges was factually correct. 12) Be that as it may, there are two ma􀆩ers that were detrimental to the case of the Respondent. 13) The first is that the calcula􀆟on of the salaries of the above employees pursuant to the decision of the Department of Management Services had been approved by the Board of Directors of the Respondent [E50] and therefore the blame for the alleged overpayment could not have been placed on the Applicant. In other words, the basis of the principal accusa􀆟on against the Applicant was fundamentally flawed. What is regre􀆩able, and this is another ma􀆩er that I shall advert to later, is that the a􀆩en􀆟on of the Inquiry Officer was drawn to E50 at the domes􀆟c inquiry but the Inquiry Officer had brushed aside the said decision of the Respondent. Had E50 been considered by the Inquiry Officer, the par􀆟es might not be where they are today, the Applicant would have con􀆟nued in service and the Respondent may well have been spared the consequences of this judgment. 7 14) The second ma􀆩er is that having terminated the services of the Applicant for the alleged overpayment of salaries, the Respondent con􀆟nued to pay the salaries of the employees at the same levels without any adjustment, thus demonstra􀆟ng to my mind that the termina􀆟on of the services of the Applicant was actuated by malice. 15) Having carefully considered each charge, the Labour Tribunal arrived at the conclusion by its Order delivered on 15th June 2020 that the Respondent had failed to establish the charges against the Applicant and that the termina􀆟on of the services of the Applicant was unfair. The Labour Tribunal did not order reinstatement or back wages but awarded the Applicant a sum of Rs. 1,352,000 as compensa􀆟on calculated at the rate of two months salary for 13 years of service of the Applicant. It must be noted that the Applicant had only 12 years of service at the 􀆟me her services were terminated. 16) The Respondent did not file an appeal against the said Order. However, the Applicant, dissa􀆟sfied with the adequacy of the relief granted, invoked the jurisdic􀆟on of the High Court seeking reinstatement in service and/or an enhancement of the compensa􀆟on. The High Court concurred with the decision of the Labour Tribunal that the termina􀆟on of the services of the Applicant is unfair. The High Court however did not order the reinstatement of the Applicant nor did it increase the quantum of compensa􀆟on, but agreed with the decision of the Labour Tribunal with regard to the payment of compensa􀆟on in lieu of reinstatement, and the quantum of compensa􀆟on. Ques􀆟ons of law 17) This appeal arises from the said judgment of the High Court. Special leave to appeal was granted on 16th January 2023 on the following three ques􀆟ons of law: (a) Did the High Court err in law by failing to appreciate that the Labour Tribunal should have ordered reinstatement of the Applicant with back wages and other emoluments? 8 (b) Did the High Court err in law by failing to appreciate that the Labour Tribunal has failed to adduce any legally valid reason not to order reinstatement of the Applicant? (c) Did the High Court err in law by failing to appreciate that the Applicant is en􀆟tled to receive a higher amount of compensa􀆟on considering the period of service she was deprived of by the unjus􀆟fied and unlawful termina􀆟on of services and denial of reinstatement? 18) Thus, the primary issue that needs to be determined is whether the High Court erred in law when it failed to order the reinstatement in service of the Applicant in spite of the finding of the Labour Tribunal that the termina􀆟on of the services of the Applicant was unfair. The issue before us therefore is whether the Order of the Labour Tribunal is just and equitable. Provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 19) Sec􀆟on 31C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as amended [the Act] provides that, “Where an applica􀆟on under sec􀆟on 31B is made to a labour tribunal, it shall be the duty of the tribunal to make all such inquiries into that applica􀆟on and hear all such evidence as the tribunal may consider necessary, and therea􀅌er make, not later than six months from the date of such applica􀆟on, such order as may appear to the tribunal to be just and equitable.” 20) In terms of Sec􀆟on 33(1) of the Act, an order of a Labour Tribunal may contain decisions rela􀆟ng to the following: (a) Wages and all other condi􀆟ons of service; (b) Reinstatement in service; (c) The extent to which the period of absence from duty of any workman, whom the labour tribunal has decided should be reinstated, shall be taken into account or disregarded for the purposes of his rights to any pension, gratuity or re􀆟ring allowance or to any benefit under any provident scheme; 9 (d) The payment by any employer of compensa􀆟on to any workman, the amount of such compensa􀆟on or the method of compu􀆟ng such amount, and the 􀆟me within which such compensa􀆟on shall be paid; (e) The payment by any employer of gratuity or pension or bonus to any workman, the amount of such gratuity or pension or bonus and the method of compu􀆟ng such amount, and the 􀆟me within which such gratuity or pension or bonus shall be paid. 21) Thus, while Sec􀆟on 33(1) sets out in very broad terms the extensive powers of the Labour Tribunal and confers a Labour Tribunal, on the one hand, with a very wide discre􀆟on in determining the type of relief that can be afforded to an employee, Sec􀆟on 31C(1), on the other hand, circumscribes that power by requiring that the order must nonetheless be just and equitable. 22) What is just and equitable has been the subject of discussion in many judgments of this Court over the last several decades and does not need elabora􀆟on. Quite naturally, whether an order is just and equitable must be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. Thus, a Labour Tribunal must at all 􀆟mes be guided by the evidence before it and must consider both sides carefully. It is only when the Labour Tribunal does so that an order can truly be called just and equitable. 23) As pointed out by Amerasinghe, J in Jayasuriya v Sri Lanka State Planta􀆟ons Corpora􀆟on [(1995) 2 Sri LR 379; at page 392], “The Tribunal must make an order in equity and good conscience, ac􀆟ng judicially, based on legal evidence rather than on beliefs that are fanciful or irra􀆟onally imagined no􀆟ons or whims. Due account must be taken of the evidence in rela􀆟on to the issues in the ma􀆩er before the Tribunal. Otherwise, the order of the Tribunal must be set aside as being perverse.” 24) It would perhaps also be important to emphasise that a Labour Tribunal does not possess an unfe􀆩ered power and that considera􀆟ons of jus􀆟ce and equity must necessarily control and limit the powers of Labour Tribunals. H. N. G. Fernando, J. (as he then was) observed in Walker Sons & Co. Ltd. v Fry [68 NLR 73] that a Labour 10 Tribunal does not have the \"freedom of the wild ass” in determining the relief that should be granted. Reinstatement [with or without wages] or compensa􀆟on in lieu thereof? 25) With the Labour Tribunal having held that the termina􀆟on of the employment of the Applicant was unfair, the next step was for the Labour Tribunal to decide on the relief that should be granted to the Applicant. 26) That reinstatement is the first op􀆟on that must be considered once a finding is reached that the termina􀆟on of services is unfair has been clearly set out by this Court 􀆟me and again. Sharvananda, J (as he then was) in Caledonian Tea and Rubber Estates Limited v J.S. Hillman [79(1) NLR 421; at page 435], stated that: “Once it is found that a workman has been wrongfully or illegally discharged or dismissed, he is normally en􀆟tled to claim re-instatement. But this remedy is not absolute or of universal applica􀆟on. There can be cases where it might not be expedient, because of the presence of unusual features, to direct re-instatement, and a Tribunal may think the grant of compensa􀆟on instead may meet the ends of jus􀆟ce. A Tribunal may have reasons why it does not think it proper to re-instate a workman and may come to the conclusion that compensa􀆟on in lieu of reinstatement would be adequate relief. ” [emphasis added] 27) In Indrajith Rodrigo v Central Engineering Consultancy Bureau [(2009) 1 Sri LR 248; at pages 271 & 272], Marsoof, J held that: “It is a well-established principle that the primary (albeit discre􀆟onary) remedy for harsh, unjust or unreasonable termina􀆟on of employment is reinstatement to the same posi􀆟on or re-engagement to a comparable posi􀆟on held prior to the said termina􀆟on. Compensa􀆟on is a secondary cure and is only ordered where, in the discre􀆟on of the court or Tribunal Court, it is held the reinstatement or reengagement is not appropriate. Reinstatement has always been awarded at the discre􀆟on of the Labour Tribunal or Court and such discre􀆟on has to be exercised judicially taking into considera􀆟on all the circumstances of the case…. 11 In the absence of any evidence that would have any bearing in regard to the ques􀆟on of reinstatement, such as whether or not the Appellant has got himself gainfully employed elsewhere during the pendency of the appeals to the High Court and to this Court, I hold that it would be just and equitable to reinstate the Appellant in service as an Engineer (Grade III) in the Respondent Bureau with effect from 1st January 2010.” [emphasis added] 28) A similar conclusion was reached in The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd., v Jayasinghe [(1982) 2 Sri LR 595; at pages 599 & 600], where Soza, J, held as follows: “The relief of reinstatement is granted where the contract of employment has been unjus􀆟fiably breached by the employer. Back wages can then be awarded on the basis of an unbroken contract of employment. Of course the quantum of back wages and the period for which they will be awarded will depend on the circumstances of each par􀆟cular case. For instance if the employee had obtained other employment a􀅌er the date of termina􀆟on that will be a relevant circumstance.” [emphasis added] 29) Soza, J stated further that in determining the quantum of back wages that must be paid the object of the exercise or the test that must be applied is to ascertain as far as possible the money equivalent of the loss of employment from the date of unjust dismissal. 30) The above test laid down by Soza, J was amply demonstrated in the case of M.D. Gunasena & Co. Ltd v Somaratne Gamage [(2013) 1 Sri LR 143]. That was a case where the services of the employee was terminated in September 2000. By its Order delivered in 2006, the Tribunal found that the Applicant was not guilty of misconduct. The Labour Tribunal directed that the applicant be reinstated without a break in service and that he be paid compensa􀆟on amoun􀆟ng to one year’s salary. At the 􀆟me of the judgment of the High Court in 2009, it was revealed that the applicant had only one year to serve in the establishment before reaching the re􀆟ring age of 55. In view of this the High Court enhanced the compensa􀆟on ordered to be paid by the employer to four years’ salary or in the alterna􀆟ve directed that the applicant be employed by the employer for a period of four years. 12 31) On an appeal by the employer, Dep, J (as he then was) held that, “The applicant was out of employment from 2000 due to unlawful termina􀆟on of his services. If he was reinstated in 2006 as ordered by the Labour Tribunal the applicant could have served more than four years in the company before reaching the re􀆟rement age. In such circumstances one cannot state that the order of the High Court to pay four years’ salary as compensa􀆟on is not a just and equitable order.” [emphasis added; at pages 149 & 150] 32) In Jayasuriya v Sri Lanka State Planta􀆟ons Corpora􀆟on [supra; at pages 405 & 406], Amerasinghe, J referred with approval to the above statement of Sharvananda, J in Caledonian Tea and Rubber Estates Limited v J.S. Hillman, and stated that, “Although the Pe􀆟􀆟oner’s dismissal was wrongful and it may be ordered that he be reinstated, … considering the Pe􀆟􀆟oner\'s uneasy rela􀆟onship with the Trade Unions and the likelihood of industrial strife if he is reinstated cf. Ceylon Ceramics Corpora􀆟on v Weerasinghe [SC 24/76 - SC Minutes of 15th July 1978]; cf. also Ceylon Workers\' Congress v. Poonagala Group [SC 120/71 - SC Minutes of 28th November 1972] and the fact that the employer had alleged a lack of confidence in the Pe􀆟􀆟oner cf. Glaxo Allenbury\'s (Ceylon) Ltd. v. Fernando [SC 250/71 - SC Minutes of 22nd October 1974], I am of the view that compensa􀆟on, rather than reinstatement is the appropriate remedy in this case.” 33) Having considered the impact that an allega􀆟on of the loss of trust and confidence can have on the reinstatement of an employee, Kodagoda, J held as follows in Ceylon Cold Stores PLC v Inter Company Employees’ Union [SC Appeal No. 17/2012; SC minutes of 8th May 2025]: “Therefore, as per the above analysis, even though the termina􀆟on of services is unjus􀆟fied due to the failure of the Appellant company in proving the guilt of Nadarajah, since the alleged lack of confidence in Nadarajah has hampered the harmonious rela􀆟ons between the par􀆟es, reinstatement of Nadarajah in employment would not be the appropriate remedy. Furthermore, due to the lapse of 􀆟me since the termina􀆟on of employment in 2017, and considering the best interests and future employment prospects of the employee, with a view to 13 preven􀆟ng unfavorable repercussions that may emanate from the alleged loss of trust and confidence on the employee if he be reinstated, this Court is of the view that it would not be appropriate to order reinstatement of Nadarajah in service.” 34) Kodagoda, J, cited with approval the finding in Sri Lanka State Planta􀆟on Corpora􀆟on v. Lanka Podu Seva Sangamaya [(1990) 1 Sri LR 84], that, “…an order for payment of compensa􀆟on in lieu of reinstatement may be subs􀆟tuted in appeal if reinstatement has become demonstrably imprac􀆟cable due to changes in the employer\'s establishment or the closure of the business or by reason of the workmen having reached the age of re􀆟rement”, and held that, “Therefore, considering the unjus􀆟fied termina􀆟on of Nadarajah from employment and the imprac􀆟cability of reinstatement due to the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the Appellant company should pay compensa􀆟on to Nadarajah in lieu of reinstatement.” 35) If I may summarise, in deciding the relief that should be granted to the Applicant, the Labour Tribunal had two op􀆟ons available to it. The first was to order the reinstatement of the Applicant. Prior to exercising this op􀆟on, there are two ma􀆩ers that must be considered. The first is whether reinstatement is expedient or appropriate in the circumstances of the case. If the answer is in the affirma􀆟ve, the second considera􀆟on is whether the Applicant should be reinstated with back wages, and if so, whether the Applicant was en􀆟tled to back wages from the date her services were terminated un􀆟l reinstatement or for a lesser period. If the Tribunal was of the view that reinstatement was not expedient or warranted, the second op􀆟on available to it was to award compensa􀆟on as an alterna􀆟ve to reinstatement. In-built in this op􀆟on was to decide on the applicable criteria in determining the quantum of compensa􀆟on. Whether it be back wages or compensa􀆟on, the prime considera􀆟on is to redress the Applicant for the financial loss caused as a result of the unfair dismissal. 36) The decision whether the reinstatement of an employee is expedient or appropriate would depend on the facts and circumstances peculiar to that case and may include the following: (i) The nature of the services performed by the employee; 14 (ii) The nature of the charges levelled against the employee; (iii) Whether any of the charges established at the domes􀆟c inquiry include misappropria􀆟on of funds by the employee or fraud on the part of the employee; (iv) Whether the acts of misconduct alleged involve moral turpitude and/or gross mismanagement? (v) Whether the employer has alleged that it has lost confidence in the employee; (vi) The extent to which the employees ac􀆟ons were blameworthy; (vii) The circumstances and the manner of dismissal; (viii) Whether the past conduct of the employee warrant reinstatement; (ix) Whether the employee had an unblemished record of service; (x) Whether the con􀆟nuance in service of the employee is not in the best interest of industrial peace at the workplace or not in the interest of the employee himself? (xi) Whether the employee had an uneasy rela􀆟onship with trade unions; (xii) The rela􀆟onship between the employee and the rest of the staff and whether there was any animosity between the employee and the employer including its other staff members; (xiii) Whether the employee was gainfully employed during the period he or she was under dismissal; (xiv) Whether there existed opportuni􀆟es for obtaining similar alterna􀆟ve employment; (xv) Whether reinstatement is imprac􀆟cable due to change in the employer’s establishment or due to closure of business etc.,; (xvi) Whether the employee has reached the age of re􀆟rement. 15 37) While the discre􀆟on in deciding which relief to grant is with the Labour Tribunal, in exercising its discre􀆟on and arriving at a just and equitable order, the Labour Tribunal must not only act reasonably but it must give reasons which must be ra􀆟onal and supported by the evidence that was available to the Tribunal. As pointed out by Amerasinghe, J in Jayasuriya v Sri Lanka State Planta􀆟ons Corpora􀆟on [supra; at page 407 & 408]: “There must eventually be an even balance, of which the scales of jus􀆟ce are meant to remind us. The Tribunal must endeavour to give each man that which is his right: “Sum clique tribuere\", as the Roman Law, to which our legal systems owe so much, felicitously phrased that concept.” “It is not sa􀆟sfactory in my view to simply say that a certain amount is just and equitable. There ought, I think, to be a stated basis for the computa􀆟on, taking the award beyond the realm of mere assurance of fairness.” 38) That being the posi􀆟on, I shall now proceed to consider the Order of the Labour Tribunal, bearing in mind the submission of the learned Counsel for the Applicant that this was a case where the employee ought to have been reinstated since the grounds that would normally prevent reinstatement including the grounds set out above did not exist in this case. Order of the Labour Tribunal 39) Having determined that the termina􀆟on of the services of the Applicant is unfair, the Labour Tribunal stated as follows: “ta wkqj widOdrK fiajd iudma;sh fjkqfjka b,a,qusldrsh fj; iyk ,nd .ekSug ysuslula we;s njg ;srKh lrus\' ta wkqj fuu b,a,qusldrsh ysusjsh hq;= iyk ljfra oehs ;SrKh lsrSfus oS j.W;a;rldr mdraYjh jsiska b,a,qusldrsh fj; widOdrK fpdaokd bosrsm;a lruska ls%hd l, wdldrh iy fus jk jsg b,a,qusldrshf.a jhi hk lreKq flfrys wjOdrKh fhduq lruska iy tfuka j.W;a;rldr wdh;kfha jsY%du .ekajsfus jhia iSudj iusnkaOj ksYaps; idlaIs fomdraYjh ;=<skau bosrsm;a lr fkdue;s nejska fuu kvqfjs idlaIs ,nd fok wjia:dj jk jsg fuu b,a,qusldrsh jhi wjqreoq 54 la njg m%ldY lr we;s nejska b,a,qusldrsh kej; fiajfha msysgqjsu fhda.H fkdjk njg ;SrKh lrus\' 16 ta wkqj widOdrK fiajd iudma;sh fjkqfjka fuu b,a,qusldrsh yg jkaos uqo,la ,nd oSu idOdrK iy hqla;siy.; njg uu ;SrKh lrus\'” 40) It is clear from the above that the Tribunal was of the view that the Applicant was en􀆟tled to be reinstated, but decided against it solely on the basis that no evidence had been placed by either party with regard to the age of re􀆟rement. It is correct that evidence with regard to the age of re􀆟rement of employees of the Respondent had not been led before the Tribunal. While this is a lapse on the part of the Applicant for which she must take responsibility, this was an extremely flimsy ground to refuse reinstatement, especially when one considers that the Applicant was 54 years of age at the 􀆟me she gave evidence a mere nine months prior to the Order. In any event, this was a ma􀆩er on which the Labour Tribunal could have sought a clarifica􀆟on from the par􀆟es as clearly mandated by Sec􀆟on 31C(1) of the Act. 41) Thus, I am of the view that the age of re􀆟rement of the Respondent was not a factor that was relevant to the issue of reinstatement since the Applicant was yet to reach the age of 55 at the 􀆟me the order was delivered. Thus, the Labour Tribunal acted irra􀆟onally and clearly erred when it took into considera􀆟on an irrelevant fact. 42) The next ques􀆟on is, if not for the above error, did the facts of this case warrant an order for reinstatement. The answer to this ques􀆟on is twofold. The first is, present before the Tribunal was an employee who had ten years of unblemished service, but who stood unfairly accused of misinterpre􀆟ng circulars and paying employees a salary over and above their en􀆟tlement whereas the payment thereof had been authorised by the Board of Directors of the Respondent and the Applicant had no role to play in that decision. This was aggravated by the fact that the Inquiry Officer chose to ignore the said approval evidenced by the document E50 even though his a􀆩en􀆟on was drawn to it. The second factor is that the Respondent did not lead any evidence to establish that the reinstatement of the Applicant would not be expedient or appropriate in the circumstances of this case. 43) With the age of the Applicant not being a bar to the Applicant being reinstated, and with the Labour Tribunal not being concerned with any other ground that would make reinstatement inexpedient, there was no impediment to an order being made for the reinstatement of the Applicant. Thus, in my view, the Labour Tribunal erred 17 when it refused to order the reinstatement of the Applicant on the basis of the age of re􀆟rement of the Applicant. Judgment of the High Court 44) It is in the above background that I shall now consider the judgment of the High Court. 45) Having reiterated the facts and agreeing with the conclusion of the Labour Tribunal that the termina􀆟on of the services of the Applicant was unfair, the High Court held as follows: “fuu kvqfjs b,a,qusldrsh ;u b,a,qusm;%h u.ska m%Odk f,iu b,a,d we;af;a ysÛ jegqma iu. kej; fiajh ,nd fok f,ig h\' jsfYaIfhkau widOdrK iy whqla;s iy.; f,i fiajh wjika lsrSula lr ;snSfus ldrKdfjs oS kej; fiajhg msysgqjSu m%fhda.sl ;;a;ajhla u;= fkdlrhs\' Bg fya;=j wehg fpdaokd m;%hla oS jskh mrslaIKhla mjd isoq lr lghq;= lr ;sfnk ksidh\' fiajh wjika lsrsu whqla;s iy.; njg luslre jsksYaph iNdj ;SrKh flreKd jqj;a fiajlhd iy fiajd fhdPlhd w;r fydo ys; m􀂵oq jq miqnsul kej; b,a,qusldrshj fiajfha msysgq jSu iqoqiq fkdjk njg ms<s.; hq;= fjs\' jsY%du .ekajSfus jhia isudj iusnkaOfhka fomdraYjhu ksYaps; idlaIs bosrsm;a lr fkdue;s njg W.;a jsksiqre;=ush i\|ykla lr we;\' b,a,qusldr wNshdpl ;u wNshdpkd fm;aifus 06 jk fPaofha j.W;a;rldr wdh;kfha wjqreoq 55 ka fiajlhska jsY%du .ekajSfus wdh;khla fkdjk njg yd wNshdpkd fm;aiu f.dKq lrk ld< jljdkqj wkqj rdPH ixia:d\" ish,q rdPH wdh;k\" wraO rdPH wdh;k jsiska wjqreoq 60 olajd fiajh lsrSfus whs;sjdislus mej;Su ;snshoS wjqreoq 54 jk b,a,qusldrshg jhi wjqreoq 60 olajd fiajh lsrsug bvlvla ie<fik wdldrhg ;SrKhla ,nd osh hq;=j ;snshoS tfia lr fkdue;s njg ;ralhla bosrsm;a jqj;a idlaIs fok jsg weh jhi 54 la njg jS we;s moku ie<ls,a,g f.k b,a,qusldrshj kej; fiajfha msysgqjSu iqoqiq ke;ehs luslre jsksYaph iyd iNdm;s;=ush ;SrKh lsrsfuys fodaIhla ke;\' fuu kvqfjs jeo.;a lreK jkafka tfia ys. jegqma iu. kej; relshdj ,nd fok f,ig ;SrKhla fkdfokafka kus mqraK jkaoshla ,nd oSug mshjr .kakd f,iska b,a,sula lr ;snsuh\' th b;d meyeos<s jkafka ^w& iykh fkd,efns kus ^wd& iykh ;=,ska ;Dma;su;a jsug o b,a,qusldrsh leue;a; olajuska b,a,qus m;%h bosrsm;a lr ;snSuhs\' th §fkdtfia kus¶ hk fhoqu ;=<ska meye<sfjs\' ta wkqj ys. jegqma iys; kej; fiajh ,nd osug W.;a jsksiqre ;=ush ksfhda. fkdlsrsu fodaI iys; njg lSj;a th fodaI iy.; fkdfjs\' ta wkqj W.;a jsksiqre;=ush jkaos uqo,la ,ndosug t;=ushf.a ksfhda.fha 21 jk msgqfjs ;SrKh lr we;\' b,a,qusldrsh ;u b,a,qusm;%h 18 u.ska mqraK jkaoshla f,i b,a,d ;sfnkjd usil th ixLHd;aulj .Kkh lsrSug ,la fldg b,a,Sula fldg ke;\'” 46) In my view, the High Court erred on three grounds when it failed to hold that the decision of the Labour Tribunal not to reinstate the Applicant was wrong. 47) The first was when it held that the rela􀆟onship between the par􀆟es was not conducive to the reinstatement of the Applicant. This was not a ma􀆩er that had been adverted to by the Labour Tribunal for the simple reason that there was no evidence placed before the Tribunal in that regard. 48) The second ground on which the High Court erred is when it stated that since the Applicant is 54 years of age, there is nothing wrong in the Labour Tribunal not ordering reinstatement. Thus, the High Court failed to appreciate that (a) as long as the Applicant was within the age of re􀆟rement at the 􀆟me of the Order, there was no legal impediment to the reinstatement of the Applicant, and (b) such remedy was the most just and equitable order that the Labour Tribunal could have made in the circumstances of this case. 49) The third ground is when it stated that the Applicant had sought compensa􀆟on in lieu of reinstatement, thus demonstra􀆟ng that she is content with an order for compensa􀆟on as opposed to reinstatement. The High Court failed to appreciate that the said relief had been prayed for in the alterna􀆟ve, and that it is the responsibility of the Labour Tribunal to make a just and equitable order having considered the evidence. The en􀆟tlement of the Applicant for back wages 50) Having concluded that the Labour Tribunal and the High Court erred when it failed to reinstate the Applicant, the next ques􀆟on that needs to be decided is whether the Applicant is en􀆟tled to the payment of back wages, and if so, the quantum of back wages. In ideal circumstances, this is a ma􀆩er that must be decided by the Labour Tribunal and the course of ac􀆟on available to me is to remit this ma􀆩er to the Labour Tribunal for a decision in that regard. 19 51) However, taking into considera􀆟on that (a) the Applicant was interdicted in 2014, (b) her services were terminated in 2016, (c) the Applicant has been without any form of remunera􀆟on for 11 ½ years, (d) the Applicant has reached the age of 60, and (e) the 􀆟me that it would take for the Labour Tribunal to make an appropriate order and the possible appeals that may arise from such an order, I am of the view that referring this ma􀆩er to the Labour Tribunal would not only cause further expenses to both par􀆟es but would also not be in the interests of jus􀆟ce. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the issue rela􀆟ng to back wages must be decided by this Court. 52) I have already stated that the test in determining the quantum of back wages is to ascertain the actual financial loss caused by the unfair dismissal, which is the same considera􀆟on that would apply in calcula􀆟ng compensa􀆟on in lieu of reinstatement. 53) In Jayasuriya v Sri Lanka State Planta􀆟ons Corpora􀆟on [supra], it was held that: “With regard to financial loss, there is, first, the loss of earnings from the date of dismissal to the determina􀆟on of the ma􀆩er before the Court, that is, the date of the Order of the Tribunal, or, if there is an appeal, to the date of the final determina􀆟on of the appellate court. The phrase “loss of earnings\" for this purpose would be the dismissed employee’s pay (net of tax), allowances, bonuses, the value of the use of a car for private purposes, the value of a residence and domes􀆟c servants and all other perquisites and benefits having a monetary value to which he was en􀆟tled. The burden is on the employee to adduce sufficient evidence to enable the Tribunal to decide the loss he had incurred.” [page 410] “Once the incurred, i.e., the ascertainable past losses have been computed, a Tribunal should deduct any wages or benefits paid by the employer a􀅌er termina􀆟on, as well as remunera􀆟on from fresh employment. If the employee had obtained equally beneficial or financially be􀆩er alterna􀆟ve employment, he should receive no compensa􀆟on at all, for he suffers no loss. The principle is this: He is en􀆟tled to indemnity and not profit.” [emphasis added; page 411] “A dismissed employee must mi􀆟gate his loss by taking any offer of employment that is reasonably offered to him, ac􀆟ng ,as if he had no hope of seeking 20 compensa􀆟on from his previous employer. I hold that the failure to mi􀆟gate the loss was not due to the Pe􀆟􀆟oner’s fault. It is a fact recognized by this Court that persons like the Pe􀆟􀆟oner, who are engaged in the business of running planta􀆟ons, find it difficult to obtain alterna􀆟ve employment.” [pages 411-412] “I am of the view that the manner of dismissal in this case, blackened the Pe􀆟􀆟oner\'s name in the planta􀆟on sector and rendered him unfit for immediate re-employment and that the loss caused by unemployment is en􀆟rely a􀆩ributable to the Respondent.” [page 412] 54) An employer who terminates the services of an employee without reason cannot be allowed to get away on the payment of a frac􀆟on of the salary that it would have paid such employee if not for the unfair dismissal. The Applicant in this case was an Accountant. It is common ground that an Accountant must be of the highest integrity and any allega􀆟on of wrongdoing would affect the future employability of such person. It was the posi􀆟on of the Applicant that she could not find alterna􀆟ve employment a􀅌er her services were terminated. The evidence of the Applicant that she was unable to find employment and that she remained unemployed since interdic􀆟on has not been challenged by the Respondent. 55) Thus, present before the Labour Tribunal was an Accountant of a Provincial authority who had been unfairly accused of causing financial loss to such authority, and who as a result of not being able to secure alterna􀆟ve employment had been without a salary or any other form of remunera􀆟on since her interdic􀆟on on 29th May 2014. She was 54 years of age at the 􀆟me she gave evidence in November 2019 and as we have now been informed, was two months short of her 55th birthday at the 􀆟me the Labour Tribunal delivered its Order. 56) There are two other factors that are important to my mind in determining the quantum of back wages. The first is the fact that the payment of salaries at a higher salary step had been approved by the Board of Directors. Thus, to point the finger at the Applicant was wrong and malicious. The second is that the document E50 was brought to the a􀆩en􀆟on of the Inquiry Officer but he chose to ignore it. As I have 21 already stated, had it been considered, none of the par􀆟es would be where they are today. 57) Taking into considera􀆟on all these factors, I am of the view that the Applicant was en􀆟tled to be reinstated from the date her services were terminated [i.e. 29th May 2014, that being the date of interdic􀆟on] with back wages from that date un􀆟l she reached the age of 55 years [24th August 2020]. The Applicant shall also be en􀆟tled to the contribu􀆟ons that the Respondent was required to make under the Employees Provident Fund Act and the Employees Trust Fund Act, as well as to any other super annua􀆟on en􀆟tlements including gratuity for that period. 58) I have limited the period of back wages to the date that the Applicant reached the age of 55 years since at its best, that was the evidence that was available to the Labour Tribunal with regard to the age of re􀆟rement. However, having taken into considera􀆟on the submission of both learned Counsel that the re􀆟rement age of the Respondent is 60 years, I of the view that the Applicant shall be en􀆟tled to the payment of compensa􀆟on of one years’ salary calculated at the same rate as the back wages payable to the Applicant for loss of future employment opportuni􀆟es. I have limited the compensa􀆟on to one year since there is no assurance that the Applicant would have con􀆟nued in employment with the Respondent un􀆟l she reached the age of sixty. Conclusion 59) In the above circumstances, I am of the view that the High Court erred when it failed to order the reinstatement in service of the Applicant in spite of it agreeing with the Labour Tribunal that the termina􀆟on of the services of the Applicant was unfair. I would therefore answer the first and second ques􀆟ons of law in the affirma􀆟ve. The need to answer the third ques􀆟on of law therefore does not arise. 60) I accordingly set aside that part of (a) the Order of the Labour Tribunal that held that reinstatement cannot be ordered, and the payment of compensa􀆟on calculated at the rate of two months’ salary for 13 years, and (b) the judgment of the High Court affirming the above Order of the Labour Tribunal, and subs􀆟tute it with the following: 22 (a) The Applicant is en􀆟tled to be reinstated in service with back wages from 29th May 2014. However, since she has now reached the age of re􀆟rement, the ques􀆟on of actual reinstatement in service does not arise. (b) The Applicant shall be en􀆟tled to the payment of half months’ salary from the date that she was sent on compulsory leave un􀆟l her interdic􀆟on from service. (c) The Applicant shall be en􀆟tled to the payment of the full monthly salary from the date of interdic􀆟on un􀆟l 24th August 2020. (d) The monthly salary shall include the basic salary, the allowances that the Applicant was en􀆟tled to and the contribu􀆟ons that the Respondent was required to make under the Employees Provident Fund Act and the Employees Trust Fund Act. Details of the basic salary and allowances payable to the Applicant have been set out in Annexure ‘B’ annexed to the wri􀆩en submissions of the Respondent filed on 14th August 2025. (e) For the avoidance of doubt, while the monthly salary shall not be less than Rs. 52,344 per month, in calcula􀆟ng the basic salary, the Applicant shall not be en􀆟tled to any salary increments as salary increments must be earned on performance and sa􀆟sfactory service. (f) The Applicant shall be en􀆟tled to the payment of gratuity for the period of her service from 1st October 2004 to 24th August 2020, provided gratuity is payable to employees of the Respondent, on the salary payable to her for the month of August 2020. (g) The Applicant shall be en􀆟tled to the payment of compensa􀆟on of one years’ salary, calculated in accordance with sub paragraphs (d) and (e) above, on the salary payable to the Applicant for the month of August 2020. (h) The Respondent shall deduct from the above amounts the compensa􀆟on that it may have paid the Applicant pursuant to the Order of the Labour Tribunal, and any sums outstanding on loans that the Applicant may have taken. 23 61) Subject to the above varia􀆟on in paragraph 60 above, the Order of the Labour Tribunal and the judgment of the High Court are affirmed. The Applicant shall be en􀆟tled to a sum of Rs. Ten Thousand as nominal costs.		Download
2025-10-10	SC/RULE/12/2023	Major W. W. M. L. S. Palipana, No. 36, Nuwarathanna Road, Wathegama. Complainant Vs. Wasantha Wijewardane, Attorney-at-Law, No. 03, Colombo Street, Kandy. Respondent View More	Hon. A.L. Shiran Gooneratne J	1. This matter arises pursuant to a letter dated 09/01/2008 addressed to the Honourable Chief Justice by Major W. W. M. L. S. Palipana (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant), requesting an inquiry into the conduct of Mr. Wasantha Wijewardane, Attorney-at-Law (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent), in relation to a professional retainer. 2. The Complainant, by letter dated 27/02/2008, along with his Affidavit and other documents, alleged that the Respondent was retained to take necessary legal steps to implement the decisions of the Supreme Court dated 01/03/2006 and 15/02/2007 in SC (FR) 68/2006. An advance payment of Rs. 50,000 was made on 09/11/2007, being half of the agreed fee of Rs. 100,000. However, due to repeated inaction and evasive conduct by the Respondent, the Complainant on 05/12/2007, requested the Respondent that the matter need not be pursued further and sought the return of his documents and fees. 3. Following further correspondence and a meeting in mid-December 2007, the Complainant was handed a draft Petition which he deemed untimely and ineffective. He subsequently returned the draft and reiterated his request for a refund via letter dated 20/12/2007. The Respondent failed to respond or refund the fees, prompting the Complainant to allege professional misconduct and unjust enrichment. 4. In pursuance of the said complaint, and in accordance with the Journal Entry dated 05/03/2008, this Court directed that observations be called from the Respondent. The Respondent, by observations tendered on or about 30/05/2008, admitted having been retained by the Complainant and acknowledged the receipt of professional fees. However, the Respondent sought to justify his conduct by reference to the proposed legal strategy, certain fee adjustments, and the alleged involvement of Mr. Chula Bandara, Attorney-at-Law. Page 3 of 10 5. The Respondent expressly denied the existence of any professional arrangement with Mr. Bandara and further asserted that the draft petition prepared by him was legally viable, notwithstanding the Complainant’s dissatisfaction or concerns expressed thereon. 6. The matter was thereafter referred to Disciplinary Committee No. 5 of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, in terms of the Journal Entry dated 08/07/2008. Pursuant thereto, by letter dated 26/08/2008, the Registrar requested the said Committee to conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 43(1) of the Judicature Act, and to submit its proceedings together with a report to this Court within a period of three months. 7. At the said inquiry, the Respondent initially conceded to refund the monies received from the Complainant; however, the actual payment was unduly delayed. Owing to repeated absence and postponements on the part of the Respondent, the refund was ultimately affected only in July, 2009. Notwithstanding such payment, the matter concerning the three case files, which remained unreturned by the Respondent, continued unresolved. 8. Upon conclusion of its proceedings, the Disciplinary Committee, by recommendation dated 01/02/2014, submitted its findings to the Honourable Chief Justice to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against the Respondent. The Disciplinary Committee concluded that the Respondent has “not performed his professional obligations towards his client in a diligent manner and has been negligent in misplacing his client’s documents handed over to him which has resulted in grave inconvenience, prejudice and loss to the Complainant in not being able to obtain the redress that he was seeking to obtain before a court of law.” 9. Careful consideration of the material placed by the Complainant, the Respondent, and the Disciplinary Committee, disclosed that the Respondent’s conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable, and wholly Page 4 of 10 unbecoming of an Attorney-at-Law. The Respondent’s actions amounted to deceit, malpractice, crime or offence, and conducted himself in a manner unworthy of an Attorney-at-Law. He conducted himself in a manner which is inexcusable and such as to be regarded as deplorable by his fellows in the profession, and which would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable of Attorneys-at-Law of good repute and competence. Therefore, the Honourable Chief Justice was of the view that proceedings be instituted against the Respondent in terms of Section 42(2) of the Judicature Act No. 2 of 1978, read with Part VII of the Supreme Court Rules of 1978 made under Article 136 of the Constitution. 10. Thereupon, as directed by the Honourable Chief Justice, a Rule was caused to be drafted by the Honourable Attorney General. The said Rule disclosed, inter alia, that the Respondent had conducted himself negligently and without due diligence, thereby acting in breach of Rules 10, 15, 16, 18, 18(a), 60, and 61 of the Supreme Court (Conduct and Etiquette for Attorneys-at-Law) Rules of 1988, promulgated under Article 136 of the Constitution. 11. Accordingly, in the matter of a Rule in terms of Section 42(2) of the Judicature Act No. 2 of 1978 instituted against the Respondent, this Court, having taken cognizance of the procedural and the factual circumstances surrounding the conduct of the Respondent, proceeds to make the following observations. 12. Section 42(2) of the Judicature Act reads thus; 42. (2) Every person admitted and enrolled as an attorney-at-law who shall be guilty of any deceit, malpractice, crime or offence may be suspended from practice or removed from office by any three Judges of the Supreme Court sitting together. Page 5 of 10 13. Rule 79(1) and 79(2) of the Supreme Court Rules states thus; 79. (1) Where the Supreme Court decides that proceedings for the suspension or removal of an Attorney-at-Law should be taken, the Court shall issue a Rule containing the charge or charges against the said Attorney-at-Law and call upon him to show cause, within a period of three weeks or such further time as the Court may deem fit, why he should not be suspended or removed from office. (2) Such Rule shall be served personally on the Attorney-at-Law concerned, and in the event personal service cannot be effected, the Court may direct substituted service as it may deem fit. 14. Section 42(3) of the Judicature Act similarly provides that prior to any suspension or removal of an Attorney-at-Law, a notice containing a copy of the charge or charges against him, and calling upon him to show cause within a reasonable time shall be personally served on him, and where such service cannot be affected, the Supreme Court shall order substituted service. 15. Rule 80(1) provides as follows; 80. (1) If, on the day appointed for showing cause, the respondent does not appear or appears and states that he has no cause to show, the Supreme Court shall make such order in the Rule as it thinks fit. 16. On the direction of this Court, Notices were issued through the Fiscal of the District Court of Kandy at three given addresses of the Respondent, as reflected in the Journal Entry dated 22/05/2024; a. No. 33/4, Riverdale Road, Aniwatta, Kandy. b. No. 03, Colombo Street, Kandy. c. No. 44/13/C, Dammadassi Mawatha, Kandy. Page 6 of 10 17. It is evident from the Fiscal Report dated 07/06/2024 that the Notices were duly served on the Respondent at No. 44/13/C, Dammadassi Mawatha, Kandy, as reported to this Court. Despite the personal service of the Rule, the Respondent has continued to remain absent and unrepresented, and has failed to show cause against the charges. In the circumstances, this Court deems fit to proceed with this matter and make an appropriate determination. 18. The evidence adduced against the Respondent, as contained in the documents of record, the findings of the Disciplinary Committee, and the affidavit filed by the Complainant in these proceedings, remains uncontroverted. 19. This Court further observes that the Respondent had previously been suspended from practice for a period of seven years in proceedings instituted under SC/Rule/08/2014, decided on 25/09/2020, which arose from matters of similar misconduct. In that instance, the Respondent was found to be in breach of Rules 10, 15, 16, 60, 61, and 62 of the Supreme Court (Conduct and Etiquette for Attorneys-at-Law) Rules of 1988. 20. The Supreme Court (Conduct and Etiquette for Attorneys-at-Law) Rules of 1988 serve not as mere guidelines but as binding ethical obligations. Rules 10, 15, 16, 18, and 18(a) impose a duty of care, competence, and fidelity to clients, while Rules 60 and 61 enshrine the moral compass by which the profession must be guided. A breach of these Rules, particularly where it involves deceit, malpractice, or a failure to uphold fiduciary duties, strikes at the very heart of public confidence in the fair and proper dispensation of justice. 21. The Respondent’s conduct, as established by the findings of the Disciplinary Committee and the affidavit evidence of the Complainant, demonstrates negligence and dishonour wholly incompatible with the Page 7 of 10 dignity and responsibilities of the legal profession. This recurrence of misconduct discloses a continuing pattern of professional delinquency, underscoring the Respondent’s inability or unwillingness to conform to the standards expected of an Attorney-at-Law. Such conduct cannot be condoned or overlooked. 22. This Court is compelled to reaffirm that the practice of law is not a privilege to be exploited for personal gain, but a solemn calling which demands accountability, transparency, and ethical fortitude. Where an Attorney-at-Law fails to adhere to these standards, disciplinary sanction is not only justified but essential to preserve the integrity of the profession and to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. 23. It is imperative to note that, pursuant to Section 40 of the Judicature Act No. 2 of 1978, this Court admits and enrols as Attorneys-at-Law only those persons who are of impeccable character and who possess demonstrable competence in legal knowledge and professional aptitude. Upon enrolment, such Attorneys-at-Law are vested with the statutory authority to advise and represent clients, and to appear, plead, and act before any Court or other legally constituted forum entrusted with the administration of justice. 24. Accordingly, members of the public are entitled to entertain the reasonable expectation that Attorneys-at-Law whom they retain will discharge their professional duties with integrity, diligence, and fidelity. It can never be within the contemplation of such clients that their legal representatives would engage in conduct amounting to deception, breach of trust, or any act undermining the confidence reposed in them. 25. In terms of Section 42 of the Judicature Act, this Court is vested with the solemn responsibility of upholding and enforcing the professional standards attendant to the legal profession. In determining the Page 8 of 10 appropriate course of action in matters of this nature, the Court is duty-bound to consider the legitimate interests and expectations of the public, the imperative of preserving the integrity and efficacy of the administration of justice, and the necessity of maintaining the ethical and professional standards incumbent upon members of the legal fraternity. 26. The legal profession is not merely a vocation; it is a solemn public trust. As Justice A. R. B. Amerasinghe in “Professional Ethics and Responsibilities of Lawyers”, aptly states, “The lawyer is expected to be a person of integrity and probity, and to conduct himself in a manner that inspires confidence in the legal system”1, that “A lawyer must not only avoid impropriety but must also avoid the appearance of impropriety”2. This expectation is not aspirational; it is foundational. The conduct of an Attorney-at-Law must reflect the dignity of the office and the gravity of the responsibilities entrusted to it. 27. In cases where an Attorney-at-Law has acted in a manner that is disgraceful or dishonourable, Justice Amerasinghe affirms that “The removal of a lawyer from the Roll is not a punishment; it is a necessary act to preserve the sanctity of the profession”3. The Supreme Court, in exercising its disciplinary jurisdiction under Section 42(2) of the Judicature Act No. 2 of 1978, must therefore act not only to censure the individual but also to safeguard the collective integrity of the Bar. 28. The Respondent’s conduct, as found by the Disciplinary Committee, constitutes a breach not only of specific rules, but of the very ethos of the profession. The failure to act with diligence and honesty, particularly in fiduciary matters, is not a mere lapse, it is a betrayal of the professional oath. 1 A. R. B. Amerasinghe, Professional Ethics and Responsibilities of Lawyers (1993 Stamford Lake), p3 2 ibid, p 12 3 ibid, p 601 Page 9 of 10 29. The Respondent’s conduct, which amounted to deceit and malpractice, has eroded the confidence that clients and the public are entitled to place in Attorneys-at-Law. Such conduct is “inexcusable and deplorable”4 and must be met with the full force of disciplinary sanction. 30. In SC Rule No. 05/20225, this Court observed that the Respondent’s failure to file proper pleadings and maintain accurate records of client funds deemed “gross ineptitude and negligence”, underscoring the imperative that Attorneys must act with scrupulous care and due diligence. 31. In Dhammika Chandratileke v. Susantha Mahes Moonesinghe, cited in SC Rule No. 04/20246, and in SC Rule No. 05/20227, this Court held that “An attorney whose misconduct is criminal in character… may be struck off the roll… even though he had not been brought… before a court of competent criminal jurisdiction and convicted. 32. Having considered the entirety of the circumstances outlined above, including the Respondent’s previous suspension from practice for a period of seven years in proceedings instituted under SC/Rule/08/2014, his repeated absence from Court proceedings, his lack of remorse, and his failure to take meaningful steps to mitigate the harm caused, thereby demonstrating a blatant disregard for the standards expected of an Attorney-at-Law, this Court is satisfied that the Respondent has engaged in acts of deceit and professional misconduct. The Respondent has thus conducted himself in a manner that is reprehensible and wholly incompatible with the dignity of the legal profession. 33. In light of the seriousness of the misconduct established against the Respondent, together with the aggravating factors previously discussed, this Court is satisfied that the Rule must be affirmed. Accordingly, the 4 ibid, p 598 5 SC Rule No. 05/2022, SC minutes of 03/09/2024 6 SC Rule No. 04/2024, SC minutes of 24/07/2024 7 n5 Page 10 of 10 Respondent is forthwith removed from the Roll of Attorneys-at-Law in terms of Section 42(2) of the Judicature Act No. 2 of 1978. 34. The Registrar of the Supreme Court is directed to take necessary steps to ensure that this ruling is duly enforced and communicated to all relevant authorities. 35. Rule affirmed. The Respondent is disenrolled from the Roll of Attorneys-at-Law.		Download
2025-10-10	SC/FR/259/2016	Vithanage Sunil, No.850/1, Rukmale Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. Petitioner Vs. 1. L.P.B. Samarasinghe, Inspector of Police, The Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Kottawa. 2. Cyril Perera, Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Kottawa. 3. Nandana Piyal, Police Constable, Police Station, Kottawa. 4. Sampath Police Constable, Police Station, Kottawa. 5. Chandra Niroshan Police Constable, Police Station, Kottawa. 6. Premasiri, Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Kottawa. 7. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Western Province (South) Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 8. Hon. Attorney General, The Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Menaka Wijesundera J	The Petitioner in the instant matter namely Vithanage Sunil claims that his fundamental rights under Article 11, Article 12(1) and Article 13 of the Constitution have been violated by the 1st to the 6th Respondents and has sought a declaration of the said violation and compensation from the 1st to the 6th Respondents. When this matter was supported for leave, this Court has granted leave to proceed against the 1st to the 6th Respondents on 13.10.2016, under Articles 11, 12(1) and 13(1) In the instant application, the 1st Respondent is the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station Kottawa, L. P. B. Samarasinghe. The 2nd Respondent is the Sub Inspector of Police attached to Kottawa Police Station, Cyril Perera. The 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents are Police Constables attached to Kottawa Police Station namely, Nandana Piyal, Sampath and Chandra Niroshan respectively and 6th Respondent is a Sub Inspector of Police, Premasiri. The 7th Respondent is the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Western Province, South) and the 8th Page 4 of 10 Respondent is the Honourable Attorney General. The Petitioner claims that he had been an omni bus operator and had owned two buses plying between Colombo and Kottawa. The Petitioner claims that on 09.07.2016 in the evening when he had been returning home from a friend’s place around 10.00 pm, he had seen his two buses parked after the days running and had met the 2nd Respondent along with another police officer, who had abused the Petitioner in filth. The 2nd Respondent had proceeded to aim his pistol at his head and had threatened to kill him. At that point the 2nd Respondent had got down the 4th and 5th Respondents to the scene. Thereafter, according to him, the 4th and 5th Respondents had slapped him and asked him to kneel down. According to the Petitioner, the 2nd, 4th and 5th Respondents have continued to assault him brutally inside his own bus. Thereafter, the 3rd Respondent had arrived at the scene and continued to assault him. Although his family members had pleaded with the Respondents to stop assaulting him, it had not happened. Instead, he had been taken to the Kottawa police station and had been assaulted by the 1st Respondent and had been put inside a cell with his friend. The eye-witnesses of the incident are the Petitioner’s wife, Priyal Prasantha (his brother-in-law), and Petitioner’s mother. The Petitioner has alleged that he was bleeding from his face, mouth, chest, hands and legs due to the assault by the 1st to 5th Respondents. Thereafter, on 10.07.2016 at 2.30 pm he had been produced before the Magistrate of Homagama for the alleged offence of possessing 550 mgs of heroin. He completely denies this allegation. His Attorney at Law had informed court with regard to his alleged assault and injuries and, thereafter, the Magistrate had ordered for the Petitioner to be produced before the judicial medical officer of Colombo and remanded him till 18.07.2016. However, the Petitioner claims that he was never placed before a JMO and when this case was called on 18.07.2016 the Magistrate had been duly informed and the Magistrate had summoned the JMO of Homagama base hospital. Thereafter, the magistrate had ordered this matter to be investigated by the SSP of the Nugegoda division. The said JMO summoned by court had produced a medical report marked as P7, where injuries to his eyes, face, chest and forearms have been observed. The Petitioner claims that his allegation of assault by the 1st to 6th Respondents had been established by the report. Further, he denies the allegation of being in possession of heroin at the time of the arrest. The issue as to whether the Petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Page 5 of 10 Articles 11, 12(1), and 13(1) of the Constitution have been violated by the 1st to 6th Respondents remains to be determined and will be addressed in the subsequent sections of this Judgment. Article 11 of the Constitution reads as follows: “No person shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” In Hettiarachchige Gemunu Tissa v Jayaratne, Sub Inspector of Police and others [SC (FR) Application No. 417/2016; SC minutes of 28th May 2024], it was stated that, “Every human being is entitled to live in dignity and not be subject to any torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It is the duty of this Court, as the guardian of the fundamental rights of our People, to foster and protect these rights. Whenever a complaint alleging the infringement of Article 11 is made to this Court, our duty is to examine carefully the facts relating to such complaint, the corroborative evidence, if any, tendered by the Petitioner in support of such complaint, the version of the Respondent/s and arrive at a considered decision.” Similarly, in Amal Sudath Silva v. Kodituwakku, Inspector of Police and Others [(1987) 2 Sri LR 119 at page 126], Atukorale, J. emphasized that: “Article 11 of our Constitution mandates that no person shall be subjected to torture, or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It prohibits every person from inflicting torturesome, cruel or inhuman treatment on another. It is an absolute fundamental right subject to no restrictions or limitations whatsoever.” The Petitioner alleges that he was subjected to severe assault by the 1st to 6th Respondents, resulting in visible injuries and further contends that an attempt was made to conceal such injuries by producing another individual before the JMO. It is observed that the medico-legal reports produced before Court are contradictory in nature. The first report, dated 10.07.2016 and prepared by Dr. Nawasivayam, records no injuries on the person examined. In contrast, the second report, dated 12.07.2016 and prepared by Dr. Pranavan pursuant to a direct order of the learned Magistrate of Homagama, clearly records multiple injuries to the face, chest, forearms, and wrist of the patient. Further, the said report states that there was no clinical evidence of the patient’s drug dependence. During cross-examination, Dr. Nawasivayam admitted that he could not identify the person inside the witness box as being the same individual on whom he had Page 6 of 10 prepared the medico-legal report. His explanation was that a large number of patients were presented before him and that he cannot remember all of them individually. However, the Petitioner claims that another individual was presented to the medical examination, instead of him. In examining the affidavits placed before this Court, the affidavit of Mrs. Shanthi Priya, the wife of the Petitioner, states that she witnessed the Petitioner being forced into a bus and thereafter, being brutally assaulted by police officers. Similarly, the affidavit of Dinesh Priyankara, a neighbour, corroborates this, stating that he observed the Petitioner being handcuffed and assaulted by police officers and was taken to the Police jeep. Further affidavits filed by Janaka Kumara, Dilan Priyankara, and Piyal Prashantha, who are neighbours of the Petitioner, established that the Petitioner had an argument with the police officers and was thereafter assaulted inside the bus while being handcuffed. Both Janaka Kumara and Piyal Prashantha, in their affidavits, specifically claim that the Petitioner was bleeding from his mouth. Piyal Prashantha, along with his friend, proceeded to the police station after the incident. Piyal further states in his affidavit that he had overheard an attempt by the police to falsely implicate the Petitioner on a drug offence. He inquired on this matter with Upali Senaratne, Attorney at Law. Even though, he has asked the OIC to file a case for obstructing police duty, a drug case was filed. He further claimed that T.V. Priyantha, who was arrested alongside the Petitioner, was released the next day. The affidavits disclose a consistent and corroborative narrative, namely that the Petitioner, while restrained in handcuffs, was subjected to physical assault by police officers inside a bus, resulting in visible injuries and that there was a subsequent attempt by the police to mischaracterize the events through improper charges. Affidavits were filed by Joseph Shantha Kumara and Rohana Sudath Liyanage to substantiate the position of the Respondents. The affidavit filed by Joseph Shantha Kumara state that he was in the custody of the Kottawa Police Station from 09.07.2016 to 10.07.2016 and during that period no suspect was subjected to assault by the police. Likewise, the affidavit filed by Rohana states that he was present at the Police Station on 09.07.2016 until 1.00 p.m. and during that time he observed two police officers in uniform placing a handcuffed person inside the cell, but specifically notes that neither the OIC nor the police officers assaulted any suspects while he was there. However, both affidavits do not negate the position of the Petitioner, who claims he was subject to assault, not only at the police station, but prior to reaching the police station as well, and had sworn affidavits by 5 individuals present at the time substantiating his position. Page 7 of 10 In the case of Mrs. W. M. K. De Silva v Chairman, Ceylon Fertilizer Corporation, it was held that for there to be an Article 11 infringement, the degree of mental or physical coerciveness or viciousness must go beyond mere ill-treatment and amount to maltreatment of a high degree. The facts and the corroborative evidence abovementioned, especially the second JMO report and the affidavits filed indicate that the Petitioner was subjected to physical assault of a profound nature and degrading treatment. Such conduct falls squarely within the prohibition under Article 11. Additionally, the Petitioner contends that his rights under Article 12(1) were violated when the 1st to 6th Respondents produced him before court based on false allegations, and further violated the said Article by failing to present him to the JMO. Article 12(1) of the Constitution reads as follows: “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law.” Aluwihare, PC, J. in his judgement in H. M. M. Sampath Kumara and others vs. Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Katunayake, cited with approval the case of Sanghadasa Silva vs. Anuruddha Ratwatte and stated as follows; “…it is now well settled law that powers vested in the state, public officers and public authorities are not absolute and unfettered but are held in trust for the people to be used for the public benefit and not for improper purposes.” Even though Police officers are charged with the duty of maintaining law and order they cannot exercise the power granted for that purpose in a manner that negates the equality provision.” Once again, taking into consideration the fact that the doctor who submitted the first JMO report could not identify the Petitioner and could not recall that day’s events, coupled with the fact that there are five independent affidavits claiming the assault took place, suggest that there was truth to the accusations made by the Petitioner that initially, he was in fact not produced in front of the JMO, thereby violating his rights under Article 12(1). The Petitioner further asserts that his arrest by the 1st to 6th Respondents were carried out without informing him of the reason for the arrest, thereby contravening Article 13(1) of the Constitution. Article 13 (1) of the Constitution reads as follows: “No person shall be arrested except according to procedure established by law. Any person arrested shall be informed of the reason for his arrest.” Page 8 of 10 In Dissanayaka v Superintendent Mahara Prison and others, Kulatunga, J. stated the following to highlight the importance of examining the material to decide the validity of the arrest. “Nevertheless, it is for the Court to determine the validity of the arrest objectively. The Court will not surrender its judgement to the executive for if it did so, the fundamental right to freedom from arbitrary arrest secured by Article 13(1) of the Constitution will be defeated. The executive must place sufficient material before the Court to enable the Court to make a decision, such as the notes of investigation, including the statements of witnesses, observations etc. without relying on bare statements in affidavits\". Further in Channa Pieris and Others v. Attorney General and Others the Court held that, “However the officer making an arrest cannot act on a suspicion founded on mere conjecture or vague surmise. His information must give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the suspect was concerned in the commission of an offence for which he could have arrested a person without a warrant. The suspicion must not be of an uncertain and vague nature but of a positive and definite character providing reasonable ground for suspecting that the person arrested was concerned in the commission of an offence.” According to the Police B Report submitted in this matter, it is noted that the Police had received information regarding the suspect. The said report fails to disclose the nature of the information received and due to its vague nature, it cast’s a doubt on the veracity of the information received. During the course of their inquiry, they had apprehended the Petitioner and discovered 550 milligrams of heroin in his possession. However, the Petitioner has categorically denied the contents of the B Report filed. He asserts that this charge was fabricated with the intention of covering up the assault to which he was subjected. I am of the opinion that the sequence of events, including the failure to produce the Petitioner before the JMO immediately after arrest, the contradictory medical reports and the corroborative affidavits of eyewitnesses, casts significant doubt on the veracity of the version set out in the Police B Report. While the report suggests that the Petitioner was lawfully apprehended with heroin in his possession, the surrounding circumstances strongly suggest that there is good reason to doubt the validity of the report. Further, the second JMO report also claims that there was no history of drug abuse, therefore the fact that the Petitioner had in his possession what is perceived to be is highly unlikely, thereby further invalidating the nature of the Page 9 of 10 arrest. In conclusion, having considered the totality of the evidence, it is evident that the Petitioner was subjected to physical assault and degrading treatment. The conduct of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents in brutally assaulting the Petitioner amounts to torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, thereby constituting a clear violation of Article 11 of the Constitution. The failure to produce the petitioner before a JMO constitutes a breach of procedural safeguards and amounts to a violation of the Petitioner’s right to equal protection of the law under Article 12(1) of the Constitution. Furthermore, the inaction of the other officers in preventing the assault reinforces this violation, as their omission reflects a disregard for the Petitioner’s constitutional rights. The arrest and detention without properly informing the Petitioner of the reasons for his arrest also violate Article 13(1) of the Constitution. Accordingly, I hold that the Petitioner has successfully established that his fundamental rights under Articles 11, 12(1) and 13(1) have been infringed by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, and that the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th Respondents bear responsibility for their failure to prevent or rectify such violations. The application for a declaration that the Petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 11, 12(1) and 13(1) were violated by the 1st to the 6th Respondents is made and this Court further orders compensation in the sum of Rs 1,000,000 is awarded to the Petitioner, to be paid jointly by the 1st to 6th Respondents from their personal funds, for the reason that they were directly involved in the assault.		Download
2025-10-10	SC/APPEAL/112/2014	Abdul Cader Sabura Umma, No. 9/2 (10/4), Central Road, Batticaloa. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Puvenesweri Krishnamoorthie, (deceased) 2. Prishla Krishnamoorthie, 3. Manjula Krishnamoorthie, 4. Geetha Krishnamoorthie, (deceased) All of No. 92, Central Road, Batticaloa. 2nd Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J	The plaintiff instituted this action in the District Court of Batticaloa against the defendants seeking a declaration that they are the tenants of the plaintiff and ejectment of them from the premises in suit on the grounds of reasonable requirement and arrears of rent. In their answer, the defendants admitted that they were tenants but denied that the premises were reasonably required by the plaintiff or that arrears of rent were outstanding. In paragraph 12 of the plaint, the plaintiff averred that she had given one month’s notice terminating the tenancy. In paragraph 11 of the answer, however, the defendants specifically pleaded that, as tenants within the meaning of the Rent Act No. 7 of 1972, such one month’s notice was invalid in law, and therefore the action could not be maintained. This matter was put in issue at the trial. It is significant that at no stage did the plaintiff contend that the premises were outside the ambit of the Rent Act. After trial, the District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s action on the ground that the notice to quit was not valid in law, holding that under section 22(6) of the Rent Act the plaintiff was required to give one year’s notice. On appeal, the High Court of Civil Appeal of Batticaloa affirmed the judgment of the District Court and dismissed the appeal. The present appeal, filed with leave of this Court, is against the judgment of the High Court. A previous bench of this Court granted leave to appeal on the following questions of law: 3 SC/APPEAL/112/2014 (a) Did the High Court of Civil Appeal misdirect itself in holding that the respondents were tenants, in view of their denial of the appellant’s title? (b) In any event, was the notice to quit valid in the circumstances of the case? The first question suggests that the defendants denied the plaintiff’s title. Even assuming that the defendants denied the plaintiff’s title, they did not deny that they were tenants under the plaintiff. For the continuance of a landlord–tenant relationship, it is not necessary that the landlord be the owner of the premises. A valid tenancy agreement may come into existence even between a trespasser and another, though such an agreement would not bind the true owner. There had also been a previous litigation (Case No. 3510/L) between the predecessors of the present parties. The plaintiff contends that in that action the defendants claimed ownership of the premises, which was not accepted by Court, and that the plaintiff’s ownership was upheld. The plaintiff now argues that the defendants cannot approbate and reprobate by asserting ownership in the earlier case and tenancy in the present action. If that was indeed the plaintiff’s position, the proper course would have been to seek ejectment of the defendants in the earlier action itself. In this regard, section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code becomes relevant. 34(1) Every action shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the action within the jurisdiction of any court. (2) If a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes any portion of, his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. A person entitled to more than one 4 SC/APPEAL/112/2014 remedy in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of his remedies; but if he omits (except with the leave of the court obtained before the hearing) to sue for any of such remedies, he shall not afterwards sue for the remedy so omitted. (3) For the purpose of this section, an obligation and a collateral security for its performance shall be deemed to constitute but one cause of action. The premises had been transferred by the predecessor of the plaintiff to the predecessor of the defendants by a deed, which the plaintiff stated was not an outright transfer but security for a loan. In the previous case, the Court held that the defendants held the premises in trust for the plaintiff, and directed the plaintiff to pay the sum borrowed from the defendants, together with interest, in order for the defendants to retransfer the premises to the plaintiff. According to the plaint in the present action, the plaintiff has not made that payment. Without discharging that obligation, the plaintiff instituted the instant action to eject the defendants on the basis of termination of tenancy. Such conduct is wholly unacceptable, as it amounts to an abuse of the judicial process and an attempt to harass the defendants through vexatious litigation. Be that as it may, as I have already observed, the plaintiff instituted this action treating the defendants as tenants, seeking their ejectment on the grounds of reasonable requirement and arrears of rent. The defendants, while admitting their status as tenants, sought dismissal of the action on the ground that the notice of termination was invalid. When the plaintiff herself filed this action on the footing that the defendants were tenants, could she then have expected the defendants to deny tenancy and assert ownership, as she now contends, particularly in view of the previous litigation? Such a position is untenable and only serves to highlight the lack of clarity on the part of the plaintiff as to the very basis of her action. The 5 SC/APPEAL/112/2014 allegation that the defendants are approbating and reprobating is wholly misplaced; on the contrary, it is the plaintiff who is guilty of approbating and reprobating in this case. At the time material to this action, section 22(6) of the Rent Act provided as follows: Notwithstanding anything in any other law, the landlord of any premises referred to in subsection (1) or subsection (2) shall not be entitled to institute any action or proceedings for the ejectment of the tenant of such premises on the ground that such premises are required for occupation as a residence for himself or any member of his family, or for the purposes of his trade, business, profession, vocation or employment, if the landlord has not given to the tenant of such premises one year’s notice in writing of the termination of the tenancy. As the law presently stands, following the Rent (Amendment) Act No. 26 of 2002, the period of one year’s notice has been reduced to six months. The plaintiff expressly admitted that she gave only one month’s notice of termination. As rightly decided by both Courts below, the plaintiff did not give one year’s notice of termination before she filed the action on reasonable requirement. It is well settled that the notice of termination stipulated under the Rent Act constitutes a condition precedent to the institution of an action, and failure to give the requisite notice is fatal to its maintainability. On the unique facts and circumstances of this case, the plaintiff cannot succeed in this action. I answer both questions of law in the negative and dismiss the appeal with costs.		Download
2025-10-10	SC/APPEAL/174/2015	Gunasiri Kithsiri Hemal Dias, No. 9, ‘M’ Block, Bambalapitiya Flats, Colombo 4. 59th Defendant-Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Trixie Dias Gunasinghe, Wawlagoda, Hikkaduwa, And 86 Others. Defendant-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J	The plaintiff instituted this action 47 years ago, by plaint dated 08.05.1978, in the District Court of Galle to partition the land known as Bimpaluwewatta situated in Hikkaduwa, in extent of 2 acres and 2 roods, among the plaintiff (2/3 share) and the 1st-8th defendants (jointly 1/3 share). Following the institution of the action, a large number of parties intervened as defendants so much so, even before the case was fixed for trial, the number of defendants had increased to 88. Preliminary Plan No. 1048 was prepared in 1979. That plan revealed that the actual extent of the land was 3 roods and 36.5 perches, and not 2 acres and 2 roods as pleaded. The plan also shows that the land in question is a valuable property bounding the Colombo-Galle main road in Hikkaduwa, consisting of a large number of business/residential premises. Upon a commission issued by the District Court, Plan No. 1062 was prepared in 1997, that is, 18 years after the preparation of the Preliminary Plan, in order to superimpose certain plans on the Preliminary Plan. According to the surveyor’s report, the plaintiff did not participate in that survey. At the second survey, further 21 new claimants lodged claims to the surveyor. The foregoing facts alone are sufficient to demonstrate that the plaintiff filed this partition action without taking the statutory procedure seriously, thereby placing in difficulty numerous persons in possession of these business/residential premises. This type of conduct on the part of the plaintiff must not be encouraged, for it amounts to an abuse of the Partition Law. 3 SC/APPEAL/174/2015 There are several sections in the Partition Law that compel the plaintiff to bring all the parties who have some claim to the land. For instance, section 5 of the Partition Law enacts that the plaintiff in a partition action shall include in his plaint as parties to the action all persons who, whether in actual possession or not, to his knowledge are entitled or claim to be entitled to any right, share or interest to, of, or in the land to which the action relates, whether vested or contingent, and whether by way of mortgage, lease, usufruct, servitude, trust, life interest, or otherwise, or to any improvements made or effected on or to the land. It is significant to note that the duty of the plaintiff is not limited to including those who are in fact entitled to rights, but extends also to those who claim to be entitled or who have effected improvements. The plaintiff in the present case manifestly disregarded this statutory obligation. Since the second survey in 1997, 28 years have lapsed. The status quo must inevitably have changed since the institution of the action in 1978. The appellant before this Court is the 59th defendant, who was added as a party on 08.09.1994, as per Journal Entry No. 102 in the District Court case record. According to that Journal Entry, the 59th defendant was added on the basis that he had acquired the rights of the plaintiff during the pendency of the case. However, neither a copy of the alleged deed nor particulars thereof were produced to ascertain the nature of that transaction. This kind of voluntary alienations are contrary to section 66 of the Partition Law, and in my view the 59th defendant ought not to have been added as a party. The 59th defendant filed no statement of claim. By Journal Entry No. 111 dated 25.05.1995, the 59th defendant was substituted as plaintiff on the basis that the original plaintiff had sold his rights in the land to him. Even at that stage, a copy of the alleged deed was not produced for the court to understand the nature of his claim and to decide the legality of the claim. 4 SC/APPEAL/174/2015 The trial was postponed on four occasions. On the 5th date of trial, namely 31.10.2001, the case was dismissed by the District Judge for want of appearance of any party. Thereafter, the 59th defendant–substituted plaintiff applied to purge the default on the ground that he had been ill on the date in question. At the inquiry into that application, however, he failed to adduce sufficient evidence, and accordingly the District Court, by order dated 28.04.2004, refused the application. Being dissatisfied with that order, the 59th defendant–substituted plaintiff preferred a final appeal to the High Court of Civil Appeal. By judgment dated 18.02.2014, the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the refusal to purge default by the District Court was correct and the 59th defendant-substituted plaintiff, if he so wished, could file a fresh action. The 59th defendant-substituted plaintiff thereafter appealed to this Court. Leave to appeal was granted on the following questions of law: (a) Are the judgments of the District Court and High Court valid in law or made according to law? (b) Could the trial court dismiss the plaint in the absence of the plaintiff without first having notified the other parties concerned and endeavoured to compel them to bring the action to an end? (c) As the stage of litis contestatio has been reached in this case, could the court reject the said application on the grounds stated in the order? On the unique facts and circumstances of this case, I answer the above questions against the 59th defendant–substituted plaintiff. As noted earlier, his very locus standi to prosecute this action is in doubt. Forty-seven years have elapsed since the filing of this action. Even in the District Court, points of contest were never raised. A large number of parties intervened from time 5 SC/APPEAL/174/2015 to time. The original plaintiff did not institute this action with seriousness, and failed to implead all necessary parties. Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal without costs.		Download
2025-10-10	SC/APPEAL/65/2025	W.T. S. Nilantha Fernando, 59, Central Niwasa, Kaswalagalla, Raddolugama. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. P.M.S. Nilanthi Perera, 74/4/12, Central Garden, Kaswalagalla, Raddolugama. Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-10-09	SC/APPEAL/172/2010	Thellamurege Don Yasapala Padmasiri Samaranayake (deceased), No. 13, Weerasinghe Lane, Panadura. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-APPELLANT Thellamurege Don Pubudu Mangala Samaranayake (Substituted), No. 13, Weerasinghe Lane, Galle Road, Panadura. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT-APPELLANT- APPELLANT Vs. Freddy Kuruppu Nanayakkara (deceased), No.15, Weerasinghe Lane, Panadura. and presently, No. 160/2, Central Avenue, Laverton, Victoria, Australia. PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT 1. Priyanthi Kuruppu Nanayakkara, 2. Indra Lakshman Kuruppu Nanayakkara, 3. Ashanka Dananjaya Kuruppu Nanayakkara, All of No. 160/2, Central Avenue, Laverton, Victoria, Australia. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Sobhitha Rajakaruna J			Download
2025-10-08	SC/APPEAL/49/2017	Dedigama Group Private Limited, Head Office, No. 12, Dehiwala Road, Maharagama. PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT – PETITIONER Vs. 1. Nagoda Manalage Piyasena, 2. Panawalage Hemawathie, Both of No. 522, Minnana, Getaheththa. DEFENDANTS – RESPONDENTS – RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Janak De Silva J	The Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant (Appellant) instituted this action against the 1st and 2nd Defendant-Respondent-Respondents (Respondents) seeking a judgment for the specific performance of an agreement to sell. In the alternative, the Appellant prayed for damages in a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/=. The learned District Judge of Avissawella dismissed the action. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the Appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court of the Western Province exercising Civil Appellate jurisdiction at Avissawella (High Court) which was dismissed. Leave to appeal has been granted on following questions of law: (1) Did the High Court Judges err in law, by failing to analyze the law applicable in the context of specific performance in the original court action filed by the Appellant in seeking a judgment under the law of contracts against the Respondents? (2) Did the High Court Judges err in law by not considering the fact that there was no issue raised at the trial in the original court or at the hearing of the appeal in the High Court as to the dismissing of the action of the Appellant for not depositing the balance purchase money of the transaction at the outset of filing the action in the original court? (3) Did the High Court Judges err in law by not exercising their judicial mind in to the fact that which party has repudiated the contract between the two parties based on the sales agreement marked as P5 at the trial in the Original Court? (4) Did the High Court Judges err in law by considering that specific performance of the contract between the parties was an inappropriate remedy when there is an Page 5 of 18 uncertainty regarding the providing a road access to the land sought to be blocked out in terms of clause 5 of the agreement? Factual Matrix One Padmini Ranasinghe, being the original owner of the corpus forming the subject matter of the agreement to sell, transferred an undivided 1/3 share thereof to the 1st Respondent, another undivided 1/3 share to the 2nd Respondent and the remaining undivided 1/3 share to one Kudamadurage Sitthi, the mother of the 1st Respondent. By her last will, Sitthi bequeathed her undivided 1/3 share to the 1st Respondent. Testamentary proceedings were instituted in D.C. Avissawella Case No. 1271/T to prove the last will of Kudumadurage Sitthi. The agreement to sell between the Appellant and the 1st and 2nd Respondents bearing No. 2378 dated 14.10.2002 (P5) was executed and attested to by Athula Walisundara, Notary Public. Therein, the Respondents agreed to sell the corpus to Appellant for a sum of Rs. 72,50,000/= subject to the following terms and conditions: “1. ඉහත කී දේපලහි විකුණුම් මිළ රුපියල් හැත්තෑ දෙලක්ෂ පනස් ෙහස ( රු. 72,50,000/=) කි. 2. අෙ දින අත්ිකාරම් දලස රුපියල් ෙස ලක්ෂය (රු. 10,00,000/=) ක් ගැණුම්කාර සමාගම විසින් විකිණුම්කරුවන් හට දගවන ලදී. ඒ බව විකුණුම්කරුවන් දමයින් පිළිගනී. 3. දමම දේපලහි දනාදබදූ තුදනන් එකක අයිිවාසිකම ිබූ කුඩා දුරදේ සිත්ි යන අයදේ අන්ිම කැමි පත්‍රය සහිත බූෙලය අේමිනිස්ත්‍රාසි කිරීදමන් පසු තවත් රුපියල් ෙස ලක්ෂය (රු. 10,00,000/=) ක් විකිණුම්කරුවන් දවත දගවීමට ගැණුම්කාර සමාගම දපාදරාන්දු දේ. Page 6 of 18 4. ඉිරි මුෙල වන රුපියල් පනස් දෙලක්ෂ පනස් ෙහස (රු. 52,50,000/=) ක මුෙල දමකී පහත උපදල්ඛනදේ විස්තර වන දේපළ සංවර්ධනය කර විකිණීම ආරම්භ කළ දින සිට මාස හය (06)ක් ඇතුළත දගවා අවසන් කිරීමට ගැණුම්කාර සමාගම දමයින් දපාදරාන්දු දේ. 5. විකිණුම්කරුවන් විසින් දමකී පහත උපදල්ඛනදේ විස්තර වන දේපළට ප්‍රධාන මාර්ගදේ සිට අඩි 30ක් පළල ප්‍රදේශ මාර්ගයක් ලබා දීමටෙ, දපාදරාන්දු දේ. 6. ඉහත කී, ගැණුම්කාර සමාගම අොළ දේපළ මිළදී ගැනීමට ඉදිරිපත් වන විට විකුණුම්කරුවන් එකී දේපළ විකිණීම ප්‍රික්දෂ්ප කරයි නම්, දහෝ පැහැර හරි නම්, ඉිරි මුෙල නිසි අධිකරණදේ තැන්පත් කර දමම ගිවිසුම නිරූපිත දලස ඉටුකරවා ගැනීදම් හිමිකම ගැනුම්කරුවන් සමග සතු බව විකුණුම්කරුවන් දමයින් පිළිගනී. 7. ඉහත කී, ගැණුම්කරුවන් එකී දේපළ මිලදී ගැනීම ප්‍රික්දෂ්ප කරයි නම් දහෝ පැහැර හරී නම්, අෙ දින දගවනු ලබන, රුපියල් ෙස ලක්ෂය (රු. 10,00,000/=) ක මුෙලින් රුපියල් තුන් ලක්ෂය (රු. 300,000/=) ක් අලාභ දලස අය කරගත් පසු ඉිරි මුෙල ගැණුම්කාර සමාගම දවත දගවා දමම ගිවිසුම අවසන් කිරීදම් හිමිකම, විකිණුම්කරුවන් සතු දේ. 8. ඉහත කී, පරිදි ක්‍රියා කිරීමට විකිණුම්කරුවන් ෙ, ඔවුන්දේ උරුමක්කාර, අේමිනිස්ත්‍රාසිකාර සියල්ලෙ, ගැණුම්කාර සමාගමෙ, එකී සමාගදම් අධයක්ෂවරුන්ෙ දමයින් බැඳී ඇි බව දෙපක්ෂයම දමයින් පිළිගනී.” In terms of Clause 2 of the agreement to sell, the Appellant paid an advance of Rs. 10,00,000/= to the Respondents on the day the agreement was executed. The Appellant agreed to pay another Rs. 10,00,000/= to the Respondents after due administration of the estate of Kudumadurage Sitthi. One of the contentious issues between the parties was the correct interpretation of Clause 3. Version of the Appellant The Respondents failed to take steps to conclude the testamentary proceedings in D.C. Avissawella Case No. 1271/T where the last will of Kudumadurage Sitthi was sought to be Page 7 of 18 proved. In particular, the Respondents failed to take steps to execute an executors conveyance. The obligation to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/= as set out in Clause 3 of the agreement to sell arose only upon the execution of the executors conveyance. The Appellant by letter of demand dated 14.10.2006 sent by Athula Walisundara, Attorney-at-Law, made a demand for the transfer of the corpus. This request was willfully disregarded and/or refused by the Respondents. In the circumstances, the Respondents have deliberately and knowingly breached the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell. Version of the Respondent The testamentary proceedings in D.C. Avissawella Case No. 1271/T was over on 04.10.2004 and the probate was issued to 1st Respondent, who was the legatee of the 1/3 undivided share of Sitthi. The Appellant did not pay Rs.10,00,000/- to the Respondents as stipulated in Clause 3 of the agreement to sell. Thereby, the Appellant has repudiated the agreement to sell. In the agreement to sell, there was no specific date to transfer the corpus to the Appellant. Therefore, the transfer should take place within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the letter of demand dated 14.10.2006 sent by Athula Walisundara Attorney-at-Law was not sent within reasonable time. The Appellant did not have financial capacity to fulfill the conditions of the agreement to sell within a reasonable time. Judgment of the District Court The learned trial judge held that the obligation on the part of the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/= in terms of Clause 3 of the agreement to sell arose only after the executors conveyance was executed. However, he concluded that the Appellant had Page 8 of 18 failed to establish that the 1st Respondent was duly notified to execute the executors conveyance. The executors conveyance was signed only on 24.08.2007. The letter demand by the Appellant was sent to the Respondents on 14.10.2006. Hence the learned trial judge held that there was no obligation on the part of the Respondents to transfer the corpus to the Appellant as at that date. It was further held that the Appellant has not breached the agreement to sell by failing to pay the balance sum within a reasonable period from 14.10.2004. The learned trial judge emphasized that specific performance is a discretionary remedy. There must be access to the corpus. It must be provided with the consent of a third party. The learned trial judge observed that here is no prayer in the plaint seeking such access. In any event, he concluded that its availability depends on the consent of a third party. Moreover, the trial judge observed that the Appellant had failed to deposit a sum of Rs. 62,50,000/= in Court as required by Clause 6 of the agreement to sell. The Appellant has not been able to prove a reasonable basis for assessing the damages claimed. Furthermore, no breach of the agreement to sell has been proved. On these grounds, the learned trial judge decided that the Appellant’s case has not been proved and dismissed the action with costs. Judgment of the High Court The High Court held that upon a perusal of the evidence, it was clear that the Appellant intended to purchase the corpus for the purpose of selling after blocking out. The evidence revealed that there was no access from the main road to the land. The Respondents agreed to provide a road way 30 feet in width in terms of clause 5 of the Page 9 of 18 agreement to sell. The evidence of the 1st Respondent was that a 3rd party had agreed to provide a road way through his land to gain access to the land in dispute. The testamentary proceedings in D.C. Avissawella Case No. 1271/T were terminated on 04.10.2004. The Appellant failed to prove that it sought to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/= after the conclusion of the testamentary proceedings. Furthermore, the High Court held that there was an uncertainty in regard to the clause 5 of the sales agreement, and hence specific performance of the sales agreement would be an inappropriate remedy. The Appellant had failed to deposit a sum of Rs. 62,50,000/= in Court prior to the institution of the case as agreed to in clause 6 of the sales agreement. Accordingly, High Court of Civil Appellate held that the learned District Judge was correct in dismissing the action of the Appellant. Specific Performance (ad pecuniam solvendam) The governing law of the right to claim specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property is Roman-Dutch law [Thaheer v. Abdeen (57 NLR 1 at 3)]. I will therefore briefly examine the availability of this remedy in Roman-Dutch law. It is not clear whether specific performance was a remedy available in Roman law. Lee makes contradictory statements in stating that decrees of specific performance were unknown [Lee R.W., The Elements of Roman Law, IV Edition, Sweet & Maxwell (1956), 441] while later claiming that specific performance may be decreed [ibid. page 457]. Weeramantry [The Law of Contracts, Vol. 2, (Lawman (India) Pvt., Reprint 1999) pgs. 952-953] explains that during the formulary period, Roman law did not compel specific performance. It was sufficient for the payment of id quod interest. He opines that given that the maxim of Roman law being nemo potest praecise cogi ad factum (no one can be Page 10 of 18 compelled to perform a specific act), it was unusual for the grant of the remedy of specific performance. There is a divergence of opinion among jurists of the availability of specific performance in Roman Dutch law. According, to Van Der Linden [1.14.7], where the obligation consists in performing a particular act, the oblige may sue the obligor for the performance of that act, or compensation in damages and interest. Grotius [3.3.41] states that although by natural law a person who has promised to do something is bound to do it if it is in his power, he may nevertheless by municipal law release himself by paying the other contracting party the value of his interest in the same or the penalty, if any, which has been agreed upon in default of payment. Van Leeuwen was of the view that specific performance may be compelled where a promise is made to perform something or cause it to be done [Com. 4.2.13]. Weeramantry [supra. pages 953-954] concluded that the Roman-Dutch law of Holland would grant specific performance in contracts of sale and in contracts ad dandum generally and that it would also grant the relief where possible in contracts ad faciendum. It being an equitable remedy, there are situations where the Court may refuse to order specific performance in circumstances where the defaulting party is unable to comply with an order for specific performance such as where the property to be delivered has been destroyed [Grotius 3.47.1]. The locus classicus of the position in the law of South Africa is found in Farmers’ Co-op Society (Reg) v. Berry [(1912) AD 343 at 350] where Innes, J. held: “Prima facie every party to a binding agreement who is ready to carry out his own obligation under it has a right to demand from the other party, so far as it is Page 11 of 18 possible, a performance of his undertaking in terms of the contract. As remarked by KOTZE C.J., in Thompson vs. Pullinger (1 O. R., at p. 301), “the right of a plaintiff to the specific performance of a contract where the defendant is in a position to do so is beyond doub”. It is true that Courts will exercise a discretion in determining whether or not decrees of specific performance should be made. They will not, of course, be issued where it is impossible for the defendant to comply with them. And there are many cases in which justice between the parties can be fully and conveniently done by an award of damages. But that is a different thing from saying that a defendant who has broken his undertaking has the option to purge his default by the payment of money. For in the words of Storey (Equity Jurisprudence, Sec. 717 (a)), “it is against conscience that a party should have a right of election whether he would perform his contract or only pay damages for the breach of it.” The election is rather with the injured party, subject to the discretion of the Court.” In accordance with the discretionary nature of the remedy of specific performance in the law of South Africa, a Court may refuse to order specific performance where compliance with the order would be impossible [Rissik v. Pretoria Municipal Council 1907 TS 1024, 1037; Shakinovsky v. Lawson and Smulowitz 1904 TS 326; Wheeldon v. Moldenhauer 1910 EDL 97, 99; Pretoria East Builders CC v. Basson 2004 6 SA 15 (SCA) 21], cause undue hardship [Haynes v. Kingwilliamstown Municipality 1951 2 SA 371(A) 378H-9A; Dithaba Platinum (Pvt) Ltd. v. Erronovaal Ltd. 1985 4 SA 615 (T) 6271-6281; SAPDC (Trading) Ltd v. Immelman 1989 3 SA 506 (W) 512C-D], contracts for personal service [National Union of Textile Workers and Others v. Stag Packings (Pty) Ltd. and Another 1982 4 SA 151 (T); Seloadi and Others v. Sun International (Bophuthatswana) Ltd. 1993 2 SA 174 (BG) 1861-190E; Santos Professional Football Club (Pty) Ltd v. Igesund 2003 5 SA 73(C) 78-81] or where the obligations are imprecise [Douglas v. Baynes 1908 TS 1207 (PC); Breveton and Upton v. Carnarvon Syndicate (1889) 10 NLR 166, 169; Lucerne Asbestos Co. Ltd. v. Page 12 of 18 Becker 1928 WLD 311, 331; Barker vs. Beckett & Co. Ltd. 1911 TPD 151; Marais v. Cloete 1945 EDL 238, 242-243]. The remedy of specific performance is part of our law. In Holmes v. Alia Marikar (1 NLR 282 at 285), Withers, J. explained the concept as follows: “The right specifically to compel a person to give something which he has promised to give, or to do something which he has promised to do, has been frequently recognized and given effect to in our Courts. If the thing cannot be given or done, then its equivalent, id quod creditoris interest praestationem fieri, is exacted. The present is a common case in our Courts. It has been before the Supreme Court since 1837.” Accordingly, a party ready and willing to perform their contractual obligations has a prima facie legal right to specific performance against the other party, subject only to the discretion of the Court in the interests of justice. I will first address questions of law Nos. 1 and 2 as an answer in the negative must necessarily result in the dismissal of the appeal. Question of Law Nos. 1 and 2 These two questions are interconnected and will be considered together. Admittedly the Appellant has not deposited the balance part of the purchase price in Court prior to the institution of this action. Let me begin my analysis by examining whether it was incumbent on the Appellant to do so. It is trite law that the party seeking to enforce the contract must be ready and willing to perform his part of the bargain [See Thaheer v. Abdeen (57 NLR 1 at 3); Noorul Asin and Other v. Podinona de Zoysa and Others (1989) 1 Sri L. R. 63; T.T.P. Anthony Fernando vs. Page 13 of 18 H. D. Felix Nevill Tirimanne and Others (S.C. Appeal No.244/2014, S.C.M. 16.06.2022 at page 11]. A plaintiff who has failed to perform his obligation, which is conditional to requiring the defendant to perform his obligation, will not be granted the remedy of specific performance. The civil law recognized this principle through the exceptio non adimpleti contractus (“exception of non-performance of contract”) which was available against a party claiming performance who had himself not performed [Voet 19.1.23]. In BK Tooling (Edms) Bpk v. Scope Precision Engineering (Edms) Bpk [1979 (1) SA 391 (A)] it was held that, in the case of contract which imposes reciprocal obligations on the parties, the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance only if he has in fact made performance of his own obligations, or if he is able and prepared to do so: otherwise, his claim will be repelled by the exception non adimpleti contarctus. In Tirimanne and Others v. Theobald (46 NLR 391), the plaintiffs were entitled under a contract, to claim from the defendant, on payment of Rs. 6,325 on or before February 8, 1940, the reconveyance of certain property which had been transferred to the defendant by the 1st plaintiff. The plaintiffs alleged that on February 6, 1940, they tendered to the defendant the sum of Rs. 6,325 in cash which the defendant did not receive. They instituted action on February 7, 1940, for specific performance of the agreement to reconvey, but did not bring the money into Court until January 23, 1941, the day before the date fixed for the hearing of the action. The Privy Council held, that the failure of the plaintiffs to bring the money into Court with the plaint was a very serious omission. The reasoning of the Privy Council does not show per se an examination of the relevant principles of Roman-Dutch law. Nevertheless, it is a fundamental legal principle in Roman-Dutch law that the party seeking to enforce a contract must be ready and willing to perform his part of the bargain. This necessarily leads to the conclusion that a party seeking to obtain specific performance of a contractual stipulation which is conditional Page 14 of 18 upon the payment of a sum of money, must bring the amount due to Court and deposit it to the credit of the action at the time of filing the plaint. Imposing such a requirement certainly meets the interest of justice. In addition to the principle that a party seeking to obtain specific performance must be willing and able to perform his part of the bargain, it ensures that a defendant is not dragged through a time consuming and costly litigation only to find at the end of the trial that the plaintiff is not in a position to perform his part of the bargain which is conditional to the obligation of the defendant. The parties clearly were aware of this principle and took the further step of incorporating it as part of the terms and conditions agreed between them. Clause 6 of the agreement to sell (P5) reads as follows: \"ඉහත කී, ගැණුම්කාර සමාගම අොළ දේපළ මිළදී ගැනීමට ඉදිරිපත් වන විට විකුණුම්කරුවන් එකී දේපළ විකිණීම ප්‍රික්දෂ්ප කරයි නම්, දහෝ පැහැර හරි නම්, ඉතිරි මුදල නිසි අධිකරණයේ තැන්පත් කර යෙෙ ගිවිසුෙ නිරූපිත යලස ඉටුකරවා ගැනීයේ හිමිකෙ ගැනුම්කරුවන් සමග සතු බව විකුණුම්කරුවන් දමයින් පිළිගනී.\" (emphasis added) This is a clear expression of the intention of the parties that, the Appellant has the right to seek specific performance of the agreement to sell only upon depositing the balance amount due in Court. The Court must give effect to their express intention. In Ginthota Sarukkale Vitharanage Hemalatha Piyathilake v. Wicrama Pathiranage Mahesh Ruwan Pathirana [S.C. Appeal No: 218/2014, S.C.M. 15.02.2017 pages 9-10] Sisira J. De Abrew J. held as follows: “When taking a decision whether to grant relief or not in a case of breach of contract it is necessary to examine the intention of the parties at the time that they signed the agreement. In the present case what was the intention of the Page 15 of 18 Defendant-Appellant when she signed the agreement? In finding an answer to this question it must be remembered that the Defendant-Appellant, at the time of signing the agreement, accepted a cheque for Rs.1.0 Million from the Plaintiff-Respondent and that she signed the agreement knowing that there is a clause for specific performance. Thus it is clear that the intention of the Defendant-Appellant had been, at the time of signing the agreement, to sell the property to the Plaintiff- Respondent. What was the intention of the Plaintiff-Respondent at the time of signing the agreement? It has to be noted here that he gave a cheque for Rs.1.0 Million to the Defendant-Appellant and signed the agreement knowing that there was a clause relating to specific performance. Thus his intention had been, at the time of signing the agreement, to purchase the property. Thus it is clear that the intention of both parties, at the time of signing of the agreement, was to implement Agreement to Sell marked P1. What was the purpose of including a clause for specific performance? The purpose, it appears, had been that both parties would be compelled to fulfill their obligations.” (emphasis added) Similarly, where parties have agreed that specific performance can be sought only upon the balance sum payable being deposited in court, that must be enforced by Court. In order to overcome this difficulty, the Appellant sought to contend that no issue was raised on the need to make the deposit in Court. Paragraph 14 of the plaint filed by the Appellant in the District Court of Avissawella identifies the, the first cause of action as follows: “ඉහත තත්ත්වයන් යටදත් පැමිණිලිකාර සොගෙ ගරු අධිකරණයෙන් රුපිෙල් හැට යදලක්ෂ පනස් දහස (රු.6,250,000/.) ක මුදල ගරු අධිකරණයේ තැන්පත් කර ඉහත කී අංක : 2378 දරණ විකුණුේ ගිවිසුෙ නිරූපිත යලස ඉටු කරවා ගැනීෙට (Specific Performance) අයිතිෙ ඇති බවට ප්‍රකාශෙක් ලබා ගැනීෙටද, එකී දේපල පැමිණිලිකාර සමාගම දවත පවරා දෙන දමන් විත්ිකරුවන්ට විධානය කරන නඩු තීන්දුවක් ලබා Page 16 of 18 ගැනීමට ෙ හා/දහෝ විත්ිකරුවන් විසින් එකී දේපල පවරා දීම ප්‍රික්දෂ්ප කරන්දන් නම් හා / දහෝ අදපාදහාසත් වන්දන් නම් ගරු අධිකරණදේ දරජිස්ටාර් ලවා නිසි විකුණුම් ඔප්පුවක් පැමිණිලිකාර සමාගදම් වාසියට අත්සන් කරවා ගැනීදමන් නිදයෝගයක් ගැනීදම් ලබා ගැනීමටෙ, විත්ිකරුවන්ට එදරහිව නඩු පැවරීමට පැමිණිලිකාර සමාගමට නඩු නිමිත්තක් උේගතව ඇත.” (emphasis added) Issues and admissions were recorded on 13.08.2008. There were 7 admissions and 15 issues. Admission 5 is as follows: \"5. ඉහත කී 2378 ෙරණ ගිවිසුදම් දකාන්දේසි අනුගමනය කිරීමට දෙපාර්ශවය බැඳී සිටින බේ පිලිගනියි.\" The Respondents raised another issue after commencing the leading of evidences of the Appellant. It was that since the Appellant has failed to deposit the balance consideration to the credit of the case in accordance with the Clause 6 of the sales agreement, can the Appellant have and maintain this action? Subsequently, there was a correction made to that issue which then read: \"16. පැමිණිලිකාර සමාගම අංක 1378 ෙරණ ගිවිසුදම් 6 වන දකාන්දේසිය පරිදි ඉිරි මුෙල ෙැනටමත් දමම නඩුවට තැන්පත් කර නැි දහයින් දමම නඩුව පවරා පවත්වා දගන යා හැකිෙ?\" The Appellant called the manager of the Appellant’s company and Mr. Athula Walisundera, Attorney-at-Law and Notary in Public to testify on its behalf. The manager has been cross examined regarding depositing the money. It has been recorded at pages 107-108 of the Appeal Brief as follows: “ප්‍ර. (6 දවනි දකාන්දේසිය බලන්න) තමාට ඒ දකාන්දේසිය අනුව විත්ිකරුවන් දමම ක්‍රියා කිරීම ප්‍රික්දෂ්ප කදලාින් තමා ඉිරි මුෙල උසාවිදේ තැන්පත් කර උසාවිදය මාර්ගදයන් ක්‍රියා කරන්න ඕදන්? උ. එදහමයි. Page 17 of 18 ප්‍ර. තමා එදහම කලාෙ? උ. ඒ සඳහා තමයි දම් නඩුව පවත්වන්දන්. ප්‍ර. අවුරුදු 4 න් පස්දස එදහම කදල්? උ. ඔේ. ප්‍ර. දම් නඩුදව මුෙල් තැන්පත් කලාෙ? උ. නැහැ ප්‍ර. දම් ගිවිසුම අනුව ඒ විදිහට ක්‍රියා කදල නෑ? උ. තැන්පත් කරන්න තමයි දම් නඩුව ආරම්භ කදල් තැන්පත් කරන්න මට නිකම්ම බෑ. ප්‍ර. දකාන්දේසිදේ ිදබන්දන් මුෙල් තැන්පත් කරන්න ඒක කදලත් නෑ? උ. ඒක කරන්න තමයි දම් තඩුව ෙැම්දම. ප්‍ර. දකාන්දේසිය අනුව කරන්න ඕදන්? උ. ඒක මම ෙන්දන නෑ.” It is in this context the learned trial judge answered issue no.16 in negative and concluded that the Appellant has failed to deposit the balance amount due in Court. This is the correct conclusion on the facts and circumstances of this action. For the foregoing reasons, I answer question of law No. 1 and 2 in the negative. In the foregoing circumstances, there is no need to answer the other questions of law and the appeal must be dismissed. Page 18 of 18 In summary, the following facts are established: • Clause 6 of the agreement to sell expressly grants the Appellant the right to seek specific performance. • Before exercising that right, the Appellant is required to deposit the balance amount in Court. • The Appellant failed to deposit the said balance amount in Court as stipulated in the agreement to sell. • Therefore, the Appellant cannot seek specific performance. I affirm the judgment of the District Court of Avissawella dated 03.11.2010 and the judgment of the High Court dated 31.03.2015. Appeal is dismissed with costs fixed at Rs. 1,00,000/=.		Download
2025-10-07	SC/CHC APPEAL/31/2009	Distilleries Company of Sri Lanka PLC P.O. Box 1756, No.110, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10 Defendant- Appellant Vs. Censtar International (Pvt) Ltd, No 320A, Dehiwala Road, Bellanwilla. Plaintiff- Respondent View More	Hon. K. Kumudini Wickremasinghe J	This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of the Western Province holden in Colombo (Exercising its Civil Jurisdiction), dated 25.11.2009. The Plaintiff-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the “Respondent”) instituted the initial action before the High Court of the Western Province holden in Colombo (Exercising its Civil Jurisdiction) (Commercial High Court), against the Defendant-Appellant- (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellant”). The Respondent instituted this action on 29 July, 2005 against the Appellant upon three (3) causes of action together with an alternative 2 cause of action on the basis that a sum of Rs.17,982,358.38 is due in respect of goods sold and delivered and for a further cause of action for loss and damage being 30% of Rs.17,982,358.38 per annum from 1st October, 2004. The Respondent on or about 3rd August, 2004 at the request of the Appellant sold and delivered to the Defendant-Appellant the empty glass bottles at the specifications specified in and at the prices stated in the invoice dated 3rd August, 2004. A true copy of the said invoice was annexed to the Plaint marked \"P1\" (page 48/64 of the Brief). The said document was marked in evidence as \"P2\" - (page 87/110 of the Brief). The Appellant had failed and/or neglected to pay the Respondent the said sum of Rs.6,341,511.60 or any part thereof though thereto obliged and though thereto demanded. The Respondent on or about 27th August, 2004 at the request of the Appellant sold and delivered to the Appellant empty glass bottles at the specifications specified in and at the price stated in the invoice dated 27th August, 2004. A true copy of the said invoice was annexed to the Plaint marked \"P2\" (page 49/65 of the Brief). The said document was marked in evidence as \"P4\" - (page 98/121 of the Brief). The Appellant failed and/or neglected to pay the Respondent the said sum of Rs.1,933,656.20 or any part thereof though obliged and demanded. The Respondent on or about 1st September, 2004 at the request of the Appellant sold and delivered to the Appellant the empty glass bottles at the specifications given in and at the price stated in the invoice dated 15th September, 2004. A true copy of the said invoice was 3 marked \"P3\" (page 50/66 of the Brief). The said document was marked in evidence as \"P6\" - (page 103/126 of the Brief). The Appellant had failed and/or neglected to pay the Respondent the said sum of Rs.9,707,190.58 or any part thereof though obliged and demanded. The Respondent on or about 1st September, 2004 at the request of the Appellant sold and delivered to the Appellant empty glass bottles at the specifications given in and at the price stated in the invoice dated 1st September, 2004. A true copy of the said invoice was annexed to the Plaint marked \"P3\" (page 50/66 of the Brief). The said document was marked in evidence as \"P6\" - (page 103/126 of the Brief). The Appellant has failed and/or neglected to pay the Respondent the said sum of Rs.9,707,190.58 or any part thereof though obliged and demanded. By letter dated 6th September, 2004 the Appellant acknowledged that a sum of Rs.17,982,358.38 is due and owing from the Appellant to the Respondent and promised and undertook to pay the same to the Respondent. A true copy of the said letter was marked \"P4\" (page 51/67 of the Brief). The said document was marked in evidence as \"P8\" - (page 118/141 of the Brief). The Appellant failed and neglected to pay the said sums of money in the months of August and September causing the Respondent loss and damages which the Respondent estimates at 30% of Rs. 17,982,358.38 per annum from 15 October, 2004 till the said sum of Rs.17,982,358.38 is paid to the Respondent. On 25th October, 2005, the Defendant-Appellant filed Answer (page 52/68 of the Brief) and denied liability and stated, inter alia, that - 4 (a) that the appellant is not liable to make the payment. (b) that the Appellant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and distribution of alcohol; (c )that the Respondent represented that the Plaintiff-Respondent was the agent of Jg Containers (Malaysia) SDN BHD and that the principal of the Respondent was in a position to supply quality empty glass bottles to the Appellant; (d) that although the Respondent supplied glass bottles to the Appellant, the Respondent delayed in supplying the glass bottles; (e) that the Respondent had not paid its dues to its principal and the said principal made a claim on the Defendant-Appellant; (f) that there was a meeting on 4th September, 2004 between the Respondent, Appellant and the principal of the Respondent, namely Jg Containers (Malaysia) SDN BHD and an arrangement was reached whereby in the event the Respondent failed to pay the principal of the Respondent, the Appellant to pay directly to the said Jg Containers (Malaysia) SDN BHD. (g) that although the Respondent undertook to pay to Jg Containers (Malaysia) SDN BHD, failed to pay to Jg Containers (Malaysia) SDN BHD and consequently, a demand was made on the Appellant by Jg Containers (Malaysia) SDN BHD and the Appellant made the payment of Rs.17,982,358.38 to Jg Containers (Malaysia) SDN BHD. (h) that in the circumstances, thus and otherwise the Appellant is not liable to make any payment to the Respondent; (i) that as a result of the delay in supplying the goods by the Respondent as undertaken by it loss and damage in a sum of Rs.400,000,000/- was caused to the Appellant; (j) that as the Respondent failed to supply the goods as per the invoices marked with the Plaint and as a result of the delay in 5 supplying the goods, the Appellant could not continue with its business and had suffered loss and damage in a sum of Rs.400,000,000/-; (k) that as a result of the Plaintiff-Respondent not making payments of its dues due to Jg Containers (Malaysia) SDN BHD, Jg Containers (Malaysia) SDN BHD failed to supply and/or refused to supply empty bottles to the Defendant-Appellant and as a result of that the Defendant-Appellant could not continue with its business properly and as such, the Defendant-Appellant suffered loss in a sum of Rs.100,000,000/- as a consequence thereof. The Respondent filed replication denying the claims in reconvention in the answer of the appellant. Thereafter, when the matter was taken up for trial on 21st March, 2006 (page 308 of the Brief), five (5) admissions were recorded and the fifth admission was subject to the reservations made therein. The translation of the said admissions are as follows: 01. The Defendant is a duly incorporated company and its registered office and/or principle place of business is situated within the local limits of the Jurisdiction of this Court. 02. Jurisdiction of the Court is admitted. 03. The Defendant is engaged in the business of manufacture, sale and supply of alcohol both locally and abroad. 04. The Plaintiff issued invoices dated 3rd of August, 27th of August and 15th September, 2004 and the Defendant was in receipt of the same. 05. Mr.Romesh De Silva, President Counsel moves to record as an Admission that the letter referred to in paragraph 21 of the Answer has been written by the Defendant. Mr. Gomin Dayasiri states that, if the said fact is recorded in that manner and on that basis alone that is, in 6 considering all the other matters also averred in paragraph 21 of the Answer, he is agreeable to the same. Accordingly, in the aforesaid premises, taking into consideration the entirety of the matters stated in paragraph 21, it is admitted that the said letter was written by the Defendant. The Appellants contended that the evidence of witnesses had been recorded and concluded before Honourable K.T. Chitrasiri, then Judge of the High Court of the Western Province Holden in Colombo (Exercising its Civil Jurisdiction). Upon his elevation to the Court of Appeal, the judgment could not be delivered by him. Consequently, the parties agreed that the succeeding Learned High Court Judge, who had not heard the oral testimonies, would deliver judgment. The Appellants maintained that as a result, the succeeding Judge erroneously recorded that it was their position from the inception that there existed a tripartite agreement between the Respondent, the Appellant, and Jg Containers (Malaysia) SDN BHD. The Appellant averred that it was not in dispute that the Respondent had failed to make payments to Jg Containers (Malaysia) SDN BHD for bottles supplied prior to 1st September 2004. The uncontradicted oral testimony of the General Manager of Jg Containers (Malaysia) SDN BHD established that as of that date substantial sums remained outstanding from the Respondent. The admitted document marked “V35”, dated 1st September 2004, confirmed that an amount of USD 235,869.78 was due in respect of shipments effected between March and August 2004. The Respondent’s failure to honour the Sales Agreement with Jg Containers (Malaysia) SDN BHD disrupted the smooth functioning of the Appellant. The Appellants further contended that the Learned Trial Judge erred in law in failing to appreciate that although the Appellant was not a 7 party named in, nor a signatory to, the agreement, it was pursuant to the arrangement between the Respondent and the Appellant that the Sales Agreement marked “V8” came into existence. It was the Appellants contention that it was common ground that the Appellant had settled the monies claimed by Jg Containers (Malaysia) SDN BHD under the said letter, but the Respondent failed to remit the same to Jg Containers (Malaysia) SDN BHD. The Appellants emphasised the significance of the meeting held on 4th September 2004. The representative of Jg Containers (Malaysia) SDN BHD, as well as other witnesses of the Appellant, confirmed that such a meeting took place. Two of the three parties present, testified that an arrangement was reached whereby, in the event the Respondent failed to pay the outstanding USD 235,869.78, the Appellant would be entitled to make such payment. The Appellants submitted that although this understanding was not subsequently confirmed in writing, the Learned Trial Judge erred in law in failing to recognise that this was the natural and ordinary course of events arising out of the meeting of 4th September 2004. The Appellants further submitted that the Learned Trial Judge, having observed that the Respondent’s witness was not truthful, erred in law in nonetheless entering judgment in favour of the Respondent. They argued that if payment is now ordered to be made to the Respondent, the Appellant would effectively be required to make double payment in respect of the same liability. It was undisputed that the Appellant had already settled the sums due by the Respondent to Jg Containers (Malaysia) SDN BHD. A further payment to the Respondent would unjustly enrich the Respondent in the sum of Rs. 17,982,358.38, to the detriment of the Appellant. 8 The Appellants contended that the Learned Trial Judge, having noted that the Chairman/Managing Director of the Respondent admitted that under-invoicing was illegal, failed to appreciate that the Respondent’s conduct was fraudulent and that it sought to enforce an illegal transaction. It was their position that the Respondent had derived its rights under the contract through fraud and illegality, rendering the entire contract a nullity and unenforceable. The Learned Trial Judge, while finding that the Respondent’s witness was evasive, untruthful, and concealing facts, nevertheless grossly misdirected himself in concluding that no agreement had been reached at the meeting of 4th September 2004. The Appellants further submitted that their claim in reconvention had been substantiated by documentary evidence. All documents tendered by the Appellant were admitted, and no further proof was necessary. The Respondent failed to specify which documents, if any, remained unproven. In these circumstances, the Respondent could not properly maintain that the documents marked subject to proof had not been proved. The Appellant established by documentary evidence that, owing to the Respondent’s conduct, its foreign supplier, Jg Containers (Malaysia) SDN BHD, ceased supply, resulting in loss to the Appellant. Accordingly, the Appellants contended that their claim had been duly established, and they are entitled to the reliefs prayed for in their Answer. The Respondent in their written submissions contended that the High Court entered the judgment in favour of the Respondent. The Respondent stated that the Appellants case is mala fide in the Appellants takes up two contrary positions: (i) that the Appellant was dealing with the Respondent’s principal in Malaysia 9 (ii) that at a meeting held on 4th September 2004, the Respondent, Appellant and the Malaysians (Jg Containers (Malaysia) SDN BHD) agreed that in the event of the Respondent not paying the Malaysians (Jg Containers (Malaysia) SDN BHD) a certain sum of money the Appellant would forward the sum of Rs. 17,000,000/- claimed in this case to the Malaysians. At the outset, the Respondent contended that the Appellant’s claim is fraudulent. If, as alleged, the contract was between the Appellant and the Respondent’s principal in Malaysia, then the Appellant was under no obligation to pay any sum of money to the Respondent but only to the said principal. In such circumstances, there would have been no necessity for a meeting, nor for the Respondent’s consent, for the Appellant to remit payment to the supplier in Malaysia. The Respondent further submits that the Appellant, while claiming to have made payments to the principal in Malaysia, now asserts a claim in reconvention against the Respondent for alleged defective bottles. It is the Respondent’s position that if the agreement was with the Malaysian principal, any claim in reconvention must necessarily lie against that principal and not against the Respondent. In any event, if the Appellant’s version is to be believed, any such alleged claims should have been deducted from the sum of Rs. 17,982,358.38/- prior to its payment to the Malaysian supplier, rather than pursued against the Respondent. The Respondent maintains that their case is straightforward: the Respondent sold and delivered bottles to the Appellant, for which a sum of Rs. 17,982,358.38 remains due and owing. By letter dated 6th September 2004, marked P8, the Appellant expressly acknowledged this liability and promised to pay the said sum. The Appellant’s failure to honour that promise gives rise to the Respondent’s entitlement to 10 recover the same. The Respondent has produced all relevant invoices and delivery notes, which stand unchallenged, as their witnesses were not cross-examined on any of the documents marked on behalf of the Respondent. The Respondent further submits that the Appellant’s own claim in reconvention for defective and delayed deliveries reinforces that the contract for sale of goods was between the Respondent and the Appellant, and not between the Appellant and the Malaysian principal. The Respondent specifically denied that the Respondent ever agreed to the Appellant remitting monies directly to the Malaysian supplier. At no stage did the Appellant document such an agreement. Being a large multinational company, if such an arrangement had in fact been reached, the Appellant would undoubtedly have reduced it into writing. It is the Respondent\'s position that the letter marked P8, issued on 6th September 2004, merely two days after the purported meeting of 4th September, makes no reference whatsoever to any such arrangement. On the contrary, it expressly acknowledges liability to the Respondent. Notably, the letter was signed by Mr. Rajanathan, Supplies Manager of the Appellant, who was present at the alleged meeting. Had such an agreement been reached on 4th September, he would not have signed a letter admitting liability to the Respondent only two days later. Further, the Respondent averred that, despite the extensive correspondence exchanged between the parties, the Appellant made no mention of any agreement arising out of a meeting on 4th September 2004. The first occasion on which the Appellant sought to advance this version was only after receipt of the Respondent’s letter 11 of demand. Even when payment was allegedly made to Jg Containers (Malaysia) SDN BHD, the Appellant did not notify the Respondent, thereby casting doubt on whether such payment was in fact made. The Respondent contends that the Respondent was cross-examined on the basis that there had been under-invoicing between the Respondent and the Malaysian supplier of bottles. It is submitted that this issue is wholly irrelevant to the present case. The matter before Court concerns the bottles sold and delivered by the Respondent to the Appellant. If any under-invoicing existed between the Respondent and the Malaysian supplier, such would: a. be a matter for the Customs Authorities and/or any other governmental regulatory authority; and b. concern only the relationship between the Malaysian supplier and the Respondent. The Respondent contends it is immaterial to the transaction between the Respondent and the Appellant. The invoices exchanged between the Respondent and the Appellant reflected the actual value of the goods supplied and the genuine transactions between the parties. Significantly, there has been no allegation of illegality of any kind in respect of the transaction between the Respondent and the Appellant. With respect to the Appellant’s claim in reconvention, the Respondent submits that no evidence was led to establish either defective bottles or delayed deliveries. The only documents relied upon in support of such a claim were documents V58 to V60. Counsel for the Appellant undertook to call one Mr. Nagahawatte, the person who prepared those documents, to prove them. However, Mr. Nagahawatte was not called, nor was any other witness led to properly mark those documents or give evidence in support of the alleged claim. 12 In the circumstances, the Respondent maintains that the Appellant’s claim in reconvention is wholly unsubstantiated, while the Respondent’s claim is supported by documentary evidence, including the express acknowledgment of liability in P8, entitling the Respondent to judgment as prayed for. The Learned High Court Judge, by judgment dated 2009.10.01 held in favour of the Respondent and had identified three causes of action for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 17,982,358.38, being the value of bottles sold and delivered by the Respondent to the Appellant. In arriving at this conclusion, the Learned Judge held that the document marked P8 did not constitute a formal written agreement but rather amounted to an acknowledgment by the Appellant that the said sum was due and payable to the Respondent. The Learned Judge further held that the document marked V8 evidenced an agreement between the Respondent and the Malaysian supplier, and not a tripartite arrangement as the Appellant sought to suggest. No document was produced evidencing the existence of such a tripartite agreement, notwithstanding the Appellant’s attempt to establish one by implication. The Learned Judge observed that the contracts for the sale of goods evidenced by invoices P1, P2 and P3 were independent transactions between the Respondent and the Appellant, unaffected by the separate agreement between the Respondent and the Malaysian supplier. The Learned Judge has also emphasised the significant fact that the Malaysian supplier was not made a party to these proceedings. The letter marked V36 contains no denial of the liability acknowledged in P8, while the document marked V52 amounts to no more than a request by the Malaysian supplier that payment be made to the Appellant. That request, however, does not create any legal obligation 13 binding upon the Respondent, nor does it reflect any agreement by the Respondent to alter the existing contractual relationship with the Appellant. The Learned High Court Judge observed that the absence of a written tripartite agreement is of material significance. The Court also observed that the Appellant, in its own written submissions before the High Court, had conceded that there existed an agreement distinct from V8, thereby undermining its own contention that liability to the Respondent was displaced by a tripartite arrangement. I will now turn to the applicable principles of law. According to Sri Lankan law, several elements must be satisfied in order to create a valid and enforceable agreement between two or more parties. As enumerated by C. G. Weeramantry in The Law of Contracts, Volume I at page 84, the prerequisites of a contract are: (a) an agreement between the parties; (b) the actual or presumed intention of the parties to create a legal obligation; (c) due observance of prescribed forms or modes of agreement; (d) legality and possibility of the object of the agreement; and (e) capacity of the parties to contract. As noted in Chitty on Contracts Volume 1 General Principles (31st ed., Sweet & Maxwell, para. 2-003), the essentials of a valid contract include agreement, consideration (or causa), intention to create legal relations, capacity, and, where applicable, proper form. Nonetheless, even when these requisites are satisfied, the contract may nonetheless be void or voidable if vitiated by misrepresentation, mistake, duress, undue influence, or illegality. The Roman-Dutch legal tradition which underpins Sri Lankan contract law similarly insists that consent must 14 be free from error, force or fraud (Voet Commentarius ad Pandectas 2.14.7), and our courts have consistently held that absence of genuine consent undermines enforceability. Therefore, based on the established principles governing the law of Contract, it is well established that the mere presence of offer and acceptance does not, of itself, suffice to constitute a valid and enforceable contract. The law further requires additional elements such as consideration or causa, an intention to create legal relations, compliance with any prescribed form, and the legal capacity of the parties. Yet, even the concurrence of all these essentials does not invariably guarantee the validity of the agreement. Where the transaction is tainted by vitiating factors such as duress, the purported contract cannot, in law, be regarded as binding. In Wimala Perera v. Kalyani Siriyalatha [2011] 1 SLR 182, Justice Shiranee Tilakawardane affirmed that: “It is an elementary rule that every contract requires an offer and acceptance. Therefore an offer or promise which is not accepted, is not actionable [vide Justice Weerasooriya in Muthukuda v. Sumanawathie 4 NLR 321 at 208, 209]. It has been stated that it is an elementary proposition of law that a contract is concluded when in the mind of each contracting party there is a consensus ad idem, Noorbhai v. Karuppan Chetty (1925) 27 NLR 325 (per Lord Wrenbury). Cumulatively therefore an intention to create a legal relationship and a consensus ad idem or meeting of the minds needs to be in existence in order to establish a contract between the parties.” Soertsz J. in Edward Silva v. De Silva [1945] 46 NLR 510 also emphasised that, for a promise to be enforceable, 15 “the agreement must be a deliberate, serious act, not one that is irrational or motiveless.” These principles resonate with established common law doctrines. In Balfour v. Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571, Atkin LJ underscored that not all agreements are legally binding unless there is an intention to create legal relations, while in Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] 1 QB 256, the English Court of Appeal affirmed that where there is a clear offer, acceptance, and consideration, coupled with an intention to be bound, the promise becomes enforceable. These comparative authorities highlight that the bedrock of contractual liability lies in consensus ad idem, intention, and enforceability in law. In the case of People’s Bank v Ceylinco Insurance Company Limited [SC CHC Appeal 06/2003 decided on 11.02.2016] it was held that, “I am of the view that any Court is entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances in order to identify the scope and object of the guarantee bonds just as much as it would be entitled to look at the factual matrix as an aid to the interpretation of any other commercial agreement. The court should always seek to construe the document in such a way as to reflect what may fairly be inferred to have been the objective, intention and understanding of the parties.” The central issue in this matter is whether the Appellant is liable to pay the Respondent the sum of Rs. 17,982,358.38 for bottles sold and delivered. The Respondent relies upon, inter alia, the admitted letter dated 6th September 2004 (marked P8), wherein the Appellant expressly acknowledged the said liability and undertook to make payment. 16 The Appellant stance is that the true arrangement was tripartite, involving the Malaysian supplier, Jg Containers (Malaysia) SDN BHD, with the Respondent acting merely as an intermediary. The alleged meeting of 4th September 2004 is unsupported by any contemporaneous documentation, while P8, signed two days later by the Appellant’s own officer who attended that meeting, is a clear written acknowledgment of liability to the Respondent. Thus, even if discussions took place with a view to involving the Malaysian supplier, they did not crystallise into a legally binding arrangement; instead, the operative agreement remained the one evidenced in P8. The existence of a valid contract requires a meeting of the minds supported by an intention to be legally bound. What the Appellant has sought to portray is, at best, an informally agreed transaction without the attributes of a legally enforceable agreement The Learned High Court Judge has observed that the document marked P8 did not constitute a formal written agreement but nevertheless amounted to an express acknowledgment by the Appellant of its liability to the Respondent. I find no reason to depart from this finding. The Learned High Court Judge further held that the Sales Agreement marked V8 evidenced an agreement solely between the Respondent and its Principal, and not a tripartite arrangement as suggested by the Appellant. I am in agreement with this conclusion. No contemporaneous document has been produced by the Appellant to substantiate the existence of a tripartite arrangement, and it is significant that the Malaysian supplier, who would have been a necessary party to such an arrangement, was not included in these proceedings. As the High Court Judge rightly observed, had such a tripartite agreement existed, it would inevitably have been reflected in either V36 or V52; however, neither document contains any reference to such an arrangement. P8 here is not the product of casual 17 discussion or informal understanding but a deliberate and unequivocal commitment. The Appellant further alleged that the Respondent engaged in under-invoicing with its Malaysian supplier. With regard to the allegation of under-invoicing, the High Court Judge rightly held that such matters are wholly irrelevant to the civil obligations between the present parties. The contract in question is confined to the relationship between the Appellant and the Respondent, and any allegation of under-invoicing between the Respondent and its Malaysian supplier does not impinge upon the enforceability of that contract. I am inclined to affirm this view, which is consistent with the principle that collateral arrangements or irregularities with third parties do not vitiate an otherwise binding agreement. Even where such collateral conduct is suggested, it does not nullify a contract that is otherwise valid and enforceable. The alleged under-invoicing does not affect the enforceability of the agreement between the Respondent and the Appellant as the contract in question is limited to the agreement between these two parties, and any alleged under-invoicing as between the Respondent and its supplier does not affect the enforceability of the obligations herein. Upon perusal of the Judgment of the Learned High Court Judge and his reasoning, I see no reason to interfere with his findings because in my view the judgment reflects a careful and thorough analysis of the facts, documents, and evidence, including the testimonies of the witnesses. I see no way in which the Appellant has been prejudiced by the change of the judge as the Appellants contended that the evidence of witnesses had been recorded and concluded before Honourable K.T. Chitrasiri, then Judge of the High Court Colombo. Upon his elevation to the Court of Appeal, the judgment could not be delivered by him. 18 With consent of the parties, the succeeding Learned High Court Judge, who had not heard the oral testimony, delivered judgment. If the Appellants had any objection to this arrangement, such objection ought to have been raised at that stage of the proceedings. Their failure to do so renders the present objection untenable. The alleged misstatement regarding the Appellants’ position on the existence of a tripartite agreement does not, in my view, amount to any prejudice warranting appellate interference. It is also pertinent to note that the documents relied on by the Appellant from V1 to V48 have been tendered to this court by the Respondent as the Appellants had taken no steps for over 3 years to furnish the following documents and prosecute the appeal filed by them in the first place. The claim that payment to the Respondent would amount to a “double payment” is equally unsustainable. Once more, the Appellant has failed to produce any evidence that its alleged payment to Jg Containers (Malaysia) SDN BHD discharged the sum acknowledged in P8. Without proof of such discharge, this assertion remains at the level of an informally agreed transaction, incapable of displacing the legally binding obligation expressly admitted by the Appellant in writing. With respect to the claim in reconvention, the Appellant’s allegations of defective or delayed delivery are similarly unsupported. The documents marked V58 to V60 were not properly proved, nor was any evidence of actual loss adduced. The accepted position in law is that enforceability requires a deliberate and serious foundation. The Appellant’s claim in reconvention, lacking both form and proof, amounts only to an informal complaint rather than a legally cognisable claim. 19 On the totality of the evidence and the applicable principles, this Court is satisfied that the Respondent has established a valid and enforceable contract for the sale and delivery of bottles. The elements of offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations are present and free from vitiating factors. The Appellant has failed to substantiate the existence of any tripartite arrangement or the discharge of its liability by payment to the Malaysian supplier, and its claim in reconvention cannot succeed. Having examined the facts of the case, and the material placed before this court, I dismiss the appeal of the Appellant and uphold the judgment of the High Court of the Western Province holden in Colombo (Exercising its Civil Jurisdiction). Appeal dismissed.		Download
2025-10-03	SC/CHC APPEAL/17/2014	Anthony Saliya Godwin Ranasinghe, “Rose Villa”, No. 79/7, Hettiyawatte, Elpitiwala, Ragama. 2nd Defendant – Appellant Vs. Warnasirige Sinharage Paul Jayantha De Silva, No. 155/24, Dolalanda Gardens, Thalawathugoda. 1st Defendant – Respondent Commercial Bank of Ceylon PLC., No. 21, Sir Razik Fareed Mawatha, Colombo 01. And having a Branch Office and/or a Place of Business called and known as the “Thalawathugoda Branch” at No. 07, Suramya Building, Kottawa Road, Thalawathugoda. Plaintiff – Respondent View More	Hon. Janak De Silva J			Download
2025-10-02	SC/FR/2/2015	Naotunna Badalge Sagarika Jayamali, No. 14/5, Temple Road, Galwadugoda, Galle. Petitioner V. 1. Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Four Gravets, Galle. 2. Deepal Geeganage, Development Officer, Divisional Secretariat, Four Gravets, Galle. 3. Galle Municipal Council, Town Hall, Colombo Road, Kaluwella, Galle. 4. Municipal Commissioner, Galle Municipal Council, Town Hall, Colombo Road, Kaluwella, Galle. 5. Municipal Engineer, Galle Municipal Council, Town Hall, Colombo Road, Kaluwella, Galle. 6. Urban Development Authority, 6th and 7th Floors, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 7. Director General, National Building Research Organization, No. 99/1, Jawatta Road, Colombo 05. 8. Officer in Charge, Police Station, Galle. 9. K.S. Geethanjalee, No 49/1, First Lane, Kandewaththa, Galle. 10. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. K. Priyantha Fernando J	The Petitioner is the owner of the property described in the schedule to the deed of transfer No. 5384 dated 21/01/2013 which was attested by Notary Public D.W. Witharana. This land is depicted as Lot 12 in the preliminary plan prepared by the Surveyor General on 04/08/1978 bearing No. 1384 (marked P - 8). Lot 09 of the said plan is owned by the 3rd Respondent and was reserved as a common well. Further, the land in the Eastern boundary of the Petitioner’s land belongs to the 9th Respondent. The 3rd Respondent, following the allocation of the funds by the Ministry of Economic Development and consultations with relevant stakeholders has decided to construct a community hall in the aforementioned Lot 09 which was previously reserved for a well. It is her position that the fundamental rights guaranteed to her by Article 12 (1) of the Constitution are in violation owing to the construction of the aforementioned community hall by the 3rd Respondent in Lot 09 of preliminary plan bearing No. 1384. This Court granted leave to proceed under Article 12 (1) of the Constitution against the 1st -9th Respondents. Petitioner’s Version 2. The Petitioner’s land depicted as Lot 12 in the preliminary plan prepared by the Surveyor General on 04/08/1978 bearing No. 1384, is situated within the Municipal Council limits of Galle and she states that as per S. 3(1) of the Urban Development Authority Law No. 41 of 1978, the Galle Municipal Council is a declared urban development area. 3. According to the Petitioner, a 4.0 perch land (Lot 9) in the aforementioned plan bearing No. 1384 – the northern boundary of the Petitioner’s land is a reservation for a common well. However, with the lapse of time, the well 4 was abandoned and following a letter from the medical officer of the Municipal Council dated 12/01/1999, steps have been taken to fill the said well. 4. According to the Petitioner, the 9th Respondent has constructed a house at a higher elevation in the eastern boundary of the Petitioner’s land allegedly with the approval of the municipal council. 5. Aa result of this construction, water from the premises now flows down the vertical slope, leading to soil erosion, rocks being washed away, and large boulders becoming loose. This has caused the slope to become unstable and, according to the Petitioner, has created serious danger to the lives of her family members and to her property. 6. The Petitioner states that by letter dated 03/07/2009, her mother requested the 6th Respondent to look into the aforementioned issue. The 6th Respondent has then by letter dated 18/08/2009 informed the 4th Respondent the following: • That the rear of the Petitioner’s house is a slope consisting of boulders • The boundary stones have been destroyed up to the fence and are a danger. • There is a threat of landslide owing to the flowing of the accumulated rain water from the 9th Respondent’s premises. 7. According to the Petitioner, requests have been made to the 4th, 5th, and 7th Respondents to create a solid framework to solve the above issue owing to the danger caused to the Petitioner’s family. 8. In February 2012, the 5th Respondent has informed the Petitioner that the planning committee had decided to summon the involved parties. Later that month, the committee’s decisions were communicated to the Petitioner’s mother and the 9th Respondent, along with a report from the 5 National Building Research Organization highlighting geological instability around the Petitioner’s house. Based on this, the 9th Respondent was instructed to prevent rainwater from flowing down to the lower plateau and to obtain proper approval for construction, which had been carried out contrary to the approved plan. She states that this issue remains unsolved. 9. She further states that on 24/09/2014, she had noticed the commencement of some construction work in the plot of land (Lot. 09) that was previously reserved for a well. She states that upon inquiring from the 2nd Respondent she has learned that a two-story community hall is being constructed in Lot 9 by the 3rd Respondent. She states that she objected to this construction because the excavation in process was contrary to a report submitted by the National Building Research Organization. She states that she made a complaint to the Galle Police Station to inquire into this matter on 25/09/2014. She has further written letters dated 01/10/2014 to the 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th Respondents and to the Mayor of the 3rd Respondent Municipal Council denoting the danger to her life associated with the above construction and to therefore investigate into the matter. 10. She states that amidst the complaints made to the various authorities, construction was continuing and that when her husband inquired into the same on 16/10/2014, the 1st Respondent has allegedly threatened her husband. 11. Afterwards, she states that in response to her letter dated 01/10/2014, via a letter dated 18/10/2014 the 6th Respondent has informed that the planning committee of the 3rd Respondent (the Municipal Council) has granted approval for the above mentioned construction and that the National Building Research Organization has made conditional recommendations in respect of the land and that plan has been approved subject to the same. The letter further stated that the aforesaid 6 construction work is carried out by the 3rd Respondent and that the building in question is a public building. 12. She submits that construction work continued on and that she and her husband made several complaints to the Galle Police Station against the above mentioned construction. Statements of the Petitioner and her husband have been recorded by the Police 17/11/2014. 13. The Petitioner further states that on 29/12/2014 the construction crew dug a latrine which is about 4 feet wide and 4- 5 feet deep. She states that this exacerbates the threat of landslide and thereby endangers her life and property. 14. Therefore, she states that the construction of the community hall is contrary to the recommendations of the National Building Research Organization (marked P-16) and that it is contrary to Regulation 17 of the Urban Development Authority Planning and Building Regulations, 1986 as amended from time to time. She alleges that there has been a failure to properly investigate into the complaints made by the Petitioner in this regard. Further, she states that the extent of land in Lot 9 is not sufficient to meet all the needs of a community hall and that there is no necessity for such a building. For these reasons, she alleges that the fundamental rights guaranteed to her under Article 12 (1) of the Constitution have been violated. The Respondent’s Version 15. In response, the 1st Respondent in his affidavit states that all necessary approvals from the relevant authorities have been obtained for the construction of the community hall under the purview of the Divisional Secretariat, Four Gravets, Galle as the Planning Committee of the 3rd Respondent at a meeting held on 02.09.2014 approved the construction. 7 He further states that the decision to build a community hall was in response to the needs and well-being of the community. 16. He further states that the report by the National Building Research Organization dated 21.05.2015 numbered NBRO/LRRMD/CO/15/31/ 17482 does not indicate that the construction of the community hall has caused or increased the threat of a rockslide/ landslide or any environmental harm to the Petitioner’s property. 17. The 4th and 5th Respondents in their affidavits take up a preliminary objection that the application is time barred. Further, they state that the vertical slope which the Petitioner claims to be a threat to her property is located in the eastern boundary of her land and that the community hall is located in the western boundary. They submit that the community hall and the Petitioner’s house are in the same elevation. 18. They further submit that the Petitioner has hidden material facts from the Court as they state that she and her mother in 2008 blasted several rocks situated in the said slope without any prior approval. It is submitted that by letter dated 09.09.2014 the 5th Respondent directed the Petitioner to stop the unauthorized blasting owing to the environmental threat it posed. 19. In relation to the dispute between the Petitioner and the 9th Respondent who occupies the land in the eastern boundary, the 4th and 5th Respondents state that the 3rd Respondent summoned both parties before the planning committee and directed the 9th Respondent to comply with the directions stated in the report by the National Building Research Organization (marked P-15). 20. They further state that the recommendations made by the National Building Research Bureau (marked P-16) only relates to the eastern boundary of the Petitioner’s land and therefore has no relevance to the 8 boundary between Petitioner’s land and Lot 9 of the preliminary plan where the community hall is being constructed. In response to the contention vis-à-vis Regulation 17 of Urban Development Authority Planning and Building Regulations, 1986 (as amended), they submit that by way of Regulation 17 (3) the 6th Respondent and or the 3rd Respondent are empowered relax the requirements mandated by Regulation 17 provided all the other requirements are met. 21. They state that when the 1st Respondent sought for permission to construct a community hall, the 3rd Respondent sought recommendations from the National Building Research Organization where they recommended the aforesaid construction subject to certain conditions. They also submit that these conditions were duly communicated to the 1st Respondent in granting permission for the aforementioned construction. Therefore, they maintain that the construction of the community hall does not affect the Petitioner’s property. Alleged Violation of Fundamental Rights • The Preliminary Objection 22. I will first address the preliminary objection that was raised by the 4th and 5th Respondents that present application is out of time. In the circumstances of this matter, I am of the opinion that owing to the continuous nature of the constructions and the complaints made to the Human Rights Commission (marked P-35), the issue may be understood as an alleged continuing violation, whereby the application would not be deemed as filed out of time. I will therefore move on the address the merits of the matter. 9 • Alleged Violation of Article 12 (1) 23. Article 12(1) of the Constitution provides: “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law.” 24. Looking at the jurisprudential development vis-à-vis Article 12 (1) of the Constitution in Palihawadana v. Attorney General & Others (1978- 79-80) 1 Sri LR 65 at page 68 Shravananda J. comprehensively interprets Article 12 (1) as follows: “…Article 12 of the Constitution lays down the general rule of equality that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law and that no citizen shall be discriminated against on grounds of race, religion, language, caste, sex, political opinion, place of birth or any of such grounds.” 25. In the case at hand, the Petitioner states that the construction of the aforementioned Community Hall is in conflict due to two reasons primarily. Firstly, that it is against Regulation 17 of the Urban Development Authority Planning and Building Regulations, 1986 as amended and secondly, that it is not in compliance with the recommendations of the National Building Research Organization. 26. With regards to the first position, Regulation 17 of the Urban Development Authority Planning and Building Regulations, 1986 (as amended) states the following: “(1) the minimum extent and the minimum width of lots for different classes buildings, not being high-rise buildings, should be in conformity with the specification set out in Form “C” of Schedule (III) unless the authority has stipulated a higher or lower minimum 10 extent and/or higher or lower width of lots in a development plan approved for the area or proposed for the area.” 27. In this regard, the Petitioner states that the construction of the community hall is in contradiction of these requirements. However, the 4th and 5th Respondents in their affidavits submit that the 3rd and or 6th Respondents are empowered to relax the aforementioned requirements under Regulation 17 (3) of the Urban Development Authority Planning and Building Regulations, 1986 (as amended). It states the following: “(3) The authority may relax requirements of the specified site, extent and width in the case of an existing lot provided that a building stratifying the other regulations can built on the site.” 28. The 4th and 5th Respondents further submit that in exercising the aforementioned discretion, the following were considered by the 3rd Respondent. Therefore, they submit that the date on which the lot was subdivided was considered by the 3rd Respondent as most of the regulations contained in the Urban Development Authority Planning and Building Regulations, 1986 (as amended) do not relate to lands subdivided prior to the implementation of it. In this regard, as the plan bearing No 1348 was prepared in 1977 and the aforementioned Regulations came into power in 1986, it is their position that Lot 9 of plan bearing No 1348 should be considered an existed land. For these reasons they claim a lenient interpretation of Regulation 17 of the Urban Development Authority Planning and Building Regulations, 1986 (as amended) should be given in implementing Regulation 17 in the case at hand. 29. Upon considering the submissions of all parties, I am of the opinion that the 3rd Respondent is entitled to exercise the discretion granted by way of Regulation 17 (3) of the Urban Development Authority Planning 11 and Building Regulations, 1986 (as amended) and therefore that the construction is not outlawed. 30. Regarding the second position furthered by the Petitioner, that it is not in compliance with the recommendations of the National Building Research Organization to build the community hall, the Petitioner forwards documents marked P – 11 and P – 16. The 4th and 5th Respondents state that these documents relate to the Eastern boundary and that they are therefore irrelevant to the construction of the community hall. 31. Upon perusal of the documents marked P – 11 and P -16, I am in agreement with the position taken by the 4th and 5th Respondents, the recommendations relate to the boundary between the Petitioner’s property and that of the 9th Respondent. 32. I further observe that the 3rd Respondent has sought recommendations from the National Building Research Organization where they recommended the construction of the community hall subject to certain conditions. They also submit that these conditions were duly communicated to the 1st Respondent in granting permission for the aforementioned construction. The report provided by the National Building Research Organization marked “4-R-2” notes that there is no such danger as well. Whereby I am of the opinion that the second position furthered by the Petitioner too cannot be accepted. 33. For these reasons I am unable to find any material to establish that the Petitioner was subject to arbitrary, discriminatory or unequal treatment under the law as there is no material to conclude such treatment. 12 • The dispute between the Petitioner and the 9th Respondent 34. While the issue at hand is separate to the dispute between the Petitioner and the 9th Respondent, the Attorney-at-Law for the 9th Respondent, Dr. Sunil Cooray submitted that the 9th Respondent is willing to implement the recommendations (i), (ii), and (iii) mentioned in the report by the National Building Research Organization dated 21.05.2015 numbered NBRO/LRRMD/CO/15/31/ 17482. 35. In the above premise, I declare that the fundamental rights that have been guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 12 (1) of the Constitution has not been violated. Application is Dismissed.		Download
2025-09-26	SC/APPEAL/187/2014	Fonterra Brands Lanka (Private) Limited (formerly known as New Zealand Milk Lanka Ltd), of No. 100, Delgoda Road, Biyagama. PETITIONER-APPELLANT -Vs-1. The Commissioner General, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 2. Mr. S.H.P.C.S. Perera, Assessor, Unit 6B, Department of Inland Revenu Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 3. Ms. R.K.C. Chitralatha, Senior Assessor, Unit 6B, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 4. Mr. J. M. Jayawardena, Commissioner- Appeals, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J			Download
2025-09-26	SC/APPEAL/136/2010	Indrani Swarnalatha Marie Peiris, No. 19, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 07. Deceased 1A. Darup Hastin Peiris, No. 19, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 07. 2. Jaithra Chandrasing Peiris, No. 19, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 07. 3. Darup Hastin Peiris, No. 19, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 07. 4. Yahala Clothing Limited, Yahala House, P.O. Box No. 1122, Stales House, Staples Street, Colombo 02. Defendants-Respondents- Petitioners- Petitioners Vs. Central Finance Company Limited, No. 84, Raja Veediya, Kandy. Plaintiff-Appellant- Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. A.L. Shiran Gooneratne J	[1] By Plaint dated 20/02/2002, the Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “Plaintiff-Respondent”) instituted Action No. 19530/L in the District Court of Colombo (hereinafter referred to as the “first action”) against the Defendants-Respondents-Appellants (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “Defendants-Appellants”), seeking, inter alia, a declaration of title to the land in dispute, the ejectment of the Defendants-Appellants from the said land, and the recovery of damages. [2] The first action, bearing No. 19530/L, was dismissed by the District Court on 23/05/2003 for non-compliance with an imperative provision of the Civil Page 6 of 18 Procedure Code. Thereafter, the Plaintiff-Respondent filed an Appeal, bearing No. 412/2003(F), in the Court of Appeal, seeking to have the said dismissal set aside. [3] While Appeal No. 412/2003(F) was pending before the Court of Appeal, the Plaintiff-Respondent instituted another action, bearing No. 19999/L (hereinafter referred to as the “second action”), in the District Court of Colombo against the same Defendants, based on the same cause of action relating to the same land, notwithstanding the pendency of the Appeal in Action No. 412/2003(F) before the Court of Appeal. [4] In their Answer, the Defendants raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the second action, contending, inter alia, that the pendency of the Appeal in the first action rendered the second action misconceived in law. The Defendant-Appellants accordingly sought a ruling on the maintainability of the Action No. 19999/L. Upon consideration of Issue No. 19, raised on the preliminary objection, the learned District Judge upheld the objection and dismissed the second action before the conclusion of the Defendant’s case. [5] In the Order dated 26/03/2007, the learned District Judge observed that the Plaintiff-Respondent, by motion dated 19/10/2006, had brought to the attention of Court that an application had been filed in the Court of Appeal seeking leave to withdraw Appeal No. 412/2003(F), being the Appeal in Action No. 19530/L. However, the Court observed that the Plaintiff-Respondent had failed to establish that the said application for withdrawal had been allowed by the Court of Appeal or that the Appeal had been withdrawn. [6] Accordingly, the District Court on 26/03/2007 held that the Plaintiff-Respondent was not entitled to institute and maintain the second action, as the Appeal against the dismissal of the first action remained pending before the Court of Appeal as of the relevant date. Page 7 of 18 [7] Being aggrieved by the said Order dated 26/03/2007, the Plaintiff-Respondent by Petition of Appeal bearing No. WP HCCA/COL/138/2007(F) dated 18/05/2007 appealed to the Civil Appeal High Court holden in Colombo (“the Appellate Court”). [8] Before the Appellate Court, the Plaintiff-Respondent contended that the dismissal order amounted to a final judgment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Civil Procedure Code, since it determined a pure question of law, namely res judicata, which, once upheld, brought the proceedings to an end. It was argued that because the Order disposed of the entire action, it was final in nature and could therefore be appealed as of right. [9] The Plaintiff-Respondent sought to distinguish Ranjit vs. Kusumawathie1 from Siriwardena vs. Air Ceylon Ltd2, on the basis that in the former, the Order arose from an application made in the course of proceedings, whereas in the present case, the dismissal was based on a preliminary issue framed at the outset. Reliance was placed on Siriwardena vs. Air Ceylon Ltd3, where an Order was held to be final if it disposed of the entire matter in litigation and left nothing further for adjudication. [10] The Defendant-Appellants, however, argued that the Order was interlocutory and therefore required Leave to Appeal. They relied on Ranjit vs. Kusumawathie4 and the English decision of Salaman vs. Warner5, which apply the “application approach,” whereby an Order is interlocutory if, depending on how the application is decided, the case could either proceed to trial or be brought to an end. It was submitted that had the preliminary objection been decided in favour of the Plaintiff, the action would have 1 [1998] 1 SLR 73 2 [1984] 2 SLR 293 3 ibid 4 n (1) 5 [1891] 1 QB 734 Page 8 of 18 continued, thereby demonstrating that the Order was interlocutory. They further contended that the application approach, affirmed by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court in 2010, is now the prevailing law, superseding the Order approach adopted in Siriwardena vs. Air Ceylon Ltd6. [11] Based on the afore stated position, the Defendants-Appellants raised a preliminary objection, stating that the Order dated 26/03/2007 is not a final Judgement but an Order made in the course of the action and therefore, the application before the Appellate Court should have been that of seeking Leave to Appeal in terms of Section 754(2) instead of a direct Appeal in terms of Section 754(1) of the Civil Procedure Code. [12] The question for determination is whether the Order made by the learned District Judge of Colombo on 26 March 2007, dismissing the Plaintiff’s second action on the ground of res judicata, constitutes a “final order” appealable as of right under Sections 147 and 207 of the Civil Procedure Code, or whether it is an “interlocutory order” requiring Leave to Appeal. [13] The Appellate Court directed both parties to file written submissions on this question. The Appellate Court, by Order dated 09/03/2009, overruled the said preliminary objection raised by the Defendants-Appellants and fixed the matter for argument. [14] By Petition dated 17/04/2009, the Defendants-Appellants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court to set aside the Order dated 09/03/2009 of the Appellate Court. [15] By Order dated 15/10/2010, Court granted Leave to Appeal on the following questions of law; 6 n (2) Page 9 of 18 In any event was the High Court of Civil Appeal Colombo in error in ignoring the fact that Ranjith vs. Kusumawathi being a later decision which considered the contrary decision given in the earlier case of Siriwardana vs. Air Ceylon Limited, which has been consistently followed by the Court of Appeal in a number of subsequent decisions, ought to have been followed by the High Court of Civil Appeal Colombo in the circumstances of this case? [16] The Court also permitted the Plaintiff-Respondent to raise the following question of law. Whether the Divisional Bench decision of S.C. Appeal Nos. 101A/2009 and 101B/2009 (S.C. HCCALA No. 174/2008 – S.C. Minutes of 10/06/2010 would have an application in the context of an action that has been dismissed upon a plea based on res judicata. Respective positions taken by Counsel at the time of filing written submissions in this Court [17] Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Respondent submitted that, by the Order of the District Court upholding the plea of res judicata raised by the Defendants-Appellants, the rights of the parties were finally determined, thereby resulting in the dismissal of the action. Therefore, the Impugned Order of the learned District Judge constitutes a final Judgment within the meaning of Section 754(1), read with Section 754(5), of the Civil Procedure Code, against which the Plaintiff-Appellant could have preferred only a direct appeal. [18] The Defendants-Appellants, on the other hand, argued that had the District Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff-Respondent on the said objection, the trial would not have been finally disposed of and the matter would have proceeded to trial. Accordingly, they contended that the Impugned Order does not amount to a final order having the effect of a Judgment within the meaning of Sections Page 10 of 18 754(1) and 754(5) of the Civil Procedure Code, but is merely an interlocutory order. [19] Therefore, the question that arises for determination is whether the Order given by the District Court is an interlocutory order where the Plaintiff-Respondent should have filed a Leave to Appeal application under Section 754(2) instead of filing an appeal under Section 754(1) of the Civil Procedure Code. [20] Sections 754(1), 754(2) and 754(5) of the Civil Procedure Code, reads thus; (1) Any person who shall be dissatisfied with any judgment pronounced, by any original court in any civil action, proceeding or matter to which he is a party may prefer an appeal to the Court of Appeal against such judgment for any error in fact or in law. (2) Any person who shall be dissatisfied with any order made by any original court in the course of any civil action, proceeding, or matter to which he is or seeks to be a party, may prefer an appeal to the Court of Appeal against such order for the correction of any error in fact or in law, with the leave of the Court of Appeal first had and obtained. (3) … (4) … (5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Ordinance, for the purposes of this Chapter - \"judgment\" means any judgment or order having the effect of a final judgment made by any civil court; and \"order\" means the final expression of any decision in any civil action, proceeding or matter which is not a judgment. Page 11 of 18 [21] At the time of submitting written arguments, both parties cited Siriwardana vs. Air Ceylon Limited7 and Ranjith vs. Kusumawathi8, in support of their respective cases, which extensively discussed a series of Judgments to determine the nature of the application to be filed before the Court. [22] The distinction between a final and an interlocutory order has received considerable judicial attention in Sri Lanka. In Siriwardena vs. Air Ceylon Limited9, following Bozson vs. Altrincham Urban District Council10, this Court held that an Order is final if it leaves nothing further to be adjudicated between the parties. In Ranjith vs. Kusumawathi11, the Court adopted the “application approach” enunciated in Salaman vs. Warner12, which directs attention to the nature of the application rather than solely to the effect of the Order. According to this approach, if the determination of the application in one way permits the case to proceed, while its determination in the other way brings the proceedings to an end, the Order is interlocutory. This principle was expressly affirmed by a five-judge bench in 2010. [23] In Siriwardana vs. Air Ceylon Limited13 Sharwananda J. (as he then was), having discussed several other decisions, applied a four-point test to determine whether an Order had the effect of a final Judgment, and to qualify to be a Judgment under Section 754(5) of the Civil Procedure Code, held; “it must be an order finally disposing of the rights of the parties. 7 n (2) 8 n (1) 9 n (2) 10 [1903] 1 KB 547 11 n (1) 12 n (5) 13 n (2) Page 12 of 18 The order cannot be treated to be a final order if the suit or action is still left alive suit or action for the purpose of determining the rights and liabilities of the parties in the ordinary way The finality of the order must be determined in relation to the suit The mere fact that a cardinal point in the suit has been decided or even a vital and important issue determined in the case, is not enough to make an order, a final one.” [24] In Ranjith vs. Kusumawathie14 Deeraratne J., having examined a line of Judgments from the English Courts, observed that; “…there have been two virtually alternating tests adopted by different judges from time to time in the UK to determine what final orders and interlocutory orders were. The order approach was adopted in Shubrook v. Tufnell (1882) 9 QBD 621, where Jessel, MR, and Lindely, LJ. held that an order is final if it finally determines the matter in litigation. Thus, the issue of final and interlocutory depended on the order made. The application approach was adopted in Salaman v. Warnar and others (1891) 1 QB 734, in which the Court of Appeal, consisting of Lord Esher, MR, Fry and Lopes, LJJ. held that the final order is one made on such application or proceeding that, for whichever side the order was given, it will, if it stands, finally determine the matter in litigation. Thus, the issue of final or interlocutory depended on the nature of the application or proceedings giving rise to the order and not the order itself.” [25] Since there was a conflict between the decisions in Siriwardana vs. Air Ceylon Limited15 and Ranjith vs. Kusumawathi16, in Rajendra Chettiar vs. 14 n (1) 15 n (2) 16 n (1) Page 13 of 18 Narayanan Chettiar17, His Lordship the Chief Justice nominated a bench of five Judges to reconsider the Judgments in these two cases. In Rajendra Chettiar vs. Narayanan Chettiar18, the Court considered Appeal Nos. 101A/2009 and 101B/2009 (SC HCCA LA 174/2008), in which the learned Additional District Judge had rejected the Plaints and dismissed the action in limine, in terms of Section 46(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. In determining the matter, the Court cited with approval the decision in Ranjith vs. Kusumawathi19, wherein Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, J. (as she then was) observed: “The order appealed from is an order made against the appellant at the first hurdle. Can one say that the order made on the application of the 4th defendant is one such that whichever way the order was given, it would have finally determined the litigation? Far from that, even if the order was given in favor of the appellant, he has to face the second hurdle, namely the trial to vindicate his claim. Her Ladyship further observed: “Considering the decision given by Deeraratne J., in Ranjith vs. Kusumawathi (supra) it is abundantly clear that the order dated 14.05.2008 is not a final order having the effect of a judgment within the meaning of sub-sections 754(1) and 754(5) of the Civil Procedure Code, but is only an interlocutory order”. [26] In 2015, the Supreme Court, having considered SC Appeal No. 41/2015 and SC/CHC Appeal No. 37/2008, which came up for determination before a bench 17 [2011] 2 SLR 70 18 ibid 19 n (1) Page 14 of 18 of seven Judges of this Court, granted Special Leave to Appeal on the following questions of law: Was the judgment in Rajendra Chettiar v. Narayanan Chettiar, relied on by the Court of Appeal, wrongly decided? Whether the decision enunciated in Rajendra Chettiar v. Narayanan Chettiar, deciding that the application approach test should be preferred over the order approach test in deciding whether an order is a final or interlocutory order in civil proceedings be revisited in this appeal. [27] SC Appeal No. 41/2015 was filed following a dismissal for non-compliance with an imperative provision of the Civil Procedure Code, and SC/CHC Appeal No. 37/2008 arose from a dismissal on the ground of prescription. In both cases, the lower courts upheld preliminary objections raised by the respective parties and dismissed the actions. As the questions of law raised in both cases were identical, they were taken up together, and the Supreme Court delivered a single Judgment. In its Judgment dated 04/08/2017, the Supreme Court extensively discussed the decisions in Siriwardana vs. Air Ceylon Limited20, Ranjith vs. Kusumawathi21 and Rajendra Chettiar vs. Narayanan Chettiar22. Priyasad Dep, PC, CJ, observed: “In two cases before us orders are made in respect of points of law raised by the parties. If the preliminary objections were rejected cases would have proceeded to trial. In both cases at the time of dismissal, the rights of the parties were not determined. 20 n (2) 21 n (1) 22 n (17) Page 15 of 18 In Order to decide whether an Order is a final Judgment or not, it is my view that the proper approach is the approach adopted by Lord Esher in Salman vs. Warnar which was cited with approval by Lord Denning in Salter Rex vs. Gosh. It stated: if their decision whichever way it is given, will if it stands finally dispose of the matter in dispute, I think that for the purpose of these rules it is final. On the other hand, if their decision, if given in one way, finally dispose of the matter in dispute, but if given the other, will allow the action to go on, then I think it is not final, but interlocutory” [28] In both instances, upon consideration of the relevant judicial precedent, this Court held that the Orders made by the respective Courts were interlocutory in nature. Accordingly, the proper course available to the aggrieved parties was to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by way of a Leave to Appeal application under Section 754(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, and not by way of an Appeal under Section 754(1). Both Appeals were therefore dismissed. [29] In the present case, at the commencement of the trial, the Defendants raised a preliminary objection before the District Court, challenging the maintainability of the action. The objection was founded on the institution of Case No. 19530/L, previously filed against the same Defendants, based on the same cause of action and in respect of the same land. The Defendants accordingly contended that the present action constituted a duplication of proceedings. The Plaintiffs did not object to the preliminary objection being raised at the commencement of the Defendants\' case. Having considered the material placed before it, the District Court, by Order dated 26/03/2007, upheld the objection and dismissed the second action on the ground that it was not maintainable. Page 16 of 18 [30] In Salaman vs. Warner23, Fry L.J. stated thus; “I think that the true definition is this. I conceive that an order is ‘final’ only where it is made upon an application or other proceeding which must, whether such application or other proceeding fail or succeed, determine the action. Conversely, I think that an order is ‘interlocutory’ where it cannot be affirmed that in either event the action will be determined.” [31] As referred to earlier in this Judgment, the first action, bearing No. 19530/L, was dismissed by the District Court on 23/05/2003 for non-compliance with an imperative provision of the Civil Procedure Code. The Plaintiff-Respondent raised a question of law based on the plea of res judicata through estoppel, referencing the Divisional Bench decision Appeal Nos. 101A/2009 and 101B/2009 [SC HCCA LA 174/2008] (Rajendra Chettiar vs. Narayanan Chettiar24). In that case, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the action in limine under Section 46(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. Importantly, in both cases, the merits were not examined at that time. [32] In Stassen Exports Ltd. vs. Lipton Ltd. and another25, the Supreme Court held; “considering the views expressed on the doctrine of res judicata, it is apparent that where a final judicial decision has been pronounced by a court which had jurisdiction over the issue before it, any party to such litigation as against the other party would be estopped in any subsequent litigation from disputing such decision on the merits whether it be used as the foundation of an action or as a bar to any claim.----” 23 n (5) 24 n (5) 25 [2009] 2 SLR 172 Page 17 of 18 In Carl Zeiss Stiftung vs. Rayner & Keeler Ltd. (No. 2)26, Lord Guest stated, “any party to such litigation as against any other party is estopped in any subsequent litigation from disputing or questioning such decision on the merits.” [33] It is crucial to recognize that when the District Court dismissed the second action, it did not consider or resolve the rights and liabilities of the parties on the merits, nor did it issue a final Judgment. By Order dated 26/03/2007, the District Court inter alia, upheld the plea of res judicata by way of estoppel and accordingly dismissed the action. At the time the District Court made its Order, an Appeal against the Order in the first action was pending before the Court of Appeal. The Court held that although the Plaintiff admitted to filing the Appeal and undertook to withdraw it, the Plaintiff had failed to establish that the application to withdraw the Appeal bearing No. C.A. 412/03 had been allowed, or that the Appeal had in fact been withdrawn. [34] Applying the application approach to the present case, it is evident that the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s second action arose from a preliminary objection taken at the commencement of proceedings. While the decision to uphold the objection brought the action to an end, had the objection been overruled, the matter would have proceeded to trial, leaving the parties’ substantive rights yet to be decided. The decisive consideration is whether the Order necessarily concludes the litigation irrespective of the outcome of the application. On this test, the Order dated 26/03/2007 must be regarded as interlocutory. [35] Considering all the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the decision of the District Court, in dismissing the second action, was final and conclusive between the parties on the merits so as to operate as a complete bar to further proceedings. Accordingly, I hold that the Order dated 26/03/2007 is not a Final 26 1967 (1) AC. 853 Page 18 of 18 Order having the effect of a Judgment within the meaning of Sections 754(1) and 754(5) of the Civil Procedure Code, but is interlocutory in nature. [36] Therefore, I answer the questions of law Nos. 1 in the affirmative, No. 2 in the negative, set aside the Order dated 09/03/2009 of the Civil Appeal High Court of Colombo, and dismiss the Appeal bearing No. WP/HCCA/COL/138/2007(F) filed in that Court. [37] Appeal allowed. No order as to costs.		Download
2025-09-26	SC/CHC APPEAL/6/2019	Hitisekara Mudiyanselage Wimalasiri, No. 201, Opposite School, Padiyathalawa. 3rd Defendant-Appellant AND NOW Commercial Leasing and Finance PLC, (former known and named as Commercial Leasing and Finance Limited) No. 68, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 04. (New number of company - PQ 131/PB/PQ) And presently, LOLC Finance PLC, (Commercial Leasing and Finance PLC after having been amalgamated on 31st March 2022 with LOLC Finance PLC) No. 100/1, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha, Rajagiriya. (New number of company - PB244PQ) Plaintiff-Respondent 1. Herath Mudiyanselage Indika Sarathchandra Herath, No. 101/B, Palathuru Wella, Serankada, Padiyathalawa. 2. Ismailkhan Seiyadu Muhammathkhan, No. 433, Randenigala Road, Weheraganthota. Defendants-Respondents View More	Hon. A.L. Shiran Gooneratne J	Factual Background [1] By Plaint dated 01/02/2013 the Plaintiff-Respondent filed this action against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants, (presently the 3rd Defendant-Appellant), and sought to recover a sum of Rs. 6,701,254/- together with interest on a Lease Agreement, granted to the 1st Defendant, secured by a Guarantee and indemnity of Lease Agreement, by the 2nd Defendant and the 3rd Defendant-Appellant, claiming jointly and severally the said sum and the accrued interest. [2] In the Plaint, the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant entered into a Lease Agreement bearing No. C1-09-0011EB dated 22/09/2011, P2. By the said agreement, the Plaintiff leased “the property” (1 Nissan Navara Double Cab) more fully described in the schedule to the Agreement. [3] The 1st Defendant entered into the aforesaid lease agreement, and the 2nd and 3rd Defendants by Guarantee and Indemnity of Lease Agreement No. C1-09-0011 jointly and severally undertook to indemnify the Plaintiff against any failure by the 1st Defendant to perform his obligations. When the 1st Defendant failed and neglected to pay to the Plaintiff the rentals due, the Plaintiff terminated the agreement and demanded “the property” and the sums due and owing to the Plaintiff from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants. [4] The Plaintiff instituted action against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants, claiming relief jointly and severally on the lease agreement marked ‘P2’ and the guarantee bond marked ‘P8’. Page 5 of 17 [5] At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Judge of the Commercial High Court by Judgment dated 12/10/2018, ex parte against the 1st and 2nd Defendants and inter parte against the 3rd Defendant-Appellant, decided in favor of the Plaintiff. [6] The 3rd Defendant-Appellant by Petition dated 05/12/2018 is before this Court to set aside the Judgment dated 12/10/2018, delivered by the Commercial High Court. [7] On the date of the hearing, the 3rd Defendant-Appellant limited his submissions to the following questions of law. 1. Whether the guarantee bond (P8) was a printed form that had several blanks that were filled later with typewritten details. 2. The lease agreement was neither shown or a Sinhala translation was given to the Appellant. 3. Whether the lease agreement (P2) was lawfully terminated. 1. Validity of the Guarantee Bond (P8) 1.1 Whether the enforceability of a guarantee is affected by the addition of typewritten particulars subsequent to the guarantor’s signature. [8] The Appellant challenges the validity of the Guarantee Bond (P8) based on several procedural infirmities which should have precluded the trial court from granting relief against him. His principal argument is that, at the time of signing, the bond contained only the printed text and the typewritten details were inserted later. [9] The Appellant in his evidence has attempted to point out to the portions that were subsequently inserted. While the precise portions of evidence were not marked for the benefit of the Court, a careful reading of his evidence directs to Page 6 of 17 such subsequent insertions to be the date of execution of the guarantee bond, the reference number of the lease agreement, the personal details of the guarantors (entered below their respective signatures), and the name and address of the lessee. [10] However, it is crucial to note that none of these particulars were pleaded by the Appellant to be false or to amount to a misrepresentation. [11] In support of his claim, the Appellant relied on the testimony of the Plaintiff’s witness, Belan Daminda who conceded that the blank spaces in the guarantee agreement were completed after the 3rd Defendant had placed his signature. [12] The 3rd Defendant-Appellant, in his testimony, stated that at the time he signed the guarantee bond, the document contained only the printed part and alleged that the typewritten part was inserted later. He takes up the position that, by leaving blank spaces in the guarantee bond to be filled later, the lender has made a fundamental mistake which makes the agreement void. [13] However, it is noted that any subsequent insertion ipso facto would not render a contract unenforceable, but rather enforceability would be determined by the nature of the alteration and the knowledge or consent of the executing party. A contract can be vitiated where the insertion constitutes a material alteration that fundamentally changes the obligations undertaken, or where the signature was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. [14] In the present case, it is not disputed that the Appellant executed the guarantee as surety of the 1st Defendant under the lease agreement. The nature of that obligation remained constant, irrespective of the fact that the particulars were subsequently filled. The Appellant is a literate businessman, and has not alleged that his signature was obtained by fraud or duress by the Respondent. His evidence was that he signed the printed form knowing it to be a guarantee. Page 7 of 17 Furthermore, the lessee was known to the Appellant, and he has admitted that he is related to him. [15] The law has long recognized that a guarantee or a similar instrument is vitiated by alterations introduced after execution without the consent of the parties. As held in Pigot’s Case (1614)1 it was established that such post-execution changes could render an instrument void, the rationale being that no party should be held to obligations materially different from those they agreed to when affixing their signature and seal. In its early application, the rule was interpreted narrowly and applied strictly. [16] Over time the courts have refined the principle to reflect commercial realities. Recent authorities such as Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG vs. Crossseas Shipping Ltd2, has explained that only alterations which are “material” in nature will void a guarantee as against a non-assenting party. As Potter LJ observed, material alterations fall broadly into two categories: I. those which change the very nature or character of the instrument, and II. those which are potentially prejudicial to the legal rights or obligations of the guarantor. An alteration falling within either of these points will discharge a guarantor who did not assent to it. [17] In the above case, the guarantor, argued that a guarantee had been invalidated because, after he had signed it, the bank inserted into clause 37 the name and address of a company (Crossseas Shipping Ltd) as his agent for service of process in England. The Court accepted that the insertion was made without his 1 (1614) 11 Co Rep 26b, 77 ER 1177. 2 [2000] 1 WLR 1135 Page 8 of 17 knowledge or consent but held that the alteration was not material because it was procedural in nature and did not alter the fundamental obligations under the guarantee. [18] As Cresswell J explained: “The contract of guarantee (and indemnity) with cl. 37 completed would not have operated differently from the guarantee in its original form (with cl. 37 containing blanks). The legal incidence of the contract of guarantee (and indemnity) was not altered by the insertions into cl. 37. The business effect of the contract of guarantee (and indemnity), if used for any ordinary business purpose for which a contract of guarantee (and indemnity) is used, was not altered by the insertion into cl. 37. The alteration was not, in the context of this guarantee (and indemnity), material.” [19] Similarly, in the present case, the typewritten particulars inserted into the guarantee bond after signature do not fall within either category of “material alteration.” They did not change the nature or character of the instrument. The bond remained what it was at execution, a guarantee by the Appellant to answer the obligations of the 1st Defendant under the lease. No new debtor was substituted, no new creditor was introduced, and the scope of the obligation was not changed, nor were these insertions prejudicial to the guarantor’s legal rights or obligations. The typewritten parts had only specified procedural or administrative details necessary for the operation of the bond. [20] For the forgoing reasons, the alterations complained of do not constitute “material” alterations. The Appellant’s fundamental obligation remained the same, and his rights as guarantor were not diminished. The guarantee bond therefore remains valid and enforceable. Page 9 of 17 1.2 The lease agreement was neither shown or a Sinhala translation was given to the Appellant. [21] The learned Counsel for the Appellant further contended that before the guarantors undertake to indemnify the lessor, it is required that a copy of the lease agreement be made available to the guarantors to satisfy themselves regarding the total sum and the interest to be indemnified, moreso due to the 1st recital to the guarantee bond which obligates the guarantors to ensure “punctual payment by the Lessee of all rentals, interest, the Stipulated Loss value referred to in Schedule of Lease Agreement and all other sums whatso ever due under the Lease Agreement and the performance of all the Lessee’s obligations thereunder ---\" [22] In support of this claim, the Appellant relied on the testimony of the Plaintiff’s witness, Belan Daminda, who admitted that the guarantors were not shown the lease agreement or its schedules at the time of signing. He testified to a general procedural practice where the guarantors are verbally informed of the sum indemnified by the guarantors in the lease agreement. The witness stated that in this instance, the guarantors did not have the opportunity to go through the lease agreement or the schedules before signing the document, however, the responsibilities and the conditions of the guarantors were explained. [23] His testimony included the following: Cross examination dated: 20/10/2017. Pg 186 of the appeal brief ප්‍ර: මහත්මයා මේ \'පැ8\' මේඛනමේ යේ ස්ථානයක තිමෙනවාද 1 වන විත්තිකරුට ලො දුන්න මුළු මුදල සේෙන්ධමයන් කේෙදු ගිවිසුමේ? උ: මුදලක් සටහන් කරලා නැහැ ස්වාමීනී\' Page 10 of 17 ප්‍ර: මහත්මයා \'පැ8\' මේඛනමේ මකාමහ් හරි සඳහන් මවනවද අදාළ කේෙදු ගිවිසුම සේෙන්ධමයන් 1 වන විත්තිකරු මෙවිය යුතු වාරිකය සේෙන්ධව? උ: ඒක මං හරියටම දන්මන් නැහැ\' ප්‍ර: එතමකාට මහත්මයා අත්සන් කරන්න පැමිණි අවස්ථාමේදී තමුන් මමානවද කියා සිටිමේ 3 වන විත්තිකරුට? උ: 3 වන විත්තිකරු ආවට පස්මස් අයිමෙන්ටි කාඩ් එක මෙක් කලා\' මෙක් කරලා අයිමෙන්ටි කාඩ් නේෙර් එක ෙලලා එයාමේ අයිමෙන්ටි කාඩ් නේෙරය තිමයන තැන නම තිමයන තැන අත්සන් කරන්න කියලා තමයි කිේමේ. ප්‍ර: මවන යමක් කියා සිටිමේ නැද්ද 3 වන විත්තිකරුට? උ: කියා සිටියා\' දැන් මේමක් ඇ􀄠මන්් එකක් අත්සන් කරද්ි අපි කියනවා\" සාමානයමයන් මේකම කියන්මන් නැහැ අපි සරලව මේමක් අත්සන් කරන් තිමයන වෙකීම ෙැන මපාඩි දැනුේදීමක් කරනවා\' ඒ කියන්මන් ඇ􀄠මන්් එකක් අත්සන් කලහම ඒ කියන්මන් අයදුේකරුට මෙවන්න ෙැරි jqමනාත් එමහම අයදුේකරුත් ඇපකරුවන් මදන්නටම නඩු දාන්න පුළුවන්. අයදුේකරුට ඊළඟට එයා මපනී මනාසිටිමයාත් අපට පළමවනි අවස්ථාමේම ඇපකරුවන් මදමදනාට නඩු දාන්න පුළුවන් කියලා පැහැිලි කරලා තිමයනවා. ප්‍ර: එපමණද 3 වන විත්තිකරුට තමqන් පැහැිලි කමළ් එින? උ: ඔේ tපමණයි පැහැිලි කමේ. ප්‍ර: යේ අවස්ථාවකදී කේෙදු ගිවිසුම මපන්නා සිටිමයත් නැහැ? උ: නැහැ\' Page 187 of the appeal brief: ප්‍ර: මහත්මයා ඇපකරුවන්ට විරුද්ධව නඩු දාන්න ඇපකරුවන් දැන ගෙන සිටිය යුතුයි මන්ද අත්සන් කරන අවස්ථාමේදී මේ කේෙදු ගිවිසුමමන් ලො දුන්න මුදල සේෙන්ධව? Page 11 of 17 උ: ඒක අපි අයදුේ පත්‍රය අත්සන් කරන අවස්ථාමේ ෙන්න මුදලයි එයා මකාච්ෙර කාමලකටද ෙන්මන කියලා ඒ සියලු මද්වේ පැහැිලි කරලා දීලා තමයි අයදුේ පත්‍රය අත්සන් කරන්ගේ. ප්‍ර: කාටද ඒවා පැහැිලි කග ්? උ: ඇපකරුවන්ටයි‚ අයදුේකරුටයි තුන්මදනාටම පැහැිලි කරනවා අයදුේ පත්‍රය අත්සන් කරන මකාට\' [24] The Appellant further contends that his consent as guarantor was vitiated because the lease agreement was not shown to him at the time of execution and because he was not provided with a Sinhala translation of the agreement, which was in English. He claims that being unable to read English, he could not fully appreciate the obligations he was undertaking. [25] Belan, when further questioned about the rubber stamp, seen on top of the document, confirming that the guarantors had received a Sinhala translation of the agreement, failed to respond. ප්‍ර: අයදුේ පත්‍රය ෙැන මං ඇහුfව නැහැ මහත්මයා. zපැ8Z මේඛනමේ තිමයන මුද්‍රාව ෙලන්න මහත්මයා. ඒ මුද්‍රාව තමුන්ට කියවන්න පුළුවන්ද මහත්මයා ෙරු අධිකරණයට ඇfහkak? උ: මමම කුලී සින්නක්කර/කේෙදු ඇපකරු ගිවිසුම සිංහල පරිවර්තන පිටපතක් ලැබුණු ෙවට සහතික කරනවා. ප්‍ර: එතමකාට මහත්මයා මමාන මේඛනමේද සිංහල පිටපත් පරිවර්තනයක් ලො දුන්මන්? උ: මේ zපැ8Z කියන එමක් තමයි ඇපකරුවන්ට මදන්මන්. අයදුම්කරුට මදන්මන් එයා අත්සන් කරන ලීස් අග්‍රිමමන්් එමක් පිටපතක්. ප්‍ර: මහත්මයා මන්ද මේ ගිවිසුමට අත්සන් ලො ෙත්මත්? උ: ඔේ. Page 12 of 17 ප්‍ර: මහත්මයාට හිතුගන නැද්ද මේ අදාල නැති වෙන අවම වශමයන් පෑනකින් කපා හැරිය යුතුයි කියලා? උ: (පිළිතුරක් නැත) [26] However, the position that no copy of the lease agreement was provided to the guarantors fails to consider the essential fact that the Appellant was at all times aware that he was signing as a guarantor for the 1st Defendant’s obligations, and that his liability would arise in the event of default. [27] It remains incumbent upon the creditor to ensure that the guarantor is made aware of the essential nature and extent of the obligation undertaken. In the ordinary course of banking practice, this would include making clear the amount guaranteed. In the present case, the evidence of Belan Daminda is that the guarantors were verbally informed of the liability under the lease agreement before signing. For that reason, the Court is satisfied that the Appellant was aware of the nature of his obligation, notwithstanding that the lease agreement itself was not shown to him. [28] The Appellant further sought to rely on the alleged absence of a Sinhala translation. The guarantee bond bears a rubber stamp certifying receipt of “translations of the lease agreement/guarantee bond,” above which the Appellant has signed. He now contends that no translation of the lease agreement was in fact provided. The Respondent’s witness clarified that the practice is to furnish guarantors with a translation of the guarantee bond which defines their obligations and not of the Lease Agreement. The reference to both instruments on the rubber stamp appears to be a standard form in which the inapplicable words were not struck out. Importantly, the Appellant has never asserted that he did not receive a translation of the guarantee bond itself. Page 13 of 17 [29] As explained above, the law does not require that the lease agreement be translated for the guarantor, it is sufficient that he understands his responsibilities under the bond. On the evidence, that requirement was met. 1.3 Analysis [30] The 3rd Defendant-Appellant takes up the position that he is not liable to pay the demanded sum since the guarantee bond was incomplete at the time he placed his signature. The Appellant also contends that due to his inability to read and understand the English language, he required a Sinhala translation of the Agreement, which was not given to him. Under cross-examination, the 3rd Defendant-Appellant refers to certain numbers in document P8, which he claims include the typewritten parts. [31] The Respondent was obligated to explain to the guarantors the nature of the transaction and the liability imposed on them in the event the principal debtor defaults. It is evident that the 3rd Defendant-Appellant, as guarantor, was aware of the amount he was liable to pay to the lessor in the event of any default of payment of the obligated sum. [32] The Judge of the Commercial High Court, in the overall analysis of the evidence, concluded that the 3rd Defendant-Appellant was aware that he signed P8 as a guarantor to the 1st Defendant, that the 1st Defendant had defaulted on payment, that failure or neglect to pay the sum guaranteed or the return of “the property”, the liability was on the guarantor to pay its value on demand. The trial Judge observed that, although the 3rd Defendant-Appellant claims to have signed a document which had blank spaces, the Appellant was admittedly a literate businessman owning a trading business and was not under any incapacity or disability, such as blindness or deafness, to be misguided. Page 14 of 17 [33] Although the Appellant did not expressly plead the defence of non est factum, the learned trial Judge in the above observation appears to have treated the Appellant’s claim to be similar to the defence “non est factum” meaning a plea denying execution of the instrument sued on or signing a document by a person without knowing its contents. I am of the view that this was an appropriate application of the principle by the learned High Court Judge. This plea is primarily available to persons who are illiterate, sick, or incapacitated. It can also extend to an executor of a document presumed to have read and understood the document before its execution; however, by proving that it was not the document the executor intended to sign, or that it was obtained by fraud or force. [34] Regarding the usage of this principle, Paget on Law of banking states as follows3: “The doctrine is now rarely invoked successfully, and negligence in failing to ascertain the meaning of the document can prevent its application. So in Saunders v Anglia Building Society, an elderly widow failed to read a document which she executed in the belief that it was a deed of gift of a property to her nephew, when in fact it was an assignment to a third party. The House of Lords rejected a plea of non est factum in a dispute between the claimant widow and a lender who had innocently lent money on the strength of the document. The claimant had known that she was signing a legal document, and although she was mistaken as to its terms, she had not taken the trouble to read it so as to ascertain even its general effect.” 3 Paget\'s Law of Banking (15th edn, LexisNexis Butterworths 2018) 376, para 13.27. Page 15 of 17 [35] Prof. C.G. Weeramantry in ‘Law of Contracts’ states as follows: “A person signing a document is held strictly to its terms on the basis that he does so at his peril. This is known as the caveat subscriptor rule, and in the operation of this rule the principles relating to justus error come into play. This rule must not however be viewed as a special head of exemption from the ordinary rules relating to mistake. Where a person deliberately affixes his signature to a written contract, the court would naturally be more hesitant in permitting him to plead that he did so in consequence of a mistake as to the nature or substance of the transaction, and to this extent would be less prone to view the error as justus.”4 [36] I also wish to echo the opinion of A.H.M.D. Nawaz, J, in the judgement of Nimalasena vs. L.B. Finance Company Ltd and others5 where he held that; “I also find that the 2nd defendant appellant was a technician and a tradesman on his own admission. The witness came through as a man of the world who could not have been so naive as to be unaware of the implications of placing one\'s signature to a guarantee. If he knew that the act of signing a guarantee would spell for him disastrous consequences of monetary burdens, he should have exhibited prudence. So his assertion that he only signed as a witness and not as a guarantor does not inspire confidence in this Court. The necessity to exercise prudence was emphasized by the House of Lords in the context of the plea of non est factum.” [37] The guarantors have not pleaded fraud or force when obtaining signatures, or that the signatures were placed unintentionally or without a complete understanding of the implications. The nature and the contents of the 4 Law of Contracts 1999 reprint, vol. 1 at page 300 5 C.A. Case No. 831/2000 (F) decided on 06/02/2017 Page 16 of 17 Agreement were explained before the guarantors placed their signatures. There is no evidence that the guarantors were induced to sign the document believing it to be something different. In such circumstances and taking the above-mentioned authorities into consideration, the guarantors should be held responsible for their actions. 2. Whether the Lease Agreement (P2) Was Lawfully Terminated [38] It is also contended that by the notice for acceleration of payment dated 17/03/2012, P5, the Plaintiff has demanded that all monies due to the Plaintiff be paid within 14 days of the receipt of the said letter. The relevant postal article receipt and the seal of the postal authorities are dated 22/03/2012 and 23/03/2912 respectively and are marked ‘P5(a)’. However, the Plaintiff sought to terminate the Lease Agreement by letter dated 31/03/2012 (marked P6). In the circumstances, it is contended that the Plaintiff has terminated the Lease Agreement by letter P6, without the lapse of 14 days, and therefore the learned trial Judge has erred in law in answering Issue No. 05. [39] Issue No. 05, raised in the Commercial High Court was limited to the question “whether the lease agreement marked ‘A’ terminated” [Emphasis added], to which the court answered correctly as ‘yes’. In addition, the purported lapse on the part of the Respondent was not pleaded before the Commercial High Court, nor was it put in cross-examination or pleaded in the Petition of Appeal to this Court; therefore, it attracts no merit. [40] For all the above reasons, I am of the view that the Plaintiff-Respondent has asserted its position taken in the Plaint dated 01/02/2013, in the evidence led before Court, to establish that the Plaintiff should be granted the reliefs as prayed for in the Plaint, in terms of prayers (a) (b), and (c). Page 17 of 17 [41] In all the above circumstances, I answer questions of law Nos. 1, 2, and 3 in the negative and uphold and affirm the Judgement dated 12/10/2018 of the Commercial High Court. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed with costs fixed at Rs. 50,000/-		Download
2025-09-26	SC/APPEAL/248/2017	01.Senanayaka Amarasinghe Mohotti Appuhamilage Sumanawathi Marapola, Veyangoda 1st Defendant Appellant Appellant 02.Subasinghe Dissanayaka Appuhamilage Maduraprema Harischandra Dissanayaka 03.Subasinghe Dissanayaka Appuhamilage Latha Iranganie Dissanayaka 04.Subasinghe Dissanayaka Appuhamilage Anura Deshapriya Dissanayaka. 05.Subasinghe Dissanayaka Appuhamilage Virani Shyamali Dissanayaka. 06.Subasinghe Dissanayaka Appuhamilage Dissna Shriyanjani Dissanayaka. 07.Subasinghe Dissanayaka Appuhamilage Kapila Dharmapriya Dissanayaka. 08. Subasinghe Dissanayaka Appuhamilage Priyantha Dissanayaka. 09.Subasinghe Dissanayaka Appuhamilage Nishantha Dissanayaka. All of Marapola, Veyangoda. 2nd to 9th Defendant Respondent Appellants Vs Subasinghe Dissanayaka Appuhamilage Piyaseeli of Marapola, Veyangoda Substituted Plaintiff Respondent Respondent 10.Subasinghe Dissanayaka Appuhamilage Chullasena Subasinghe (Deceased) All of Marapola, Veyangoda. 10th Defendant Respondent Respondent 10.(a). Padmaseeli Wickramaarachchi 10.(b)S.P.A Ananda Subasinghe 10.(c)S.P.A Gamini Subasinghe All of Marapola, Veyangoda. Substituted 10th Defendant Respondent Respondent 11.Subasinghe Dissanayaka Appuhamilage Syneris Appuhamy of Malgomuwa, Giriulla (Deceased) 11.(a).S.D.A.S.Wijesena Malgomuwa, Giriulla Defendant Respondent Respondent View More	Hon. K. Kumudini Wickremasinghe J	This is an appeal from a judgment of the Provincial High Court of the Western Province (Civil Appeals) holden at Gampaha dated 09.03.2016 which affirmed the judgment of the District Court of Gampaha, case bearing No: 28041/P, dated 04.12.2009. The Original Plaintiff of this action instituted a partition action in the District Court of Gampaha against the Defendants seeking to partition the land called and referred to as “Kongahalanda” containing an extent of about 2A- 0R-31.5P and the said land was described in the schedules of the Plaint. The Original Plaintiff averred in her plaint in the District Court that the original owner of the land in suit was one Piyasinghe Dissanayake who was the husband of the present 1st Defendant-Appellant-Appellant (Hereinafter referred to as the “Appellant”) and the father of the 2nd to 9th Defendants to this action and also the 10th and 11th Defendants who derived title to the same by virtue of the final decree entered in the District Court of Gampaha. The Original Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff) further averred that the Appellant had transferred an undivided ½ acre to the Plaintiff out her ½ share which she had derived as matrimonial inheritance by virtue of Deed 1530 dated 04.01.1982 attested by H.L. Wickremathileke Notary Public. The Appellant filed her statement of claim denying all and singular the several averments contained in the plaint of the Plaintiff and specifically averred that deed on which the Plaintiff claimed a ½ acre was a forgery and prayed for a dismissal of the Plaintiff’s action with costs. The Appellant averred that the Plaintiff had preferred a claim to the land in suit even in action bearing No.20388/P which claim had been rejected by 8 Court and hence pleaded that the Plaintiff is not eligible to have and maintain the instant action. The Plaintiff died during the pendency of the action and the Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) was substituted in the place of the deceased Plaintiff. A commission was issued and the commission was returned together with the Preliminary plan together with the corresponding report. Thereafter. when the matter proceeded to trial, the Respondent sought to mark document P4, the Appellants raised an objection in relation to the admissibility of the said document, the Learned Trial Judge by her order dated 02.07.1998 upheld the objections raised by the Appellants and did not allow the marking of document P4. Being aggrieved with the order of the Learned Trial Judge, the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal. Their Lordships of the Court of Appeal by order dated 26.05.1999 allowed the appeal of the Respondent to produce the document P4 and set aside the order of the Learned Trial Judge and made an order for trial de novo. The case commenced thereafter, and the Learned Trial Judge by his judgment dated 04.12.2009 answered the points of contest No 1 to 6 in favour of the Respondent and entered judgment in favour of the Respondent, allocating the residual rights to the 1st Appellant after deducting half an acre from the share which she had inherited as matrimonial inheritance from her husband. Aggrieved by the judgment, the Appellants preferred an appeal to the High Court of Civil Appeal of the Western Province holden in Gampaha. The Learned High Court Judges dismissed the appeal of the Appellants and affirmed the judgment of the Learned Trial Judge. The Appellant is before this Court challenging the judgment of the High Court of Civil Appeals holden in Gampaha. This Court by Order date 07.12.2017 granted Leave to Appeal on the questions of law, namely “Whether the Deed 9 marked P2 has been established in terms of Section 68 of the Partition Law read along with Section 68 of the Evidence Ordinance?” My analysis hereafter will be confined to examining the aforesaid question of law based on which leave was granted. The matter for consideration by this court is whether the Deed marked P2 has been established in terms of Section 68 of the Partition Law read along with Section 68 of the Evidence Ordinance. The Plaintiff gave evidence and thereafter commenced her evidence anew. The Respondents contended that the Plaintiff has given clear evidence in respect of the preliminary plan and report and she also gave evidence of the pedigree and the fact that ½ an acre was purchased by her from the Appellant on Deed 1530 when the Appellant had offered to sell the land. Since the notary to deed 1530 had died the Respondent placed the death certificate of the notary before court to show that she cannot call him as a witness. This document was admitted without further objection at the closing of the case of the Appellants. The Respondents submitted that hence the court is bound to accept such documents as evidence and as documents which have been proved. The Plaintiff contended that, initially she had only given a part payment of the consideration due on Deed 1530 marked P2 and the later the balance sum of money was paid by her to the Appellant marked as P3. The Respondents contended that they had led cogent and credible evidence to establish the validity of Deed No. 1530 and the payment of consideration thereunder. The Plaintiff, in her testimony, affirmed that the land was offered to her at a time when she too was in need of land, and that she made an initial part payment to the Appellant, with the balance being paid subsequently. A receipt for the final payment was marked as “P3” and was admitted without objection, thereby affirming the payment. The Plaintiff also explained that the Appellant urgently required money to fund the legal defence of her paramour in a criminal matter. 10 On behalf of the Appellant, it was submitted that under Section 68 of the Partition Law, formal proof of execution of documents is generally not required unless the deed is specifically impeached. While in ordinary civil proceedings the necessity of formal proof arises upon objection at the time of production, in partition actions such requirement is only triggered upon a clear act of impeachment, which entails contesting the deed by raising an issue or making a specific averment in the statement of claim. The Appellant submits that the impeachment of Deed No. 1530, executed on 04.01.1982, was duly raised through issues Nos. 5 and 11(a) and in the statement of claim, thereby necessitating formal proof of due execution. The Appellant\'s denial of execution is found in her evidence from pages 289 to 331 of the appeal brief, where she categorically denied signing the deed, denied knowledge of English (relevant as the signature was in English), and further stated that the signature appearing on the deed was not hers. In view of this direct challenge, it is incumbent upon the Respondent to have proved the due execution of the deed, in accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Ordinance read with Section 68 of the Partition Law, particularly as interpreted by His Lordship the Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya (as he was then) in the case of Lulwala Hewayalage Tilanganee v Kirigalbadage Gamini Chandrasena SC APPEAL 154/2016 decided on 17.06.2021. The above case is distinguishable from the present matter. In that case, there was a complete absence of evidence with regard to the due execution of the impugned deed. In contrast, in the instant case, the Respondents have, in fact, adduced positive and cogent evidence in proof of the execution of the Deed marked P2. The Appellant also refutes the Respondent’s position that non-objection at the time of marking the document constituted a waiver. The authorities make clear, including Fernando v. Ramanathan [1930] 16 NLR 337, that once an issue is framed, it cannot be waived or struck off at the instance of a party, and the Court is bound to adjudicate upon it. Furthermore, the submission that the impeachment was not valid merely because no objection was taken 11 at the time of production is flawed, as once the deed is specifically contested, the requirement of formal proof is engaged regardless of earlier procedural conduct. The Appellant challenges the credibility of the Respondent’s position regarding the attesting witness A.A. Gunasena. The claim that Gunasena was the paramour of the Appellant was unfounded and unsupported by credible evidence. The Appellant, at page 317, denied any knowledge of Gunasena, and noted that by the time of her husband’s death, her children were already grown (vide page 323), undermining the Respondent’s narrative. Furthermore, Gunasena’s name was not included in the witness list filed by the Plaintiff, although he was a surviving attesting witness within the jurisdiction of court, and no plausible justification was offered for his absence. As to the Notary’s clerk who gave evidence on execution, it is submitted that the trial judge erred in placing reliance upon this testimony. The alleged threats made against this witness were not supported by a police complaint or any credible evidence. As noted in the order dated 09.09.2003 (page 224), the application for a civil warrant was refused, and no appeal was taken from this order. The failure to corroborate the allegation of intimidation diminishes the credibility of the Respondent’s claim regarding the inability to secure this witness’s further attendance. The Appellant further contests the admissibility and evidentiary value of the receipt marked “P3”, which purportedly acknowledges the payment of the balance consideration. It is the Appellants position that the evidence at page 212 indicates that the receipt was not executed by the Appellant herself, but by the Plaintiff or her agent, and hence lacks probative value. As “P2”, the deed in question, has not been duly proved according to law, the validity of “P3” is necessarily undermined, as it is merely ancillary to the primary transaction. 12 Accordingly, it is submitted by the Appellant that the Respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving due execution of Deed No. 1530, particularly in light of the specific and sustained impeachment raised by the Appellant. Now I look at the accepted legal position in this regard. Section 2 of the Prevention of Frauds Ordinance, No. 7 of 1840, as amended “No sale, purchase, transfer, assignment, or mortgage of land or other immovable property…shall be of force or avail in law unless the same shall be in writing and signed by the party making the same, or by some person lawfully authorized by him or her in the presence of a licensed notary public and two or more witnesses present at the same time, and unless the execution of such writing, deed, or instrument be duly attested by such notary and witnesses”. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena in Weerappuli Gamage Gamini Ranaweera v Matharage Dharmasiri and Others SC APPEAL 56/2020 decided on 20.05.2022 held that “To prove due execution of a deed, this section requires proof of four matters: (a) the deed was signed by the executant (b) it was signed in the presence of a licensed notary public and two or more witnesses (c) the notary public and the witnesses were present at the same time (d) the execution of the deed was duly attested by the notary and the witnesses It may be relevant to note that under section 2 of the Prevention of Frauds Ordinance, the document shall be signed by the executant in the presence of the notary and the two witnesses present at the same time. However, the section does not expressly state that the document shall also be signed by the two witnesses and the notary in the presence of the executant at the same time.” 13 The principle enunciated by Samarakoon, C.J., in Sri Lanka Ports Authority and another v. Jugolinija – Boal east [1981] 1 Sri L.R 18, at page 24, “If no objection is taken when at the close of a case documents are read in evidence they are evidence for all purposes of the law.”. The above decision was followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Balapitiya Gunananda Thero Vs. Thalalle Methananda Thero [1997] 2 Sri L.R 101 which stated at page 101 that, “Where a document is admitted subject to proof but when tendered and read in evidence at the close of the case is accepted without objection, it becomes evidence in the case. This is the cursus curiae.” I must highlight that a new amendment has been introduced to section 154 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, No.17 of 2022 on 23rd June 2022 and the position of the aforementioned case has now been overtaken by this new amendment. Transitional Provision in Section 3 of the said amendment states as follows, Notwithstanding anything contained in section 2 of this Act, and the provisions of the Evidence Ordinance, in any case or appeal pending on the date of coming into operation of this Act – (a)(i) if the opposing party does not object or has not objected to it being received as evidence on the deed or document being tendered in evidence; or (ii) if the opposing party has objected to it being received as evidence on the deed or document being tendered in evidence but not objected at the close of a case when such document is read in evidence, the court shall admit such deed or document as evidence without requiring further proof; 14 (b) if the opposing party objects or has objected to it being received as evidence, the court may decide whether it is necessary or it was necessary as the case may be, to adduce formal proof of the execution or genuineness of any such deed or document considering the merits of the objections taken with regard to the execution or genuineness of such deed or document. The standard of proof of due execution of a deed is on a balance of probabilities. Section 68 of the Partition Law No 21 of 1977 reads as follows: “It shall not be necessary in any proceedings under this Law to adduce formal proof of the execution of any deed which, on the face of it, purports to have been duly executed, unless the genuineness of that deed is impeached by a party claiming adversely to the party producing that deed, or unless the court requires such proof.” Section 25(2) of the Partition Law No21 of 1977 is as follows: “If a defendant shall fail to file a statement of claim on the due date the trial may proceed ex parte as against such party in default, who shall not be entitled, without the leave of court, to raise any contest or dispute the claim of any other party to the action at the trial.” Now it is the contention of the Appellant that by raising issues 5 and 11 at the trial the deed No 1530 has been impeached as per section 68 of the Partition Act as such the execution of the deed must be proved. Issue 5 is set out as follows: “(5) පැමිනිල්ලල් සඳහන් අංක.1530 දරණ ඔප්පුව 1 ලවනි විත්තිකාරිය විසින් අත්තසන් කරන ලද ඔප්පුවක් ලනාවන්ලන් ද?” Issue 11 is set out as follows: “11 (අ) පැ.2 වශලයන් සකස් කරන ලද ඔප්පුව නීියට අනුව සකස් කරන ලද ඔප්පුවක් ලනාවන්ලන් ද? 11 (ආ) ලනාඑලස් නම්, ලෙෙ නඩුව පැමිනිලිකාරියට තවදුරටත්ත පවත්තවාලෙන යා හැකිද?” 15 Section 68 of the Evidence Ordinance Nos,14 of 1895 reads as follows: “If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence.” Section 69 of the Evidence Ordinance Nos,14 of 1895 sets out: “If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person.” The learned trial judge has answered issue 5 to be a document signed by the Defendant. In the course of the trial, the Deed 1530 which is the pivotal document was marked as P2 subject to proof by the Respondent. A document marked P3 was marked by the Respondent which was said to be the receipt signed by the Appellant on receipt of the balance consideration of the deed marked P2. which was not objected at all by the Counsel of the Appellant. In the instant case, since the attesting witnesses to Deed No.1530 were unavailable, one, Sirisoma, being deceased and the other, A.A. Gunasena, being the alleged paramour of the Appellant, the Respondent, in order to establish the due execution of the said Deed, called as a witness the office clerk of the Notary Public, one Amunugoda Hewage Chandrakumara Gamini Wickremathilake. His evidence, commencing at page 206 of the appeal brief, is of vital importance. In his examination-in-chief, this witness gave a clear and consistent account of the circumstances under which the 1st Defendant, accompanied by the attesting witnesses, came to the residence of the Notary Public, Mr. Lanny Wickramathilake, and executed Deed No.1530. He testified that he himself had typed the Deed and witnessed the 1st Defendant signing as \"S. Senanayake.\" Thereafter, in his presence, the two attesting witnesses, namely 16 Gunasena and Sirisoma, placed their signatures, followed by the signature of the Notary Public. Thus, the essential requirements under section 69 of the Evidence Ordinance were satisfied. The witness further stated that on 11.01.1982, upon the instructions of the Notary Public, he personally wrote the receipt marked P3, which the Appellant signed in English as “S. Senanayake” on two stamps affixed thereto, acknowledging the receipt of the balance sum of Rs. 2,000/-. This evidence corroborates the payment of consideration and the due completion of the transaction. Notably, the witness, being a relative of the Notary Public, had no personal interest in the subject matter and must therefore be regarded as impartial. Although his cross-examination had commenced, the witness failed to attend court on the subsequent date, and counsel for the Respondent informed court that the said witness had been threatened by the 2nd Defendant. An application was accordingly made for the issue of a civil warrant, which however was refused on the ground of delay. Nevertheless, the Respondent’s daughter, Kalyanawathi, testified as to the threats made to the witness and produced material to show that police complaints had been lodged. The learned District Judge, by his order dated 12.12.2003, correctly held that notwithstanding the fact that cross-examination was incomplete, the evidential value of the testimony already given would be considered at the conclusion of the trial. It is also significant that the Appellant, while giving evidence, did not challenge certain material suggestions put to her. When it was suggested that she and the Respondent’s daughter, Kalyanawathi, had schooled together, she remained silent, thereby admitting the fact. It was further suggested to her that she was capable of reading and writing her name in English. No challenge had been made to Kalyanawathi on this point when she was giving evidence. The Appellant eventually admitted this fact. However, during cross-examination she made the unsolicited assertion that she never signed 17 documents in English, a statement clearly inconsistent with her admitted ability to write her name in English, as well as with the evidence of the notary’s clerk and the receipt P3 signed by her. Most tellingly, when it was put to her in cross-examination that her denial of having sold the land was false, the Appellant chose to remain silent (see page 325 of the appeal brief). Such silence, when a direct suggestion of falsity was made, can reasonably be taken as an implied admission. Her contradictory stance and evasive responses further undermine her credibility. In the totality of circumstances, the evidence of the notary’s clerk stands as cogent and credible proof of the due execution of Deed No.1530, while the testimony and demeanour of the Appellant reveal several inconsistencies and an absence of candour. The Appellant contends that relying on section 68 of the Partition Law that formal proof is not necessary but genuineness of the deed is impeached by a party adversely claiming to the party producing the deed. The Appellant is an adversely who is challenging said deed. Further, relying on section 25(2) of the partition law the Appellants contend that without filing a statement of claim a party shall not be entitled to contest or dispute thus impeaching a deed means challenging the said deed in the statement of claim and raising an issue challenging the deed. In the circumstances, I am of the view that reliance on the provisions of the Partition Law alone cannot suffice to impeach a deed without proper procedural compliance. It is well-established that an objection to documentary evidence must be taken not only at the time of tender but also maintained until the close of the case; failure to do so renders such objection of little avail as set out by the provisions of the civil procedure code. The Appellants contended that by virtue of section 25(2) of the Partition Law, a party seeking to challenge the validity of a deed is required to do so expressly by way of a statement of claim and by raising an appropriate issue, for it is only then that the Court is properly seized of the dispute. I am of the view that 18 the section of the new amendment to the Civil Procedure code set out above that is applicable to the present case is Section 3 (a) (i) as the Appellant’s counsel failed to reiterate his objections at the end of the Respondent’s case. In any event, in answering issue No. 5, the learned District Judge has rightly concluded that the signature appearing on the deed was that of the Appellant. I find no reason to depart from this finding, for on the available material, including the corroborative receipt and the absence of contrary evidence, the Respondent has discharged her burden of proving execution of the deed to the fullest extent possible in the circumstances fulfilling the requirements of section 68 and 69 of the Evidence Ordinance. When considering all the above discussed circumstances, it is evident that the Learned High Court Judge of the High Court of Civil Appeals of the Western Province holden in Gampaha and the Learned District Court Judge of Gampaha have arrived at the correct conclusion and I see no need to interfere with their decision. On this basis, I decide the question of law in the present case in the negative. I uphold the judgments of the High Court Province of Civil Appeals of the Western Province holden in Gampaha and the District Court of Gampaha. In these circumstances and for the foregoing reasons, the appeal of the Appellant is hereby dismissed without costs.		Download
2025-09-25	SC/CHC APPEAL/22/2013	Megafeeder (Pvt) Ltd, Ebrahim Building, West Wharf Road, Karachi, Pakistan. PLAINTIFF Vs. Ceyaki Shipping (Pvt) Limited, No. 1, Alfred House Avenue, Colombo 3. DEFENDANT And now between Ceyaki Shipping (Pvt) Limited, No. 1, Alfred House Avenue, Colombo 3. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT Vs. Megafeeder (Pvt) Ltd, Ebrahim Building, West Wharf Road, Karachi, Pakistan. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Arjuna Obeyesekere J			Download
2025-09-25	SC/APPEAL/151/2012	H.M.D. Ramlan, No. 143, Kandy Road, Thihariya. PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT – APPELLANT Vs. K.A. Wimalasena, No. 260, Dandagamuwa Road, Weyangoda, Thihariya. DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT (NOW DECEASED) A. K.A. Treleshiya Padmani B. K.A. Erandathi Pushpa Kumari C. K.A. Pomila Nishani D. K.A. Sujeewa Kumari All of No. 327, Dandagamuwa East, Wewapara, Weyangoda. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANTS – RESPONDENTS – RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Janak De Silva J			Download
2025-09-25	SC/APPEAL/18/2017	1.a Muruthen Rallage Nawarathne Bandara Thiyambarahena, Undugoda. 1.b Muruthen Rallage Ariyawathie Thiyambarahena, Undugoda. 1.c Muruthen Rallage Sumana Banda Thiyambarahena, Thelijjagoda, Undugoda. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANTS – RESPONDENTS – APPELLANTS - APPELLANTS {Purportedly under Section 341(1) of the Civil Procedure Code} vs 1. Henaka Rallage Premachandra Bandara, Alikapuwatte, Thiyambarahena, Undugoda. (Deceased) PLAINTIFF -PETITIONER -RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT 1A. Korale Gama Ralalage Sumanawathie, 1B.Darshana Saman Premachandra, 1C. Rajeewa Nilantha Thushara Premachandra, 1D. Dammika Niroshan Premachandra, 1E.Iresha Priyadarshani Premachandra, All of Alikapuwatte, Thiyambarahena, Undugoda. SUBSTITUTED – PLAINTIFF- PETITIONER – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENTS. View More	Hon. M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J			Download
2025-09-25	SC/APPEAL/125/2012	S.M. Ashoka Lalith Subasinghe, No. 26, Pangiriwatte Road, Gangodawila, Nugegoda. (deceased) Mallawa Arachchige Geethani Nilmini Senanayake, No. 26, Pangiriwatte Road, Gangodawila, Nugegoda. SUBSTITUTED 2nd PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. 3. N. M. Babynona (deceased) 3A. A. G. Manel Kanthi, No. 649, Hendiyagala, Sandalankawa. By Her Power of Attorney A. G. Nandana Lal Athula, No. 649, Hendiyagala, Sandalankawa. 3B. A.G. Nihal Rohitha, No. 176, Thanipolgahawatte, Korasa, Udugampola. 3C. A. G. Nandana Lal Athula, No. 649, Hendiyagala, Sandalankawa. 3D. A. G. Upul Hemantha, Dasun Hardware, Sandalankawa. 3E. A. G. Niranjala Gamage, No. 176, Thanipolgahawatte, Korasa, Udugampola. By Her Power of Attorney A. G. Nihal Rohitha, No. 176, Thanipolgahawatte, Korasa, Udugampola. 4. A. G. Nihal Rohitha, No. 176, Thanipolgahawatte, Korasa, Udugampola. 3A-3E and 4th DEFENDANT- APPELLANT-RESPONDENTS 1. Nettikumara Appuhamilage Seelawathie, “Walawwa”, Sandalankawa Road, Sandalankawa. (Deceased) 1A. Gamini Ranjith Subasinghe, Medagarawatte, Sandalankawa. 1B. S. M. Chandrika Padmini, Makandura, Gonawila. 1C. Anula Rohini Subasinghe, “Walawwa”, Sandalankawa Road, Sandalankawa. 1D. Sujatha Ranjanie Subasinghe, No. 125, Nawinna, Maharagama. (Deceased) 1D1. Witharana Kuruppu Arachchige Praveen Karshana Abeyratne, No. 125, Jayagath Road, Nawinna, Maharagama. 1D2. Nathasha Piyumali Abeyratne, No. 76/16, 9th Lane, Ekamuthu Mawatha, Mawitthara, Piliyandala. 1A-1D2 SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS 3. S. M. Gamini Ranjith Subasinghe, Medagarawatte, Sandalankawa. 5. S. M. Chandrika Padmini Weragoda, Makandura, Gonawila. 6. S. M. Anula Rohini Gunatunga, “Walawwa”, Sandalankawa Road, Sandalankawa. 7. S. M. Sujatha Ranjanie Abeyratne, No. 125, Nawinna, Maharagama. 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J	This is an appeal by the 2nd plaintiff-respondent-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 2nd plaintiff) on the basis of being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17-12-2010 of the Court of Appeal, where the judgment pronounced by the learned District Judge of Kuliyapitiya on 16-10-2001, which was partly in favour of the plaintiffs of the action, was set aside. When this matter was supported for Special Leave to Appeal before this Court on 17-07-2012, Leave to Appeal was allowed on the questions of law as set out in paragraph 18 (I) to (V) of the petition dated 23-01-2011. The said questions of law read as follows, I. Did the Court of Appeal err in law in its findings with regard to the scope and nature of the case of the plaintiffs. II. Has the Court of Appeal misdirected itself in law by arriving at the conclusion that the claims of the both parties were on the basis of prescriptive title. III. Did the Court of Appeal err in law by failing to appreciate that the appeal related to Lot No. 4 (schedule B) and already Lot 4B (schedule C) had been given to the respondents by the judgment of the District Court. IV. Has the Court of Appeal misdirected in law by coming to the conclusion that the learned District Judge has placed the burden on the wrong party. V. Did the Court of Appeal err in law by failing to consider that when the respondents claimed rights in Lot No. 4 in D1 and D2 allegedly executed by the predecessors of the plaintiffs it was incumbent of the District Court to come to a finding whether the said deeds related to the corpus. At the hearing of this appeal, this Court heard the submissions of the learned President’s Counsel who represented the 2nd plaintiff, as well as that of the learned President’s Counsel who represented the defendant-appellant- Page 7 of 18 respondents (hereinafter referred to as the defendants.) This Court also had the benefit of considering the pre-argument, as well as, the post-argument written submissions tendered by the parties, for the purpose of pronouncing this judgment. The matters that led to the impugned judgment pronounced by the Court of Appeal can be summarized in the following manner. The plaintiffs of the District Court action, including the 2nd plaintiff, instituted an action in form of a vindicatory suit against the defendants, praying for the declaration of title for the two lands morefully described in schedule B and C of their plaint dated 29-12-1993, and also for an order of ejectment of the defendants, and for damages. From the averments of their plaint, they have pleaded title to the said lands based on a final partition decree, as well as on the basis of prescription. The defendants in their answer have denied the title claimed by the plaintiffs. Having pleaded their title and also the prescriptive title as to the lands described in the plaint, they have moved for the dismissal of the action. At the trial held in that regard, there had been no admissions by the parties, and the plaintiff of the action has raised 15 issues, while the defendants have raised issue No. 16 to 32. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned District Judge of Kuliyapitiya, pronouncing her judgment on 16-10-2001 (page 177 of the appeal brief) has correctly identified that the plaintiffs have come before the Court to get a declaration of title to the land morefully described in schedules B and C of the plaint, and also for the ejectment of the defendants and other incidental reliefs. After having determined that the plaintiffs have come before the Court in order to get a declaration of title to the Northern portion of Lot 4 of plan No. 4455 dated 12-07-1942 prepared by G. A. de Silva Licenced Surveyor for the purpose of Partition Action No. 230, and also for the Lot marked as 4B in the same plan, the learned District Judge has proceeded to consider the title pleaded by the plaintiffs. Page 8 of 18 The earlier mentioned plan has been marked and produced as P-02 at the trial (page 212 of the appeal brief), which is the final partition plan prepared for the purposes of the District Court of Kurunegala Partition Action No. 230. According to the final partition decree marked P-01, the said Lot 4 as depicted in schedule A of the plaint has been allocated to the 3rd defendant of the action, one Punchi Banda, while Lot 4B, which is the land depicted in schedule C of the plaint, has been allocated to the 12th defendant of the action, one Kirimenika. It has been the position of the plaintiffs that the said Punchi Banda, to whom they have referred to as Punchi Banda Subasinghe, sold the portion of the land South to the road that runs through Lot 4, and he was in possession of the balance portion of Lot 4, which was to the North of the earlier mentioned road. The plaintiffs have claimed that the said portion of the land was held and possessed by the earlier mentioned Punchi Banda Subasinghe, and upon his death, his son Premachandra held and possessed the said portion of the land along with Lot No. 4B of the final partition plan, and established prescriptive title to the said two portions of the land. The plaintiffs have raised their issues on the basis that upon the death of said Premachandra Subasinghe, the plaintiffs inherited the said portions of the land and established prescriptive title as well. It was on the basis that the defendants forcibly evicted the plaintiffs on or about 28-10-1993, which resulted in accruing a cause of action for them to get a declaration of title and ejectment of the defendants, as well as damages, the plaintiffs have initiated action before the District Court. Although the defendants have only claimed for a dismissal of the action, they have also raised their issues based on several title deeds as stated in their pleadings and have also raised an issue on the basis of Res Judicata. The learned District Judge in her judgment has determined that the plaintiffs have established their title to the portion of land described in schedule B of the plaint, while determining that they have failed to establish the title to Lot Page 9 of 18 4B of the final partition plan. The said Lot 4B is the land described in schedule C of the plaint. While determining that the defendants have also failed to establish the title as claimed by them in relation to the said Lot 4 of the final partition plan, it has been determined that they have established title with regard to Lot 4B. On the said basis, the learned District Judge has answered the issues in favour of the plaintiffs in relation to schedule B of the plaint, while allowing damages and also ejectment of the defendants from the said portion of the land. Being aggrieved of the said judgment, the defendants have appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal, of its judgment dated 17-12-2010, has determined that the action before the District Court being a rei vindicatio action, it was paramount on the plaintiffs to prove their title. It has been determined that since the plaintiffs did not have documentary title, it was incumbent upon them to prove the prescriptive title as claimed by them, however, they have failed to establish any documentary or prescriptive title to the lands claimed by them. It has also been determined that the learned trial Judge has placed an unnecessary burden on the defendants to prove their title and had failed to consider whether the plaintiffs have proved their title as claimed by them. Holding that the learned trial Judge has misconstrued the principles in relation to a rei vindicatio action, the judgment of the learned District Judge has been set aside and the appeal has been allowed. At the hearing of this appeal, it was the position of the learned President’s Counsel who represented the 2nd plaintiff, who is the appellant in this case, that the plaintiffs have properly identified the subject matter of this action and have also pleaded their title to the satisfaction of the Court. However, the learned President’s Counsel intimated to the Court that he will not challenge the determination of the learned District Judge where it was held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title to the land described in Page 10 of 18 schedule C of the plaint, which was Lot 4B of the final partition plan marked P-02. He also submitted that the defendants who have claimed prescriptive title to the land depicted in schedule B of the plaint have failed to establish their title, and hence, the title established by the plaintiffs should prevail. In reply to a question raised by the Court during the hearing of this appeal, the learned President’s Counsel was of the view that it is not necessary always to obtain the services of a surveyor and to show the land in dispute in relation to a commission obtained through the Court in a rei vindicatio action. It was contended that since the plaintiffs have described the land with its metes and bounds and also by way of a final partition plan, there was no difficulty for the trial Court to identify the subject matter of the action. It was submitted further that the Court of Appeal erred in its determinations, and had failed to consider the evidence placed before the trial Court and the judgment of the learned District Judge in its correct perspective, when it was determined that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their title as claimed before the trial Court. It was the position of the learned President’s Counsel who represented the defendants that it has been established before the trial Court that the portion South of the road that runs through Lot 4 of the final partition plan marked P-02, had been sold to the predecessor in title of the defendants by Punchi Banda, who was the person who became entitled to the said portion by the partition decree. It was also pointed out that it was undisputed that Lot 4A of the final partition plan is also held and possessed by the defendants, while the trial Court held that Lot 4B, though claimed by the plaintiffs, was held and possessed by the defendants. It was the position of the learned President’s Counsel that the disputed portion referred to in schedule B of the plaint was also held and possessed by the predecessors of the defendants and the defendants through title deeds as pleaded by them. It was contended that they have established prescriptive title as well to the said portion by holding and possessing the said portion along with the balance portion of Lot 4, Lot 4A, and Lot 4B as one single entity. Page 11 of 18 It was his submission that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they held and possessed the said disputed portion of the land until 28-10-1993 as claimed by them in their plaint, and it was the defendants who possessed it throughout, even after the entering of the final partition decree. The learned President’s Counsel went on to contend that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the title to an identified subject matter, and had failed to prove any material proof of prescription, and hence, the Court of Appeal was correct in setting aside the judgment of the learned District Judge of Kuliyapitiya. Having in mind the facts relating to this matter, the arguments presented to this Court, and the relevant law in that regard, I will now proceed to consider whether the 2nd plaintiff has a basis to succeed in this appeal. I do not find any misdirection as to the relevant law when the Court of Appeal determined that in a rei vindicatio action, the burden is entirely on the plaintiff to prove his title. It was held in the case of D.A. Wanigaratne Vs. Juwanis Appuhamy 65 NLR 167 at 168; “It had been laid down now by this Court that in an action rei vindicatio the plaintiff should set out his title on the basis on which he claims a declaration of title to the land and must, in Court, prove that the title against the defendant in the action. The defendant in a rei vindicatio action need not prove anything, still less, his own title. The plaintiff cannot ask for a declaration of title in his favour merely on the strength that the defendant’s title is poor or not established. The plaintiff must prove and establish his title.” However, I am not in a position to fully agree with the determination of the Court of Appeal that the plaintiffs of the action do not possess a documentary title, and therefore, they have failed to establish documentary or prescriptive title. Page 12 of 18 It is clear from the pleadings and the evidence placed before the Court on behalf of the plaintiffs that they have relied on the final partition decree marked as P-01 to claim their title. It has been their position that the 3rd defendant mentioned in that final partition decree, namely, Punchi Banda, who became entitled to Lot 4 of the final partition plan marked P-02, was their predecessor in title. They have claimed title based on inheritance, which they are entitled when claiming title. Although they could claim title to the land described in schedule B of the plaint on the basis of inheritance, when it comes to the land mentioned in schedule C, the only mode they could claim title would be by claiming prescription through their predecessor in title. Therefore, it is clear that plaintiffs have relied on paper title and prescription in relation to the land described in schedule B, while claiming prescription in relation to the land mentioned in schedule C of the plaint in order to pray for a declaration of title. In the case of Leisa and Another Vs. Simon and Another (2002) 1 SLR 148, it was held; 1. The contest is between the right of dominium of the plaintiffs and the declaration of adverse possession amounting to prescription by the defendants. 2. The moment title is proved the right to possess is presumed. 3. … 4. An averment of prescription by a plaintiff in a plaint after pleading paper title is employed only to buttress his paper title. 5. For the Court to have come to its decisions as to whether the plaintiff had dominium, the proving of paper title is sufficient. 6. The mere fact that the plaintiff claimed both on deeds as well as by long possession did not entail the plaintiff to prove prescriptive title thereto. Their possession was presumed on proving paper title. The averment of prescription in the plaint did not cast any burden upon the plaintiff to prove a separate title by prescription in addition to paper title. Page 13 of 18 Although it can be said that the plaintiffs have claimed prescription in relation to the land described in schedule B of the plaint, it may have been that the prescription has been mentioned in order to buttress their paper title. However, as I have stated before, when it comes to the land described in schedule C of the plaint, they will necessarily have to establish the prescriptive title. Therefore, it is my view that this was a case where the plaintiffs were required to establish paper title, as well as prescriptive title, in relation to the two respective lands for which they claimed a declaration of title against the defendants. It is also important to have in mind that the defendants have claimed prescriptive title to both the lands mentioned in the respective schedules of the plaint, besides claiming paper title based on deeds they have produced before the trial Court. It was undisputed during the hearing of this appeal that, the determination of the learned District Judge that the land mentioned in schedule C of the plaint, namely, Lot 4B of the final partition plan marked P-02, is a land belonging to and held and possessed by the defendants. It was also undisputed that the land mentioned as 4A in the same plan, which is the land to the South of Lot 4B, is also a land held and possessed by the 1st defendant of the action. In such a scenario, I find it necessary to consider whether the learned District Judge was correct in the finding that the plaintiffs have established the title to the land depicted in schedule B of the plaint. When it comes to the title in relation to the said portion of land as claimed by the plaintiffs, they have gone on the basis that their immediate predecessor in title, namely Premachandra Subasinghe, was the son of Punchi Banda Subasinghe, who became entitled to Lot 4 of the final partition plan marked P-02. However, the deeds marked as V-01 and V-02 by the defendants show that in fact the said Punchi Banda and Premachandra were sons of Kirimundyanse Korala of Sandalankawa, which means they are in fact brothers. The plaintiffs have failed to explain this discrepancy as to their claimed title. Page 14 of 18 If they were indeed brothers as it appears, contrary to the claim by the plaintiffs that they are father and son, the plaintiffs’ title pleaded based on inheritance shall fail since they have failed to establish the inheritance they claimed. It is my considered view that in a rei vindicatio action, proving of title to the subject matter of an action includes the proper identification of the land for which a plaintiff is claiming title. I am in agreement with the submissions of the learned President’s Counsel on behalf of the 2nd plaintiff, that in terms of Section 41 of the Civil Procedure Code, when a claim is made in an action for some specific part of a land or some share or interest in a specific portion of land, then the portion of land must be described in the plaint so far as possible by reference to physical metes and bounds or by reference to a sufficient sketch, map or plan appended to the plaint and not by name only. However, it is also my view that whether stating as such in a plaint would be sufficient to succeed in an action in the nature of a rei vindicatio would depend on facts and circumstances specific to each case. The case under appeal is a matter where there has been no admission as to the corpus. It is true that the plaintiffs have described the land in question in relation to a final partition plan that was prepared in the year 1942. The plaint in this action has been filed in the year 1993, more than five decades after the final partition plan was prepared. The plaintiffs have claimed not the entire Lot 4 of the final partition plan marked P-02, but only the Northern portion separated through a road running through the Lot 4. The evidence placed before the Court has established the fact that the Southern portion of the said Lot 4 has been sold to the predecessor in title of the defendants by way of the deed marked V-02, by the person who became entitled to the entire Lot 4, who is also the predecessor in title as claimed by the plaintiffs. Page 15 of 18 Although the said deed appears to be a deed executed after the conclusion of the partition action, there is no reference to the title in relation to the final partition decree in the said deed. However, the fact remains that the predecessors in title of the defendants have had the possession of the Southern portion of the Lot 4 since the year 1942. The plaintiffs have come before the Court on the basis that the defendants entered the Northern portion of the Lot 4, a few months before they instituted the action, which means they have admitted that the questioned land was in the possession of the defendants. When it comes to the facts and the circumstances specific to the case under appeal, it is clear that the defendants have also claimed title to the disputed portion through deeds, although the said deeds have been executed in relation to a final determination of the partition action. They have claimed that on the strength of their deeds, they held and possessed the entire land. It is also clear from the evidence that the two plots of land mentioned as Lot 4A and Lot 4B have been held and possessed by the defendants’ predecessors in title as well as the defendants, along with the Southern portion of Lot 4 and also the Northern portion of the said Lot 4 now claimed by the plaintiffs. Because of such a possession, it is reasonable to assume that there would not be identifiable boundaries between the Northern portion of the Lot 4, Lot 4A and Lot 4B. Therefore, it is my considered view that for the plaintiffs to claim title to a part of Lot 4 which they have described as the Northern portion of the said Lot separated by a road that runs through the said land, it was paramount on them to identify the land claimed for which they are seeking a declaration of title through a survey plan obtained for the purposes of the action. This is so necessary due to the fact of the defendants’ claim of title to the said Lot along with the lands adjacent to the disputed portion. Page 16 of 18 In the case of Jamaldeen Abdul Latheef Vs. Abdul Majeed Mohamed Masoor and Another (2010) 2 SLR 333 Saleem Marsoof, P.C., J., at page 377 observed as follows; “It is trite law that the identity of the property with respect to which a vindicatory action is instituted is an fundamental to the success of the action as the proof of the ownership (dominum) of the owner (dominus). The passage from Wille’s Principles of South African Laws (9th Edition - 2007) at pages 539-540, which I have already quoted in this judgement, stresses that to succeed with an action rei vindicatio, which this case clearly is, the owner must prove on a balance of probabilities, not only his or her ownership in the property, but also that the property exists and is clearly identifiable. It is also essential to show that the defendant is “in possession or detention of the thing at the moment the action is instituted.” Wille also observes that the rationale for this “is to ensure that the defendant is in a position to comply with an order for restoration.” The identity of the subject matter is of paramount importance in a rei vindicatio action because the object of such an action is to determine ownership of the property, which objective cannot be achieved without the property being clearly identified. Where the property sought to be vindicated consists of land, the land sought to be vindicated must be identified by reference to a survey plan or other equally expeditious method. It is obvious that ownership cannot be ascribed without clear identification of the property that is subjected to such ownership, and furthermore, the ultimate objective of a person seeking to vindicate immovable property by obtaining a writ of execution in terms of Section 323 of the Civil Procedure Code will be frustrated if the fiscal to whom the writ is addressed, cannot clearly identify the property by reference to the decree for the purpose of giving effect to it. It is therefore essential in a vindicatory action, as much as in a partition action, for the corpus to be identified with precision.” Page 17 of 18 There can be no argument that the plaintiffs have not obtained the services of a surveyor to prepare a plan and a report, depicting the disputed portion of the land in relation to the final partition plan under which they claim title. If there was a plan and a report of such a nature, it would have been clear to the trial Court as to the corpus in dispute. The trial Court would be in a much better position to determine the plaintiffs’ claim that they were dispossessed of the land only in the year 1993, a few months before they instituted the action. For the reasons as considered above, I am of the view that this was a case where the learned District Judge, as well as Her Ladyship of the Court of Appeal who pronounced the appellate judgment, had failed to consider whether the corpus for which the plaintiffs claimed title, has been properly identified. The learned District Judge has gone on the basis of the plan prepared for the partition action which has been concluded in the year 1942. As I have considered earlier, this would not give a clear understanding of the disputed portion of the land claimed by the plaintiffs. Although the Court of Appeal in its determination has not considered the question of the identity of the land separately, it is my view that proving the title as claimed by the party includes the proper identification of the land for which such a party claims title. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the learned District Judge has failed to consider the necessary ingredients that needs to be established in an action for declaration of title, when the matter was determined in relation to the land morefully described in schedule B of the plaint in favour of the plaintiffs. I find that the Court of Appeal was correct in its final determination to allow the appeal and set aside the District Court judgment, based on the premise that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the title claimed by them, though the question of identity of the land has not been discussed in any detail. Page 18 of 18 Accordingly, I answer the questions of law under which this appeal was considered in the following manner. I. No. II. Although it was not only on the basis of prescriptive title the parties have claimed their rights, it is not a basis to interfere with the Court of Appeal judgment. III. No. IV. No. V. No. Hence, the appeal is dismissed due to the aforementioned reasons, as I find no merit in the appeal. The parties shall bear their own costs.		Download
2025-09-24	SC/APPEAL/94/2017	B.R.W.M.R. Kuda Bandara Thoradeniya, Bambaragaswewa. 2. B.R.W.M.R. Lalindri Thoradeniya 3. B.R.W.M.R. Kavindra Thoradeniya Both of Galewela. PETITIONER-APPELLANTS Vs. B.R.W.M.R Lalith Bandara, Thoradeniya, Doratiyawa, Kurunegala. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT 1. B.R.W.M.R. Thilaka Bandara Thoradeniya, 100/1, Elwatte, Wanduragala, Kurunegala. 2. W.B.M.R. Gamini Bandula Bandara, Doratiyawa, Kurunegala. 3. B.R.W.M.R. Anura Bandara Thoradeniya, Doratiyawa, Kurunegala. 4. B.R.W.M.R.Chintha Neelamani Thoradeniya, Doratiyawa, Kurunegala. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J	This is an appeal preferred by the petitioner-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-appellants) on the basis of being aggrieved by the judgment pronounced by the Provincial High Court of the Central Province holden in Kandy while exercising its civil appellate jurisdiction (hereinafter referred to as the High Court) in the Revision Application No. CP/HCCA/21/2019 (REV). The said judgment has been pronounced on 27-01-2015, and for the reasons set out in the judgment, the learned Judges of the High Court have dismissed the said revision application. Page 5 of 17 When this matter was supported for the granting of Leave to Appeal on 16-05-2017, this Court granted Leave to Appeal on the questions of law as set out in sub-paragraphs (iv), (v), (vi), (vii) and (x) of paragraph 15 of the petition dated 27-02-2015. In addition to the above, two additional questions of law as proposed by the learned President’s Counsel who represented the defendant-defendant-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) has also been permitted. The said questions of law that need consideration in this appeal read as follows; 1. Did the learned Civil Appellate High Court Judges err by not exercising revisionary jurisdiction conferred on the Civil Appellate High Court in order to avoid miscarriage of justice caused to the petitioners in the circumstances of this case. 2. Did the learned Judges of the High Court err in law in construing the contents of terms of settlement (X1) and the settlement order (X3) and by concluding that they were not identical. 3. Did the learned Judges of the Civil Appellate High Court err by not appreciating that the subsequent publication of the settlement order in the government gazette is only a confirmation of title already vested in the predecessor of the petitioners by X1. 4. Did the Civil Appellate High Court err in holding that the land sought to be partitioned was different from the land claimed by the petitioners, without taking into account that the land described in X1 and X2 has been referred to in P3 and P4 relied upon by the respondents and also in the settlement order published in gazette (X3) by reference to and identical lot 32 in B.S.V.P. 331. 5. Whether the provisions of section 8 of the Land Settlement Ordinance have to be construed in the light of the entry of settlement on 16-05-1956 and the publication of order (X3) after 27 years so as not to prejudice of the rights of a purchaser after the settlement. Page 6 of 17 6. Does the publication of land settlement order in gazette X3 vitiates any deeds executed prior to that date. 7. Whether the document marked X1 has any legal validity after the land settlement order in gazette notification marked X3. At the hearing of this appeal, this Court heard the submissions of the learned Counsel who represented the petitioner-appellants and also the submissions of the learned President’s Counsel who represented the respondents. This Court also had the benefit of considering the extensive written submissions tendered by the parties as to their respective stands. The facts that led to the filing of the revision application before the Provincial High Court can be summarized in the following manner. The plaintiff in District Court of Matale Partition Action No. P2508 has instituted proceedings in order to partition the land morefully described in the schedule of the plaint between the plaintiff and the defendants named in the action. After following the due procedure in that regard, the Commissioner appointed for the purposes of the action, namely, Licensed Surveyor W.M.G.P. Gunathilaka, has prepared the preliminary survey plan No. 1795 dated 15-12-2005, identifying the land sought to be partitioned as lot 1 to 4 of the said plan. According to the preliminary survey report, no one has claimed rights to the land other than the parties to the action. At the trial, there had been no dispute as to the corpus sought to be partitioned and the title pleaded. This is a land where the mentioned original owner Lokubanda Thoradeniya has become entitled through a Land Settlement Certificate issued by the Commissioner of Land Settlements, and published in the Extra-Ordinary Gazette No. 253/15 dated 15-07-1983. Page 7 of 17 Since there had been no contest as to the corpus and to the entitlements of the parties, the learned District Judge of Matale, having considered the evidence led before him, has pronounced his judgment dated 25-07-2007, allowing the partitioning of the corpus sought to be partitioned among the parties as stated in the judgment. The interlocutory decree has been entered on 25-07-2007. After having considered the final partition plan and the report No. 2427 dated 3rd and 4th of January 2008, the said plan has been confirmed and the final decree has been entered on 27-02-2009, and accordingly, the partition action has been concluded. By the petition dated 23-07-2009, the petitioner-appellants have filed the earlier mentioned revision application before the High Court, seeking to set aside the interlocutory and the final decrees and all the proceedings of the District Court of Matale Case No. P2508, and thereby, seeking a direction to the District Court to confine the said partition case after the exclusion of 18 acres from the corpus as claimed by the petitioner-appellants, and for other incidental reliefs. It had been the position of the petitioner-appellants that the original owner of the corpus that was partitioned, namely, Lokubanda Thoradeniya, was the brother of the father of the 1st petitioner appellant, and he became entitled to the said corpus containing 36 acres as a result of a land settlement as stated in the partition action. However, the petitioner-appellants have claimed that the said Lokubanda Thoradeniya by the deed of transfer No. 18929 dated 25-11-1971, conveyed a half share of the said allotment to the father of the 1st appellant-petitioner, namely, Ciril Bandara Thoradeniya. It has been claimed that accordingly, the said allotment of land was possessed and cultivated by both the brothers, and the Settlement Officer, after the finalization of all claims under notice number 3068, proceeded to publish the Settlement Order under section 5(5) of the Ordinance in the Government Gazette No. 253/15 dated 15-07-1983 (the document marked X-3). Page 8 of 17 It has been claimed that in terms of the Settlement Order, the said Lokubanda was finally allocated an extent of 36 acres, 01 rood and 20 perches depicted as subdivided lot No. 308 in lot No. 32, which in turn assigned title plan No. S-50234. The petitioner-appellants who were the petitioners before the High Court have averred that the brother of Lokubanda, who became the owner of half share of the land through the earlier mentioned deed, transferred his undivided rights to the 1st petitioner-appellant, and he, in turn made several transfers of the said half share as pleaded in the petition and they held and possessed the said allotment of land. It has been stated that the 1st petitioner-appellant who is residing on a land to the West of the subject matter became aware of the partition action instituted by the plaintiff-respondent only on or about 15th and 16th of December 2005. It has been further stated that when he inquired from the plaintiff about the partition action, he was informed that the partition action was only in regard to the half share of his father, meaning the original owner Lokubanda, and hence, he had no reason to intervene in the case. It has been the position taken before the High Court that the plaintiffs and the defendants in the partition action, by acting collusively and fraudulently, has instituted the partition action knowing the petitioner-appellants’ rights very well and had obtained the partition decree, which has resulted in a miscarriage of justice and a manifest gross abuse of the process of Court. It has been averred that the grounds set out in paragraph 21, 22, 23, 28, 30, 31 and 32 of the petition disclose exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of the exclusive revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court, after having considered the contents of the petition before it, has decided to issue notice to the respondents mentioned, and after hearing all parties and allowing parties to file written submissions as well, has pronounced the impugned judgment. Page 9 of 17 Having considered the above factual matrix, it needs to be noted at the very outset of this judgment that this appeal relates to an application filed before the High Court invoking the discretionary remedy of revision, which could be granted only under exceptional circumstances. In the case of Thilagaratnam Vs. Edirisinghe (1982) 1 SLR 56, it was observed that; “Though the Appellate Court’s powers to act in revision were wide and be exercised whether an appeal has been taken against the order of the original Court or not such powers could be exercised only in exceptional circumstances.” In the case of Hotel Galaxy (Pvt) Ltd Vs. Mercantile Hotels Management Ltd (1987) 1 SLR 5, it was stated that; “It is settled law that the exercise of the revisionary powers of the appellate Courts is confined to cases in which exceptional circumstances exist warranting its intervention.” In the case of Wijesinghe Vs. Tharmaratnam (Sriskantha Law Report Volume iv page 47), it was held; “Revision is a discretionary remedy and will not be available unless the application discloses circumstances which shocks the conscience of the Court.” It is quite apparent from the High Court judgment that, the learned Judges of the High Court were very much mindful as to the manner a revision application filed before the Court should be considered and determined. The learned High Court Judges were highly observant that in such a situation, the conduct of the parties and whether there was an inordinate delay in coming before the Court will also be intensely relevant when it comes to the consideration of facts and the law placed before the Court. Page 10 of 17 In Gnanapandithan Vs. Balanayagam (1998) 1 SRL 391, it was held; “The question whether delay is fatal to an application in revision depends of the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the very special and exceptional circumstances of the case.” In the case of Perera Vs. People’s Bank (Bar Journal 1995 Vol. IV Part 1 Page 12), it was observed that; “Revision is a discretionary remedy and the conduct of the petitioner is intensely relevant to the granting of such relief.” It is very much apparent from the petition filed before the High Court that the petitioner-appellants have filed the revision application, which led to the judgment of the High Court primarily on the basis that the 1st petitioner-appellant was misled by the plaintiff of the partition action for him to believe that the partition action was only in relation to 18 acres of land and not for 36 acres, as the balance 18 acres had already being conveyed by the father of the plaintiff of the action to the father of the 1st appellant-petitioner. This appears to be the reason provided by the petitioner-appellants for their non-participation in the partition action and also to justify that they have exceptional grounds to invoke the revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court. In the petition filed before the High Court itself, the appellants have admitted that the 1st petitioner-appellant became aware of the partition action in December 2005. The plaint in this partition action has been filed on 15-05-2005 and the preliminary survey has been carried out in December 2005. Admittedly, the appellants had known about the partition action at least from the time of the preliminary survey. However, as correctly observed by the learned Judges of the High Court, after affixing notice as to the institution of the partition action at the Grama Sewaka Office as required under the Partition Law, the 1st petitioner-appellant who has claimed title to half of the land, which was the subject matter of the action, has become aware of the partition action from its very inception. The affidavit marked and produced as R-01 of the relevant Grama Page 11 of 17 Sewaka in that regard clearly establishes the said fact. The 1st petitioner-appellant should have known that the partition action was not for a land of 18 acres as he thought, but for the entire land of 36 acres when he saw and read the notice affixed at the office of the Grama Sewaka. Even if he was misled by the plaintiff in the partition action for him to believe that the partition action was only in relation to the half share owned by the plaintiff’s father Lokubanda, which amounts to an extent of around 18 acres, he should have very well come to know that it was not so when the Commissioner surveyed the entire land of 36 acres for the purpose of the partition action. The 1st petitioner-appellant is admittedly a person living on a land situated to the West of the subject matter, and if the 1st petitioner-appellant and other appellants were in possession of the 18 acres as claimed by them, there was no reason for them to understand that their rights would be affected. Having considered the time it would take for a surveyor to survey a land of 36 acres, it is impossible to believe that the 1st petitioner-appellant could not have realized that it included the 18 acres of land claimed by him and other appellants, which they owned and possessed according to them. The averments in the petition before the High Court, as well as the document submitted to the Court, establish that the petitioner-appellants were well aware of the partition action proceedings, the survey conducted for the preparation of the preliminary and final partition plan, and also entering of the interlocutory decree as well as the final decree of the partition action. The final decree of the action has been entered on 27-02-2009, whereby the corpus to be partitioned which comprised of 36 acres, 1 rood and 20 perches has been divided among the plaintiff and the 4 defendants of the partition action. This means that the entire land including the 18 acres claimed by the appellants had been divided in accordance with the final decree, and the relevant parties may have taken possession of their divided portions of land. This also means the petitioner- appellants losing Page 12 of 17 possession of 18 acres of land, if they had previous possession of the same, as a result of the said final partition decree. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Judges of the High Court were correct in considering the conduct of the petitioners as intensely relevant in deciding the revision application. I find that although the final decree has been entered in February 2009, the petitioner-appellants have gone before the High Court on 23-07-2009, around 5 months after the entering of the final decree. It is settled law that delay in seeking a discretionary remedy is also a matter a Court would consider relevant, although the length of the delay needs to be considered depending on the facts and the circumstances unique to each case. I am of the view that a delay of around 5 months has to be considered as relevant, in view of their failure to explain such a delay before the High Court. The facts as stated above show that the petitioner-appellants have failed to show any due diligence in asserting their rights knowing very well of the existence of the partition action if they believed that their rights were to be disturbed as they claim. I find that this aspect has also been duly considered by the learned Judges of the High Court. The case of Perera and Others Vs. Adline and Others (2000) 3 SLR 93 was a case where a similar situation was considered by the Court of Appeal. Upholding a preliminary objection raised as to the maintainability of a revision application challenging the interlocutory decree, it was determined that based on the facts and the circumstances, the petitioners in that case have accepted the finality of the judgment and the interlocutory decree. It was determined that hence, the petitioners are estopped from denying the validity of the interlocutory decree. Per Jayawickrema, J., “Although in an appropriate case this court has jurisdiction to act in revision and restitutio – integrum, but where a party has deliberately not shown due diligence even after he was notified Page 13 of 17 by the surveyor to appear in court and fails to apply to be added as a party this court will not exercise its jurisdiction in his favour…” I find that the learned Judges of the High Court have not proceeded to dismiss the revision application only on above considerations, but have proceeded to consider the application on its merit, in order to come to a finding whether there are any other exceptional circumstances that warrant the intervention of the Court. Towards the said objective, the High Court has considered whether the appellants have a right to claim title to the property as they claim. The document marked X-01 is the land settlement notice issued under the provisions of the Land Settlement Ordinance in favour of Lokubanda Thoradeniya, who is the admitted original owner of the corpus to be partitioned. The land settlement notice, which has settled the land in favour of Lokubanda Thoradeniya, had a condition that the person in whose favour the land was settled must pay a particular sum before a certain date. As correctly observed by the learned Judges of the High Court, that means the said notice marked X-01 does not confer absolute title of the property in favour of Lokubanda, for him to transfer half share of the property to his brother under whom the petitioner-appellants have come before the High Court to claim title. They have claimed title based on the deed marked X-02, namely, deed No. 18929 dated 25-11-1971. In the said deed, the said Lokubanda traces his title to a land settlement notice No. 3060 dated 27-10-1964, to an extent of 36 acres. However, the document marked X-01 is a land settlement notice issued in favour of Lokubanda Thoradeniya on 16-05-1956, which cannot be presumed in the absence of specific explanation as to the said discrepancy and that it relates to one and the same land. Accordingly, I find no reason to disagree with the conclusion of the learned Judges of the High Court that the document marked X-03 is not identical to the document marked X-01. Page 14 of 17 The effect of a final land settlement order made and duly published in the Government Gazette has been set out in section 8 of the Land Settlement Ordinance, which reads thus; 8. Subject to the provisions of section 5(6), every settlement order shall be published in the Gazette, and every settlement order so published shall be judicially noticed and shall be conclusive proof, so far as the State or any person is thereby declared to be entitled to any land or to any share of or interest in any land, that the State or such person is entitled to such land or to such share of or interest in the land or to such share of or interest in the land free of all encumbrances whatsoever other than those specified in such order and that subject to the encumbrance specified in such order such land or share or interest vests absolutely in the State or in such person to the exclusion of all unspecified interests of whatsoever nature and, so far as it is thereby declared that any land is not claimed by the State or that some person unascertained is entitled to a particular share of or interest in any land, that the State has no title to such land or that some person unascertained is entitled to such share of the land or that such interest in the land exists and that some person unascertained is entitled thereto, as the case maybe: Provided that nothing in this section contained shall affect the right of any person prejudiced by fraud or the willful suppression of facts of any claimant under the notice from proceedings against such claimant either for the recovery of damages or for the recovery of the land awarded to such claimant by the order. Page 15 of 17 The validity of a right obtained by a person from another before the said person was declared entitled to the property by a final land settlement order was considered in the case of Periacaruppen Chettiar Vs. Messers. Properties and Agents Ltd 47 NLR 121. G, by deed 3D4 of 21st December 1928 sold to the first defendant company a land the titles of which he expected to obtain subsequently by virtue of a settlement under the Ordinance relating to claims to forests, chena, waste, and unoccupied lands. By an order made on 27th October 1933, under section 8 of the Land Settlement Ordinance (Cap.319), G was declared entitled to the property. Plaintiff became the successor in title to G on 11th April 1938 by bona fide purchase for value. Held: The plea of exceptio rei venditae et traditae was not available to the first defendant as against the plaintiff and that the settlement order made in favour of G did not ensure to the benefit of the first defendant. The case of A.M. Karunadasa Vs. Abdul Hameed 60 NLR 352 was a case where the same issue was considered. Per Sanaoni, J., “The land in dispute in this action is two roods in extent. It was the subject of a settlement order dated 11th November 1939, made under the Land Settlement Ordinance. That order was published in the Gazette of 19th July 1940, and by virtue of section 8 of the Ordinance it became conclusive proof of the title of the persons in whose favour it was made… I am unable to agree with the learned Judge when he says that the benefit of the settlement order in favour of Ausadanaide to the extent of Page 16 of 17 the land can be claimed by the first defendant, for it has been held that a plea of exceptio rei venditae is not available to a purchaser as against a vendor who obtained a settlement order after the purchase was made- See Periacaruppen Chettiar Vs. Messers. Properties and Agents Ltd. (1946) 47 NLR 121. The first defendant therefore has no title whatsoever to the land in dispute.” Having considered the above settled law, I am of the view that the deed X-02 under which the petitioner-appellants have claimed title to the subject matter of the partition action, even if it was a deed relating to the same corpus, has no force or avail in law as rightly determined by the learned Judges of the High Court. The learned Judges of the High Court have observed that even the deeds executed subsequent to the final land settlement order and its publication in the Gazette X-03 by the 1st petitioner-appellant have not referred to the relevant order published in the Gazette, whereas it should have been. On the contrary, all the deeds relied upon by the plaintiffs and the defendants in the partition action have been executed after the publication of X-03, where all the said deeds correctly refer to the Gazette Notification as the source of title, which is a matter that should be considered relevant in an application in revision. Moreover, the fact that whether there was a duty cast upon the plaintiff of the partition action to make the petitioner-appellants parties to the action had also been drawn the attention of the learned Judges of the High Court. It has been observed that the land sought to be partitioned is different from the land claimed by the petitioner-appellants, by name, extent, and the folio in which they are registered. It has been observed that the deed relied upon by the petitioner-appellants (X-02) refers to a land called Debaragala Yaya, registered in folio B.221/73 and the land sought to be partitioned by the plaintiff of the partition action is a land called Milagalayaya alias Millagalayaya, registered in a separate folio D.289/8. Therefore, the plaintiff of the partition action had no duty to make the appellants parties unless the petitioner-appellants on their own wanted to do so. It has also been Page 17 of 17 determined that the petitioner-appellants have no basis to claim prescriptive title as well. I find that the above observations and determinations are matters that need consideration when an application for the exercise of the discretionary remedy of revision is before a competent Court, of which I find no reasons to disturb. It appears that the petitioner-appellants have made an attempt to qualify themselves under the proviso of section 8 of the Land Settlement Ordinance by claiming fraud on the part of the plaintiff of the partition action on the basis that it discloses exceptional circumstances. However, I find no such fraud as claimed that has occasioned a miscarriage of justice. For the reasons as considered above, I answer the questions of law No. 1 to 5 in the negative, while answering the question of law No. 6 in the affirmative. I answer the question of law No. 7 that the final land settlement order published in the Gazette X-03 shall prevail over the document X-01. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, as I find no merit in the appeal. There will be no costs of the appeal.		Download
2025-09-23	SC/FR/214A/2018	E.G.K. Lakmali, 108/1/D, 6th Lane, Maharagama Road, Piliyandala. PETITIONER - Vs - 1. Ceylon Petroleum Corporation. 2. W.S. Perera, Director, Ceylon Petroleum Corporation. 3. U.H.M.P. Dayaratne, Deputy Manager- Human Resources, Ceylon Petroleum Corporation. 4. R.A.T.I. Ranasinghe, Manager – Internal Audit, Ceylon Petroleum Corporation. 1st – 4th Respondents at No. 609, Danister De Silva Mawatha, Colombo 9. 5. W.V.S.A. Fonseka, Chief Accountant, Ministry of Petroleum Resources Development, No. 80, Sir Earnest de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 7. 6. D.P.S. Wickramanayaka 7. N. Amarasinghe 8. C.W.H. Fonseka 9. A.A.S.C. Adikari 10. G.D.R.H. Pushpamala 11. N.G.A. Shanthi 6th to 11th Respondents at Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, No. 609, Danister De Silva Mawatha, Colombo 9. 12. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Arjuna Obeyesekere J			Download
2025-09-23	SC/CHC APPEAL/15/2007	Orient Finance PLC (Formerly known as, Bartleet Finance PLC, Bartleet Finance Limited and Bartleet Financial Services Ltd) Presently at, No. 2, Deal Place, Colombo 03. (New Registration No: PB1079PQ) 1st Defendant – Appellant Vs. Mantrige Hector Lorence Dias, K C Enterprises, No. 35, Arambakade, Kurulugama. Plaintiff – Respondent Dodanduwa Hewavitharanage Saman Pushpakumara De Silva, No. 24, Bentotagagewatte, Hittetiya, Matara. 2nd Defendant – Respondent View More	Hon. Janak De Silva J			Download
2025-09-23	SC/CONT/3/2025	1. M.A. Sumanthiran, PC No. 3/1, Daya Road, Colombo 06. (The Petitioner in SC FR Application No. 203 / 2024) 2. Hon. Abdul Rauff Hibbathul Hakeem, MP No. 23/1, Melford Tower, Havelock city, Colombo 05. (The Petitioner in SC FR Application No. 204 / 2024) 3. Hon. Achchige Patali Champika Ranawaka, MP No. 88/1, Jayanthipura, Battaramulla. (The Petitioner in SC FR Application No. 205 / 2024) Petitioner - Complainants v. Illukpitiyage Srinath Harshadewa Jayasena Illukpitiya Controller General of Immigration and Emigration Suhurupaya, Sri Subuthipura Road, Battaramulla. (1st Respondent in SC FR Application Nos. 203, 204, & 205 / 2024) Accused View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda PC J			Download
2025-09-19	SC/APPEAL/17/2018	Saddatissa Athukorala No 349/1, Passara Town, Passara. 2ND DEFENDANT-PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs. Mohamed Hussain Mohamed Mubarak (Deceased) No. 131, Kovilkade, Passara. PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT Mohamed Hussain Dissanayake Mudiyanselage Sumithra Mubarak No.131, Kovilkade, Passara SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT 1. Dhawala Pushpa Athukorala 3. Rosalin Karnaratne (deceased) All of: No 349/1, Passara Town, Passara. 4. Mohamed Hussain Noorul Sauda 5. Mohamed Hussain Ummul Halima 6. Mohamed Hussain Ummul Lathifa All of: No.24/3, Parakrama Mawatha, Passara. 7. Mohamed Hussain Ummul Naseela No.370, Main Street, Passara. 8. Mohamed Hussain Mohamed Amanulla 9. Mohamed Hussain Ummul Hidaya 10. Mohamed Hussain Mohamed Fuad 11. Mohamed Hussain Sithty Fathima 12. Mohamed Hussain Mohamed Faus All of: No.24/3, Parakrama Mawatha, Passara. 13. Mohamed Ansar No.364, Main Street, Passara. 14. S.A. Abdul Kafar No.366, Main Street, Passara. 15. Amarasinghe No.368, Main Street, Passara. 16. E. V. Karthigesu (deceased) 16a.E. V. K. Nagendram Sathkunarajah 17. Rajeswari Nagendram Both of: No.305, Main Street, Passara. DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS- RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Sobhitha Rajakaruna J			Download
2025-09-19	SC/APPEAL/10/2016	Simithra Arachchige Rohini Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6b. Simithra Arachchige Nalini Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6c. Simithra Arachchige Mercy Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6d. Simithra Arachchige Stanley Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. (Deceased) 6d(i). Walpala Koralage Gunawathi, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6d(ii). Simithra Arachchige Dona Dilhani Kanchana Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6d(iii). Simithra Arachchige Dona Nilusha Nisanthi Gunawardena, No. 1277/3, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6d(iv). Simithra Arachchige Don Dinesh Nalaka Gunawardena, No. 1277/3, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6e. Simithra Arachchige Percy Gunawardena No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6f. Simithra Arachchige Sherly Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. (Deceased) 6f(i). Simithra Arachchige Dona Geethani Sepalika, No. 1277/3, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6f(ii). Simithra Arachchige Don Buddhika Sanjeewa Gunawardena, No. 1277/3, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6f(iii). Simithra Arachchige Dona Ishara Udayangani, No. 1277/3, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6f(iv). Simithra Arachchige Dona Chathurika Gayathrei Gunawardena, No. 1277/3, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6g. Simithra Arachchige Wasantha Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. (Deceased) 6h. Simithra Arachchige Seetha Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT- APPELLANT-APPELLANTS Vs. 1. Simithra Arachchige Dona Percy Rosmand Gunawardena. No. 22/1, Modara Wila Road, Nalluruwa, Panadura. (Deceased) 1a. Kandana Kankanamlage Godfrey Cecil Wasantha Perera, 22/1, Modara Wila Road, Nalluruwa, Panadura. (Deceased) 1a1. Palliyaguruge Sujeewa Amaraweera, 22/1, Modara Wila Road, Nalluruwa, Panadura. 1a2. Krishantha Sanjeewa Perera, 22/1, Modara Wila Road, Nalluruwa, Panadura. 1a3. Pradeepa Lakmali Perera, 22/1, Modara Wila Road, Nalluruwa, Panadura. 1a4. Manoja Dharshani Perera, 22/1, Modara Wila Road, Nalluruwa, Panadura. 1b. Kandana Kankanamlage Coldi Hiranya Jayantha Perera, 58/2, Sagara Mawatha, Panadura. 1c. Kandana Kankanamlage Ganbar Buddhisiri Perera, 58/2m, Sagara Mawatha, Panadura. 1d. Kandana Kankanamlage Dudley Lakshman Nihal Perera, 3rd Cross Street, Kumbutukuliya, Janawas, Bangadeniya. 1e. Kandana Kankanamlage Sarath Ivon Fredrik Perera, Prison Officer’s Quarters, Mahara Prison, Ragama. (Deceased) 1e. (i) Hewa Fonsekalage Seelet Fonseka, 1e. (ii) Kandana Kankanamlage Sameera Manjula Sampath Perera. Both of: 22/1, Modara Wila Road, Nalluruwa, Panadura. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS 1. Simithra Arachchige Dona Flora Agnes Gunawardena, No. 116, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. (Deceased) 1a. Enoka Dilini Chirishanthi Mala Jayawardena, No. 45/36A, Aururn Place, Dehiwala. 2. Muththettuwa Mudalige Dunsten Noel Alexander Perera, No. 1/161, Kiribathgala, Kaduwela Road, Malabe. (Deceased) 2a. Bulathhettige Chandralatha Perera, No. 239/16, Pittiyangawatte, Dedigamuwa. 2a. (1) Muththettuwa Mudalige Noel Sugath Palitha Perera, No. 259/16, Pittiyangawatte, Dedigamuwa. AND OTHERS View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J	Page 1 of 26 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. S.C. Appeal No: Simithra Arachchige Dona Percy Rosmand 10/2016 Gunawardena, No. 22/1, Modara Wila Road, SC (Spl) LA No: Nalluruwa, Panadura. (Deceased) 50/2014 PLAINTIFF Vs. CA Appeal No: 402/99 (F) 1. Simithra Arachchige Dona Flora Agnes Gunawardena, DC Kuliyapitiya No: No. 116, Kaduwela Road, 14657/P Battaramulla. 2. Muththettuwa Mudalige Dunsten Noel Alexander Perera, No. 1/161, Kiribathgala, Kaduwela Road, Malabe. 3. Simithra Arachchige Ranjith Gunawardena, No. 111, Newland, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. 4. Simithra Arachchige Nishshanka Gunawardena, No. 2/8, Wijayaba Road, Kalubowila, Dehiwala. Page 2 of 26 5. Simithra Arachchige Mallika Gunawardena, No. 116, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. 6. Sisi Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 7. Simithra Arachchige Rohini Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 8. Simithra Arachchige Nalini Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 9. Simithra Arachchige Mercy Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 10. Simithra Arachchige Stanley Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 11. Simithra Arachchige Percy Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 12. Simithra Arachchige Sherly Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 13. Simithra Arachchige Wasantha Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. Page 3 of 26 14. Simithra Arachchige Seetha Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. DEFENDANTS AND BETWEEN 6. Sisi Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. (Deceased) DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 6a. Simithra Arachchige Rohini Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6b. Simithra Arachchige Nalini Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6c. Simithra Arachchige Mercy Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6d. Simithra Arachchige Stanley Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6e. Simithra Arachchige Percy Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. Page 4 of 26 6f. Simithra Arachchige Sherly Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6g. Simithra Arachchige Wasantha Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6h. Simithra Arachchige Seetha Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS Vs. Simithra Arachchige Dona Percy Rosmand Gunawardena. No. 22/1, Modara Wila Road, Nalluruwa, Panadura. (Deceased) PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT 1. Simithra Arachchige Dona Flora Agnes Gunawardena, No. 116, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. 1a. Kandana Kankanamlage Godfrey Cecil Wasantha Perera, 22/1, Modara Wila Road, Nalluruwa, Panadura. 1b. Kandana Kankanamlage Coldi Hiranya Jayantha Perera, 58/2, Sagara Mawatha, Panadura. Page 5 of 26 1c. Kandana Kankanamlage Ganbar Buddhisiri Perera, 58/2m, Sagara Mawatha, Panadura. 1d. Kandana Kankanamlage Dudley Lakshman Nihal Perera, 3rd Cross Street, Kumbutukuliya, Janawas, Bangadeniya. 1e. Kandana Kankanamlage Sarath Ivon Fredrik Perera, Prison Officer’s Quarters, Mahara Prison, Ragama. (Deceased) 1e. (i) Hewa Fonsekalage Seelet Fonseka, 1e. (ii) Kandana Kankanamlage Sameera Manjula Sampath Perera. Both of: 22/1, Modara Wila Road, Nalluruwa, Panadura. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTS 1. Simithra Arachchige Dona Flora Agnes Gunawardena, No. 116, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. (Deceased) 1a. Enoka Dilini Chirishanthi Mala Jayawardena, No. 45/36A, Aururn Place, Dehiwala. Page 6 of 26 2. Muththettuwa Mudalige Dunsten Noel Alexander Perera, No. 1/161, Kiribathgala, Kaduwela Road, Malabe. (Deceased) 2a. Bulathhettige Chandralatha Perera, No. 239/16, Pittiyangawatte, Dedigamuwa. 3. Simithra Arachchige Ranjith Gunawardena, No. 111, Newland, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. 4. Simithra Arachchige Nishshanka Gunawardena, No. 2/8, Wijayaba Road, Kalubowila, Dehiwala. 5. Simithra Arachchige Mallika Gunawardena, No. 116, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. 5a. Enoka Dilini Chirishanthi Mala Jayawardena, No. 45/36A, Aururn Place, Dehiwala. 7. Simithra Arachchige Rohini Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 8. Simithra Arachchige Nalini Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. Page 7 of 26 9. Simithra Arachchige Mercy Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 10. Simithra Arachchige Stanley Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 11. Simithra Arachchige Percy Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 12. Simithra Arachchige Sherly Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 13. Simithra Arachchige Wasantha Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. (Deceased) 13a. Ajantha Dias Wickramanayake, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 14. Simithra Arachchige Seetha Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN Page 8 of 26 6a. Simithra Arachchige Rohini Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6b. Simithra Arachchige Nalini Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6c. Simithra Arachchige Mercy Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6d. Simithra Arachchige Stanley Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. (Deceased) 6d(i). Walpala Koralage Gunawathi, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6d(ii). Simithra Arachchige Dona Dilhani Kanchana Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6d(iii). Simithra Arachchige Dona Nilusha Nisanthi Gunawardena, No. 1277/3, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6d(iv). Simithra Arachchige Don Dinesh Nalaka Gunawardena, No. 1277/3, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. Page 9 of 26 6e. Simithra Arachchige Percy Gunawardena No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6f. Simithra Arachchige Sherly Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. (Deceased) 6f(i). Simithra Arachchige Dona Geethani Sepalika, No. 1277/3, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6f(ii). Simithra Arachchige Don Buddhika Sanjeewa Gunawardena, No. 1277/3, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6f(iii). Simithra Arachchige Dona Ishara Udayangani, No. 1277/3, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6f(iv). Simithra Arachchige Dona Chathurika Gayathrei Gunawardena, No. 1277/3, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6g. Simithra Arachchige Wasantha Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. (Deceased) 6h. Simithra Arachchige Seetha Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT- APPELLANT-APPELLANTS Page 10 of 26 Vs. 1. Simithra Arachchige Dona Percy Rosmand Gunawardena. No. 22/1, Modara Wila Road, Nalluruwa, Panadura. (Deceased) 1a. Kandana Kankanamlage Godfrey Cecil Wasantha Perera, 22/1, Modara Wila Road, Nalluruwa, Panadura. (Deceased) 1a1. Palliyaguruge Sujeewa Amaraweera, 22/1, Modara Wila Road, Nalluruwa, Panadura. 1a2. Krishantha Sanjeewa Perera, 22/1, Modara Wila Road, Nalluruwa, Panadura. 1a3. Pradeepa Lakmali Perera, 22/1, Modara Wila Road, Nalluruwa, Panadura. 1a4. Manoja Dharshani Perera, 22/1, Modara Wila Road, Nalluruwa, Panadura. 1b. Kandana Kankanamlage Coldi Hiranya Jayantha Perera, 58/2, Sagara Mawatha, Panadura. 1c. Kandana Kankanamlage Ganbar Buddhisiri Perera, 58/2m, Sagara Mawatha, Panadura. 1d. Kandana Kankanamlage Dudley Lakshman Nihal Perera, 3rd Cross Street, Kumbutukuliya, Janawas, Bangadeniya. Page 11 of 26 1e. Kandana Kankanamlage Sarath Ivon Fredrik Perera, Prison Officer’s Quarters, Mahara Prison, Ragama. (Deceased) 1e. (i) Hewa Fonsekalage Seelet Fonseka, 1e. (ii) Kandana Kankanamlage Sameera Manjula Sampath Perera. Both of: 22/1, Modara Wila Road, Nalluruwa, Panadura. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS 1. Simithra Arachchige Dona Flora Agnes Gunawardena, No. 116, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. (Deceased) 1a. Enoka Dilini Chirishanthi Mala Jayawardena, No. 45/36A, Aururn Place, Dehiwala. 2. Muththettuwa Mudalige Dunsten Noel Alexander Perera, No. 1/161, Kiribathgala, Kaduwela Road, Malabe. (Deceased) 2a. Bulathhettige Chandralatha Perera, No. 239/16, Pittiyangawatte, Dedigamuwa. 2a. (1) Muththettuwa Mudalige Noel Sugath Palitha Perera, No. 259/16, Pittiyangawatte, Dedigamuwa. Page 12 of 26 2a. (2) Muththettuwa Mudalige Goege Ranil Nalaka Perera, No. 259/16, Pittiyangawatte, Dedigamuwa. 2a. (3) Kalapugamage Don Chandrika Priyangani, No. 259/16, Pittiyangawatte, Dedigamuwa. 3. Simithra Arachchige Ranjith Gunawardena, No. 111, Newland, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. 3a. Noeline Chrishanthi Wijesinghe nee Gunawardena, No. 380B/4, Korathota North, Kaduwela. 4. Simithra Arachchige Nishshanka Gunawardena, No. 2/8, Wijayaba Road, Kalubowila, Dehiwala. 5. Simithra Arachchige Mallika Gunawardena, No. 116, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. 5a. Enoka Dilini Chirishanthi Mala Jayawardena, No. 45/36A, Aururn Place, Dehiwala. 7. Simithra Arachchige Rohini Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. Page 13 of 26 8. Simithra Arachchige Nalini Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 9. Simithra Arachchige Mercy Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 10. Simithra Arachchige Stanley Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. (Deceased) 10a. Walpala Koralage Gunawathi, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 10b. Simithra Arachchige Dona Dilhani Kanchana Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 10c. Simithra Arachchige Dona Nilusha Nisanthi Gunawardena, No. 1277/3, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 10d. Simithra Arachchige Don Dinesh Nalaka Gunawardena, No. 1277/3, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 11. Simithra Arachchige Percy Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. Page 14 of 26 12. Simithra Arachchige Sherly Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 13. Simithra Arachchige Wasantha Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. (Deceased) 13a. Ajantha Dias Wickramanayake, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 14. Simithra Arachchige Seetha Gunawardena, No. 1277, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS Before : A.L. Shiran Gooneratne, J. : Menaka Wijesundera, J. : Sampath B. Abayakoon, J. Counsel : Rohan Sahabandu, P.C., with Thishya Weragoda and Chamodi Wijeweera instructed by Thasmila Dilrukshi for the Appellants. : Harsha Soza, P.C. with Zahara Hassim instructed by Dilshan Fernando for the Substituted 1a and 5a Defendant-Respondent-Respondents. : Sudarshani Coorey instructed by Diana Stephanie Rodrigo for the 2a(1) and 2a(3) Substituted Defendant-Respondent-Respondents. Page 15 of 26 : Amaranath Fernando with Thisura Hewawasam instructed by Niluka Welgama for the 3a Substituted Defendant-Respondent-Respondent. Argued on : 24-06-2025 Written Submissions : 27-04-2016 (By the Substituted Plaintiff- Respondent-Respondents) : 03-03-2016 (By the 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g Substituted Defendant-Appellant-Appellants) : 28-07-2022 (By Substituted 1a and 5a Defendant- Respondent-Respondents) : 26-04-2016 (By 2a and 5a Substituted Defendant- Respondent-Respondents) Decided on : 19-09-2025 Sampath B. Abayakoon, J. This is an appeal preferred by 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f and 6h substituted-defendant-appellant-appellants (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the 6th defendant) on the basis of being aggrieved of the judgment pronounced by the Court of Appeal on 20-02-2014, whereby the appeal preferred by them was dismissed and the judgment pronounced by the learned District Judge of Colombo on 16-04-1999 was affirmed. When this matter was supported for Special Leave to Appeal on 21-01-2016, this Court, by a majority decision, granted Leave to Appeal on the questions of law as set out in paragraph 19.2, 19.3, 19.4, and 19.5 of the petition dated 02-04-2014. Page 16 of 26 The said questions of law read as follows, 1. Has His Lordship erred in law by failing to consider the principle of ouster in relation to prescription as clearly established by the evidence in the case, showing that the 6th defendant had in fact established such ouster and undisturbed possession of more than 10 years of the land in suit. 2. Has His Lordship erred in law by not correctly applying the principles laid down in the cases of Corea Vs. Appuhami 15 NLR 65, Brito Vs. Mithunayagam 20 NLR 327, Thilakaratne Vs. Bastian 21 NLR 12, Gunasekara Vs. Thissera (1994) 3 SLR 245, Siyathuhami Vs. Podi Manike (2004) 2 SLR 325, Rajapakshe Vs. Hendrick Singho 61 NLR 32 and Karunawathie Vs. Gunadasa (1996) 2 SLR 406. 3. Has His Lordship erred in law by not accepting the finding of the learned District Judge that there was a dispute regarding the survey of the land by the respondents in the year 1972. 4. Has His Lordship erred in law by disturbing the findings of the learned District Judge of Colombo when in fact the respondents had not sought to appeal the said findings of the learned District Judge. At the hearing of this appeal, this Court had the benefit of listening to the submissions of the learned President’s Counsel who represented the substituted 6th defendant and the learned President’s Counsel who represented the substituted 1a and 5a defendant-respondent-respondents. This Court heard the submissions of the learned Counsel who represented 2a(1) and 2a(3) substituted defendant-respondent-respondents and 3a substituted defendant-respondent-respondent as well. This Court also had the privilege of considering the written submissions tendered by the parties as to their respective stands. This is a case where the plaintiff of the action before the District Court instituted proceedings under the Partition Law to partition the lands morefully described in the 2nd and 3rd schedule of the plaint dated 16-09- Page 17 of 26 1987 between the plaintiffs and the defendants mentioned in the plaint. The above mentioned two lands are lands situated adjacent to each other and admittedly held and possessed by the original owner under whom the plaintiff before the District Court has pleaded title as one single unit. In her plaint, the plaintiff has allocated an undivided 1/8th share of the corpus to the 6th defendant of the action. At the trial, there had been no dispute between the parties as to the corpus to be partitioned and also the undivided rights of the parties as pleaded by the plaintiff in her plaint. However, the 6th defendant of the action has claimed title as against the rights of the other co-owners of the land for the entire corpus sought to be partitioned on the basis of prescription. According to the evidence led before the trial Court and as correctly determined by the learned trial Judge who pronounced the judgment, the admitted original owner of the two lands had transferred his rights by deed No. 111 (P-04) dated 10-07-1932, to Fedrick Alfred Victor Gunawardena, Don Elsie Gurtrude Gunawardena, Don Flora Agnes Gunawardena (1st defendant) and Don Percy Rosmund Gunawardena (plaintiff). The 2nd defendant named in the plaint is the heir of Elsie Gurtrude Gunawardena, who became entitled to an undivided 1/4th share of the land while 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants mentioned in the plaint had been the children of Victor Gunawardena, who also became entitled to an undivided 1/4th share. They are the children born out of the 1st marriage of the said Victor Gunawardena. The 6th defendant had been the 2nd married wife of Victor Gunawardena, while the 7th to 14th defendants are the children born out of the 2nd marriage of the said Victor Gunawardena. It is also in evidence that the plaintiff who received a 1/4th undivided share of the corpus from its original owner is the sister of Victor Gunawardena under whom the 6th defendant derives rights as the wife of him. At the trial, the contention of the 6th defendant has been that the plaintiff and the other co-owners never possessed the land sought to be partitioned for over 50 years and it was she along with her children and husband who Page 18 of 26 held it. The mentioned Victor Gunawardena has died in the year 1966. It is on that basis she has claimed prescriptive title. In his judgment, the learned District Judge has considered as to how a co-owner of a land can acquire prescriptive title and has looked whether there is sufficient evidence to come to a finding that the 6th defendant has proved the ouster of other co-owners in order to establish her claimed prescription. Having analysed the evidence led before the Court, the learned District Judge had come to a finding that the 6th defendant has failed to prove her claim of prescription, and accordingly, has ordered the partitioning of the land sought to be partitioned between the plaintiff and the defendants of the action as stated in the judgment. At the hearing of the appeal preferred by the 6th defendant challenging the judgment of the learned District Judge before the Court of Appeal, the 6th defendant has maintained the same stand that it is she who should be declared entitled to the corpus sought to be partitioned on the basis that she has proved prescriptive title to the same. I find that His Lordship of the Court of Appeal who pronounced the appellate judgment on 20-02-2014 has considered whether it has been established that the 6th defendant, being a co-owner, held and possessed the land for over 10 years adversely to the rights of the other co-owners after having those other co-owners ousted from the land to be partitioned. Having considered the relevant facts and circumstances and the law in relation to several decided cases of our Superior Courts in that regard, His Lordship of the Court of Appeal has decided to dismiss the appeal for want of any merit. However, it clearly appears that while considering the evidence placed before the trial Courts as to an admission by the 6th defendant in her evidence in relation to an attempt between the co-owners of the land to amicably partition the land which was a matter considered by the learned District Judge as well, it has been determined that the said attempt has been made between the parties in the year 1977 as borne out by evidence. Page 19 of 26 This suggests that His Lordship has not agreed with the determination of the learned District Judge that although the 6th defendant’s evidence which stated that the year was 1977, it should have been the year 1972. His Lordship has also considered the fact that the 10th and the 12th defendants of the action being persons who have built houses within the corpus have not challenged the District Court judgment, where they have been allocated shares. It has been viewed that although they are the children of the 6th defendant, the rights already granted to them will also be affected if the claim of prescription to the whole land by the 6th defendant is allowed. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the 6th defendant has been dismissed without costs. At the hearing of this appeal, it was strenuously contended by the learned President’s Counsel on behalf of the 6th defendant, having cited several judgments considered by the Court of Appeal, that the 6th defendant has sufficiently proved her prescriptive claim. It was contended that the Court of Appeal as well as the District Court has failed to give due consideration to the relevant case law and the principles laid down as to the ouster and prescription among co-owners when the case was decided in favour of the plaintiff, where there was ample evidence before the Court for such a presumption in favour of the 6th defendant. The essence of the submissions of the learned President’s Counsel who represented the 1A and the 5A substituted defendant-respondents and the other learned Counsel who represented the 2A and 3A substituted defendant-respondents was that, the prescription among the co-owners is a matter that has to be established by the party who claimed prescription by strong evidence of ouster and possession against the rights and interests of other co-owners for over ten years. It was submitted that the mode of proof depends on the facts and the circumstances of each case and there cannot be a strict yardstick in that regard. It was his position that since both the District Court, as well as the Court of Appeal, have well considered the relevant circumstances and the law in the respective determinations, the appeal should stand dismissed. Page 20 of 26 Having heard the submissions made by the respective parties as to their stands and the relevant law in mind, I will now proceed to consider whether there is merit in the appeal before the Court. In that context, I find it appropriate to consider the questions of law no. 1 and 11 together as they relate to the question of prescription among co-owners. The learned President’s Counsel heavily relied on the cases of Corea Vs. Appuhami (Supra), Thilakaratne Vs. Bastian (Supra) and several other cases which favour his contention of prescription among co-owners. Although the case of Corea Vs. Appuhami (Supra) was a case where it was held that the claimant of prescription had succeeded in his claim; it was a case where the basic principles as to prescription among co-owners had been laid down. It was held: Possession by a co-heir ensures to the benefit of its co-heirs. A co-owner’s possession is in law the possession of his co-owners. It is not possible for him to put an end to that possession by any secret intention in his mind. Nothing short of ouster or something equivalent to ouster could bring about that result. In the case of Thilakaratne Vs. Batian (supra), it was observed; It is open to the Court, from lapse of time in conjunction with the circumstances of the case, to presume that a possession originally that of a co-owner has since become adverse. “It is a question of fact, wherever long-continued exclusive possession by one co-owner is proved to have existed, whether it is not just and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case that the parties should be treated as though it had been proved that separate and exclusive possession had become adverse at some date more than 10 years before action brought.” Page 21 of 26 Held further, “What then, is the real effect of the decision in Corea Vs. Appuhami upon the interpretation of the word ‘adverse’ with reference to cases of co-ownership? It is, as I understand it, that for the purpose of these cases the word ‘adverse’ must, in its application to any particular case be interpreted in the light of three principles of law:- (i) Every co-owner having a right to possess and enjoy the whole property and every part of it, the possession of one co-owner in that capacity is in law the possession of all. (ii) Where the circumstances are such that a man’s possession may be referrable either to an unlawful act or to a lawful title, he is presumed to possess by virtue of the lawful title. (iii) A person who has entered into possession of land in one capacity is presumed to continue to possess it in the same capacity.” In the case of Karunawathie and Others Vs. Gunadasa (1996) 2 SLR 406, it was held; There was overwhelming evidence that the defendants since 1955 took the produce to the exclusion of the plaintiffs and their predecessors in title and gave him no share of the produce or paid them a share of the profits nor any rent and did no act from which as acknowledgement of a right existing and there would fairly naturally be inferred. Per Senanayake, J., “In considering whether or not a presumption of ouster should be drawn by reason of long continued possession alone, of the property owned in common, it is relevant to consider (a) the income derived from the property Page 22 of 26 (b) the value of the property (c) the relationship of the co-owners and where they reside in relation to the situation of the corpus.” The above considered judgments as well as a plethora of other judgments of our Superior Courts have clearly settled the law in relation to the question of prescription among co-owners, determining that it is a matter that depends on facts and circumstances unique to each case. When considering the facts of the case under appeal, it is clear that the house situated on the land which has been identified as ‘6’ in the preliminary plan marked ‘X’ has been the ancestral house of the persons who received rights to the land from the deed marked P-04, being the children of the original owner. They have been living in the house until they left the ancestral house due to various events of their life, such as marriage, settling and starting of their own families elsewhere, etc. It is the husband of the 6th defendant, namely, Victor Gunawardena who has continued to live in the house and the land although his other siblings had left the land. The 6th defendant has been the 2nd wife of said Victor Gunawardena, one of the children who received rights through P-04. It has been the position of the 6th defendant that the 1st defendant left the property after her marriage in the year 1961 and after the death of the mother of the 2nd defendant, who was one of the children of the original owner, it is she who held and possessed that land since 1963 without allowing the co-owners to possess it. Admittedly, the husband of the 6th defendant has died in the year 1966, which means if at all, she can only claim prescription against the other co-owners from the death of her husband. It has been in evidence that although the brothers and sisters of the husband of the 6th defendant have left the house and the property, they have maintained their affiliation to the ancestral house and their brother until his death. Page 23 of 26 When it comes to the ouster that needs to be established by a co-owner who claims prescription against the other co-owners, it is well settled law that by possessing a land, a co-owner cannot claim prescription, but it has to be a possession that amounts to an ouster of other co-owners. According to the evidence of the 6th defendant, anything that can be considered as a thing equivalent to an ouster has occurred only in the year 1977. The 6th defendant has spoken in her evidence about a discussion the parties to the partition action had in order to divide the land among them, and of an incident where a surveyor has come to the land in order to survey the land (page 103, 104, 105 of the appeal brief). The essence of her evidence shows that the amicable partition has not gone through, because her children opposed such a partition and because of the fact that she was in possession since 1944, which was her year of marriage to Victor Gunawardena. Although the learned District Judge while analysing the evidence has determined that the said event has taken place in the year 1972, I find no basis for such a conclusion. Though the daughter of the 6th defendant who has given evidence in this action has claimed that the said attempt to partition the land took place in the year 1972, I find no basis to accept her evidence as against the evidence of the 6th defendant who is the person who actually claimed prescriptive rights to the entire corpus. In her evidence, she has stated unambiguously that the said event took place in the year 1977. Although the events that have taken place thereafter, according to the evidence led before the Court, are suggestive of adverse possession and ouster, in my view, since the partition action was initiated in the year 1987, there was no basis before the trial Court to conclude that the 6th defendant held and possessed the corpus of the action by ousting the other co-owners for more than 10 years for her to claim prescriptive rights to the entire corpus. What is also clear to me is that the learned District Judge has correctly considered the evidence of the 6th defendant as to the said year as 1977 in the correct perspective while taking the evidence in its totality to Page 24 of 26 determine that the required 10-year period has not been established from the said date. I find that His Lordship who pronounced the judgment in the Court of Appeal has well considered the facts as well as the relevant law in affirming the judgment of the learned District Judge. His Lordship has correctly determined the ouster, if at all, has taken place after the year 1977 based on the evidence of the 6th defendant herself and therefore her prescriptive claim shall fail. It has been correctly held that the long-standing possession would not in itself amount to establishing prescriptive rights in a co-owned land. In the above context, I will now proceed to consider whether the 3rd and the 4th questions of law, where it was argued that His Lordship of the Court of Appeal erred by disturbing the finding of the learned District Judge, that dispute in relation to the surveying of the land occurred in the year 1972. The Article 138 of the Constitution is the provision where the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal has been conferred upon. The relevant Article 138(1) reads as follows, 138. (1) The Court of Appeal shall have and exercise subject to the provisions of the Constitution or of any law, and appellate jurisdiction for the correction of all errors in fact or in law which shall be (committed by the High Court in the exercise of its appellate or original jurisdiction or by any Court of first instance), tribunal or other institution and sole and exclusive cognisance, by way of appeal, revision and restitutio in integrum, of all courses, suits, actions, prosecutions, matters and things (of which such High Court, Court of first instance), tribunal or other institution may have taken cognisance. (The emphasis is mine). The above Constitutional provision clearly provides for the Court of Appeal to correct a factual matter that needs to be corrected when determining an appeal in that regard. Hence, I find no basis for the 3rd and 4th questions of law as urged on behalf of the 6th defendant. Page 25 of 26 Another matter that needs to be emphasized is that this is a trial where apart from recording the points of contest, the entire evidence has been led before the same learned District Judge who has pronounced the judgment where the partitioning of lands sought to be partitioned between the co-owners was ordered. It is well settled law that under such circumstances, appellate Courts will be very slow to interfere with a judgment pronounced by a trial Judge as it is the trial Judge who has the benefit of hearing and determining the demeanour and deportment, and also the other relevant matters of evidence unless the said judgment is not according to the law or can be termed as a judgment that has not been supported by evidence, and therefore, perverse. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J. having considered several case laws on this matter, in the case of Rev. E.H. Palitha and Others Vs. K. Kingsley Perera SC/Appeal/30/2022 decided on 31-01-2024 observed, “It is trite law that the findings of fact of the trial Judge who has the priceless advantage of seeing and hearing witnesses giving evidence, thereby getting the opportunity to observe inter alia the demeanour and deportment of witnesses, are regarded as sacrosanct and should not be lightly disturbed unless there are compelling reasons. There are no live witnesses before the appellate Court but only printed evidence. It is important to bear in mind that the trial Judge has the benefit of assessing the evidence in its overall context to reach the final decision, unlike the piece meal approach adopted in presenting the case before the appellate Court.” Having considered the relevant facts and the circumstances, I am of the view that the appellate judgment of His Lordship of the Court of Appeal is a judgment that needs no interference, as it has been reached after having well considered the facts and the circumstances, and also the relevant law in its correct perspective. Page 26 of 26 Accordingly, I answer the four questions of law in the negative and dismiss the appeal for want of any merit. The parties shall bear their own costs.		Download
2025-09-19	SC/APPEAL/62/2025	1.The Officer-in-Charge Police Station Pulmoddai 2. The Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12 Respondents - Respondents - Appellants V. Siyaptha Finance PLC, No. 110, Sir James Peiris Mawatha, Colombo 02. Claimant - Petitioner - Appellant - Respondent View More	Hon. K. Priyantha Fernando J			Download
2025-09-18	SC/APPEAL/48/2022	1. Thenudaya Nithil Demash Kodithuwakku 2. Ranjan Pushpakumara Kodithuwakku Both of 4/1A 3/1 Wekunagoda Road, Galle. PETITIONERS- APPELLANTS Vs- 1. Mr. Sampath Weeragoda, former Principal Richmond College & Chairman of the Interview Board- Presently at the Ministry of Education 3rd Floor, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 2. Lanka Senanayake, Secretary, of the Interview Board, Richmond College, Galle. 3. Prasadi Anupama Kulathunga 4. Samith Gallage, Attorney-at-Law 5. Dunstan Lokumalage 3rd to the 5th Respondents are Members of the Interview Board, Richmond College, Galle. 6. Mr. Thilak Wathuthuhewa, Principal, Richmond College, Galle. 6A. Mr. W.P.N.D. Weerasinghe Principal, Richmond College, Galle. ADDED 6B. Mr. P. Saman Pushpakumara, Principal, Richmond College, Galle. 7. Mr. Francis Wellage, Principal Rahula College, Matara, Chairman of the Appeal & Objection Investigation Board 8. Priyal De Silva, Deputy Principal & Secretary, Appeal & Objection Investigation Board 9. D.N. Ruwanpathirana, 10. Nilantha Halpandiya, Attorney-at-Law, 11. Ravi Kalansooriya. 9th to 11th Respondents are members of the Appeal & Objection Investigation Board, Richmond College, Galle. 12. Professor Kapila C.K. Perera, Secretary, Ministry of Education 3rd Floor, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 13. Mr. Kithsiri Liyanagamage, Director National Schools, Ministry of Education 3rd Floor, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Kumuduni Wickremasinghe J			Download
2025-09-18	SC/APPEAL/16/2022	Elpitiya Plantation Company now Known as Elpitiya Plantation PLC, No.73/3, Ward Place, Colombo 07. Presently at Aitken Spence Tower, No. 315, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. 2 nd DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – PETITIONER- APPELLANT Vs. Wijesekera Subhasingha Sathyananda, Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Nagoda. PLAINTIFF -RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT AND 1. Land Reform Commission, PO Box 1526, No. C 82, Hector Kobbakaduwa Mawatha, Colombo 07. Presently of No. 475, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. 1 st DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT 3. Sri Lanka State Plantations Corporation, No. 21, BCC Premises, Miraniya Street, Colombo 01. 3 rd DEFENDANT – PETITIONER – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J	IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for leave to Appeal against the Order/Judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court of the Southern Province holden in Galle. Supreme Court Appeal No:Wijesekera Subhasingha Sathyananda, SC/Appeal/16/2022 Divisional Secretary, Supreme Court L.A No: Divisional Secretariat, SC/HCCA LA No. 236/2021 Nagoda. SP HCCA/GA/LA /04/2020 District Court of Galle Case No: LA/613 PLAINTIFF Vs. 1. Land Reform Commission, PO Box 1526, No. C 82, Hector Kobbakaduwa Mawatha, Colombo 07. 2. Elpitiya Plantation Company now Known as Elpitiya Plantation PLC, No.73/3, Ward Place, Colombo 07. Presently at Aitken Spence Tower, No. 315, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. 3. Sri Lanka State Plantations Corporation, No. 21, BCC Premises, 1 Miraniya Street, Colombo 01. DEFENDANTS AND BETWEEN 3. Sri Lanka State Plantations Corporation, No. 21, BCC Premises, Miraniya Street, Colombo 01. 3 rd DEFENDANT - PETITIONER Vs. Wijesekera Subhasingha Sathyananda, Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Nagoda. PLAINTIFF - RESPONDENT AND 1. Land Reform Commission, PO Box 1526, No. C 82, Hector Kobbakaduwa Mawatha, Colombo 07. 2. Elpitiya Plantation Company now Known as Elpitiya Plantation PLC, No.73/3, Ward Place, Colombo 07. Presently at Aitken Spence Tower, No. 315, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. DEFENDANTS – RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN 2 2. Elpitiya Plantation Company now Known as Elpitiya Plantation PLC, No.73/3, Ward Place, Colombo 07. Presently at Aitken Spence Tower, No. 315, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. 2 nd DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – PETITIONER- APPELLANT Vs. Wijesekera Subhasingha Sathyananda, Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Nagoda. PLAINTIFF -RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT AND 1. Land Reform Commission, PO Box 1526, No. C 82, Hector Kobbakaduwa Mawatha, Colombo 07. Presently of No. 475, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. 1 st DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT 3. Sri Lanka State Plantations Corporation, No. 21, BCC Premises, 3 Miraniya Street, Colombo 01. 3 rd DEFENDANT – PETITIONER – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT BEFORE: S. Thurairaja P.C., J. Menaka Wijesundera, J. & M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J. COUNSEL: Samantha Vithana with Samudika de Silva for the 2nd Defendant – Respondent – Petitioner. Sabrina Ahmed, SSC for the Plaintiff– Respondent – Respondent. A.D.H. Gunawardana with Shanaka Warnakulasooriya for the 1st Defendant-Respondent – Respondent. ARGUED ON : 07.05.2025 DECIDED ON: 18.09.2025 M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J. Introduction This is an appeal from the judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court of the Southern Province holden at Galle. By their judgment delivered on April 27, 2021, the learned High Court Judges set aside the judgment of the learned District Judge of Galle delivered on February 24, 2020, on the ground that the learned District Judge erred in law and in fact by failing to consider the issues before Court from a correct legal perspective. 4 When the matter was supported for Leave to Appeal on March 4, 2022 against the judgment delivered by the Civil Appellate High Court, Galle, this Court granted Leave to Appeal on the questions of law No 1 to 5 stated in Paragraph 25 (at page 11) of the Petition and the 6th question of law which was formulated by this Court. The said questions of law are, i. Have their Lordships of the High Court of Civil Appeal erred in law by misinterpreting a judgment of Perera v. Dinigri Manike reported in 63 NLR page 169? ii. Have their Lordships of the High Court of Civil Appeal erred in law as they have not followed the judgment of Perera v. Dinigri Manike reported in 63 NLR page 169? iii. Have their Lordships of the High Court of Civil Appeal erred in law to state that the claim of the 3rd Defendant- Petitioner -Respondent could have been considered in the District Court as the 3rd Defendant did not make any claim or failed to participate at the inquiry held before the Acquiring Officer of Nagoda in terms of the Section 9 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act No 9 of 1950? iv. Have their Lordships of the High Court of Civil Appeal erred in law that the District Court of Galle has no jurisdiction to inquire into the claim and/or title of the 3rd Defendant as the 3rd Defendant did not make a claim at the inquiry held before the Acquiring Officer of the Nagoda? (sic) v. Have their Lordships of the High Court of Civil Appeal erred in law as they have failed to appreciate the fact that the learned District Judge has correctly answered issues No. 35 (i), (ii) & (iii) raised in this case? vi. Could the 3rd Defendant -Petitioner-Respondent be added as a party to the proceedings in the District Court in view of Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Code? 5 Factual background The Minister of Land Development and Minor Export Agriculture, by Extraordinary Gazette Notification No. 1203/11 dated September 24, 2001, published under Section 5(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, declared that Lot No. 1, depicted in the Surveyor General’s advance tracing No. GA/NGD/00/554 dated January 27, 2001, of the land called Talgaswelawatte, of an extent of 12.142 Hectares and situated in the village of Mapalagama (FVP 526) in the Divisional Secretary’s Division of Nagoda, Galle District, was required for a public purpose and would be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Consequently, a notice under Section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in Extraordinary Gazette Notification No. 1330/7 dated March 2, 2004, and in newspapers in all three languages, requiring persons interested in the same land to present their claims for compensation to the Divisional Secretary, the Acquiring Officer. The allotment of the said land to be acquired was described as the land depicted in FVP 526, Sheet No. 77. A copy of the plan is filed of record. The said notice also included the particulars of the claimant, Elpitiya Plantations Company. Subsequently, a correction to the said notice was published in Extraordinary Gazette Notification No. 1641/46 dated February 18, 2010. The only correction made was the updated address of the claimant, Elpitiya Plantations Company. Consequent to the publication of the notices, the Divisional Secretary, as the Acquiring Officer, proceeded to hold an inquiry into the claims for compensation in terms of Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. The scope of an inquiry under Section 9 is defined within the section itself. For clarity, I reproduce below the relevant portions of Section 9 applicable to the present appeal. “9 (1). (…) hold an inquiry into - 6 (a) the market value of that land or of the servitude which is to be acquired over that land; (b) such claims for compensation as may have been notified to him within the time allowed therefor by that notice or in accordance with the aforesaid proviso; (c) the respective interests of the persons claiming compensation; and (d) any other matter which needs investigation for the purpose of making an award under section 17. (…) (2) (…) (2A) (3) The Acquiring Officer conducting an inquiry under subsection (1) may by a summons under his hand require - (a) any person whose evidence is, in the judgment of such Acquiring Officer, likely to be material to the subject matter of the inquiry, to attend and give evidence (…) (b) any person to produce at the inquiry, on such date and at such time and place as may be mentioned in the summons, for examination by such Acquiring Officer or (…), likely to contain such information as may be necessary to determine the interests of that person or of any other person in the land to which the inquiry relates or (…) and (…) (4) – (6)” [Emphasis added] An inquiry into the claims was conducted by the Divisional Secretary of Nagoda, in his capacity as the designated Acquiring Officer, in terms of Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. 7 At the inquiry, only the Director (Revenue) of the Land Reform Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘LRC’) and the General Manager of Elpitiya Plantations PLC had given statements, which are filed of record. In his statement, the officer of the Land Reform Commission challenged the validity of Extraordinary Gazette Notification No. 181/12 dated February 27, 1982. However, the validity of the Gazette notification cannot be challenged in a proceeding of this nature, namely, an inter-pleader action. Be that as it may, the Director of the LRC, in his statement, challenged the validity of the Gazette notification on two grounds. The first ground is that the notice is said to have been published under Section ‘42එච්’ read together with Section 27ඒ of the Land Reform Law; however, as there is no Section ‘27ඒ’ in the Act, the notice is allegedly defective. When comparing the sections of the Act and the statements of the Director of the \'LRC\' carefully, it is readily apparent that the letters ‘42එච්’ and ‘27ඒ’, though written in Sinhala, correspond to the English text ‘42H’ and ‘27A’. The second ground is that compensation for the land acquired was not paid to the LRC by the SLSPC. However, Section 27A (1) of the Land Reform Law specifies that a vesting order of any estate land to a corporation should specify the terms and conditions “(...)relating to consideration for the vesting of that land in such Corporation as may be agreed upon between the Commission and such Corporation.” In my view, these words do not mean that consideration must necessarily be paid for the land vested to a corporation. Rather, all that is required is that the order contain “conditions relating to consideration for the vesting of the land.” Accordingly, Gazette Notification No. 181/12 dated February 27, 1982, contained conditions stating that no consideration is payable in respect of the land. “මෙ කී ඉඩම වෙ නුවෙ න් ගෙ විය යුතු මුදල පිළිබද කිසියම් පො රො න්දුවක් හෝ ගිවිසුමක් ඇතුලත් නො වේ .” Therefore, in any event, the claim put forward by the LRC challenging the validity of the Gazette has no merit. 8 Decision Following the Acquiring Officer’s Inquiry Consequent to the inquiry, the Acquiring Officer referred the dispute to the District Court of Galle in terms of Section 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, by plaint dated March 3, 2015. The LRC and Elpitiya Plantations Company, now known as Elpitiya Plantations PLC, were named as the 1st and 2nd Defendants, respectively. The Acquiring Officer informed Court that both the LRC and Elpitiya Plantations PLC had submitted their claims to him in terms of Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, and that, having inquired into those claims, he was unable to determine the title to the land in order to award compensation. Accordingly, he requested the District Court to decide the dispute and determine the title1. Proceedings Before the District Court The 1st Defendant, LRC, submitted its statement of claim to the District Court, seeking a declaration that it is the absolute owner of the subject matter and, therefore, entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land. The 2nd Defendant, Elpitiya Plantations PLC, filed a statement of claim seeking a declaration that it is entitled to compensation for the land acquired and that it is the lawful lessee who was in possession of the land. Undoubtedly, the 2nd Defendant, Elpitiya Plantations PLC, is the lawful long-term lessee of the SLSPC. However, under the law of Sri Lanka, no distinction is drawn between short-term and long-term leases. As pointed out by Hutchinson C.J in the Abdul Azeez v. Abdul Rahiman2 case, which was also reproduced in the Carron v Fernando3 case, \"A lessee under a valid lease from the owner is dominus or owner for the term of his lease. He is owner during that term as against all the world, including his lessor\".Nevertheless, as against the lessor, the lessee’s rights are confined to those arising under the lease. 1 Chapter XLIII of the Civil Procedure Code, Inter-pleader actions. 2 Abdul Azeez v Abdul Rahiman 2(1909) Current Law Reports Vol. I.,275. 3 Carron v Fernando et al (1933) 35 NLR 352. 9 Implications of the introduction of Land Reform Law With the introduction of the Land Reform Law, agricultural lands owned by any person in excess of the ceiling stipulated in the Land Reform Law were vested in the LRC by operation of law4. By the subsequent Amendment No. 39 of 1975, Part IIIA was introduced to the LRC Law, under which estate lands owned by public companies were also deemed to be vested in and possessed by the LRC. The effect of such vesting, as provided by Section 42A (2) of the Land Reform Law, is that the LRC obtained absolute title to such estate land as from the date of vesting. Sections 42H (a) to (e) specify the purposes for which the estate lands so vested in the LRC may be used. According to Section 42H (c), such land could be ‘alienated to any corporation established or to be established under the State Agricultural Corporations Act or to the Sri Lanka State Plantations Corporation established under the Sri Lanka State Plantations Corporation Act.’[Emphasis added] The objective of the Sri Lanka State Plantations Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SLSPC’), as per the Sri Lanka State Plantations Corporation Act No. 4 of 1958 as amended by amendment Act No 49 of 1979 (Section 5), was: “inter alia, of ‘to manage agricultural and estate lands vested in, transferred or alienated to the Corporation by the Government or any other person or acquired by the Corporation, and to promote optimum productivity on such lands”5 Section 27A (1) of the Land Reform Law reads as follows; “27A (1) At the request of the Commission, the Minister may, where he considers it necessary in the interest of the Commission to do so, subject to sections 22, 23 and 42H, by Order published in the Gazette, vest, in any State Corporation specified in the Order, with effect from a date specified in that Order, any agricultural land or estate land or any portion of the land vested in the Commission under this Law, and described in the order, subject to such terms and conditions relating to consideration for the vesting of that land in such Corporation as may be agreed upon between the 4 Vide Section 3(2) of the LRC law No 1 of 1972. 5 Vide Section 6 of Sri Lanka State Plantations Corporation (amendment) Act No. 49 of 1979. 10 Commission and such Corporation.” (2) - (4) (…)[Emphasis added] The consequences of an order made under Section 27A (1) are set out in Sections 27A (2) and (3). The Minister of Agricultural Development and Research made the order relevant to this application in terms of Section 27A, read together with Section 42H, which was published in Extraordinary Gazette No. 181/12 dated February 27, 1982. The order reads as follows: ‘ප්‍රතිසං ස් කරණ කො මිෂන් සභා වේ අභිවෘ ද්ධිය සඳහා එසේ කිරීම අවශ් ය යි සළකා බැ ලීමෙ න් පසුව එම කො මිෂන් සභා ව විසින් කරන ලද ඉල්ලීමක් අනුව, 1975 අං ක 39 දරණ පනතින් ද, 1981 අං ක 14 දරණ පනතින් ද, 1981 අං ක 39 දරණ පනතින් ද සං ශෝ ධනය කරන ලද 1972 අං ක 1 දරණ ඉඩම් ප්‍රතිසං ස් කරණ නීතියේ අං ක 42 එච් වගන්තිය සමග කියැ වෙ න ඒ වගන්තිය යටතේ මෙ හි පහත උපලේ ඛනයේ සදහන් වතු 1958 අං ක 4 දරණ ලං කා රා ජ් ය වැ විලි සං ස් ථා පණත යටතේ පිහිටුවා ඇති ශ්‍රී ලං කා රා ජ් ය වැ විලි සං ස් ථා වට මෙ යින් පවරා දෙ නු ලැ බේ .’ The entire estate of Talgaswelawatte, within the Administrative District of Galle and measuring 793.16 Hectares, is included in the Schedule to the said Gazette Notification. Consequently, in terms of Section 27A (1) of the Land Reform Law, the title to the entire Talgaswelawatte estate was transferred to the SLSPC, effective from the date of the order, together with all rights and liabilities of the LRC in respect of said estate 6. Although the 1st Respondent, LRC, argued that only the control and management of subject estate were vested in the 3rd Defendant, SLSPC, Sections 27A (2) and (3) clearly reflect the legislature’s intention that not only the rights but also the liabilities of the LRC in respect of estate lands, together with ownership of such lands, vest in the corporation to which an order under subsection (1) is made. 6 Vide Section 27A (2) and (3). 11 For clarity, I reproduce below Sections 27A (2) and (3), which read as follows: “27A (1) (…) (2)An Order under subsection (1) shall have the effect of vesting in such State Corporation specified in the Order such right, title and interest to the agricultural land or estate land or portion thereof described in that Order, as was held by the Commission on the day immediately preceding the date on which the Order takes effect. (3)Where any agricultural land or estate land or any portion thereof is vested in a State Corporation by an Order made under subsection (1), all the rights and liabilities of the Commission under any contract or agreement, express or implied, which relate to such agricultural land or estate land or portion thereof, and which subsist on the day immediately prior to the date of such vesting, shall become the rights and liabilities of such State Corporation.” (3), (4) (…)” [Emphasis Added] The Statutory duty upon the Acquiring Officer As per the 2nd Respondent’s statement of claim and the petition filed by the 3rd Respondent in the High Court, by virtue of Gazette (Extraordinary) No. 720/2 dated June 22, 1992, the management and control of Talgaswelawatte were handed over to the Janatha Estate Development Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘JEDB’). Thereafter, both the JEDB and the SLSPC (3rd Defendant) entered into Lease Agreement No. 346 dated May 4, 1995, attested by Daphne Peiris, Notary Public, by which the aforesaid land Talgaswelawatte, measuring 1,847 acres, 2 roods, and 10 perches, was leased to 2nd Defendant Elpitiya Plantations PLC for a period of 99 years, with effect from June 22, 1992. Accordingly, possession was handed over to Elpitiya Plantations PLC, which has been exercising the control and management of the estate up to date. Subsequently, an amendment was made to the original lease 12 agreement by Deed of Amendment of Lease No. 1566 dated December 11, 1995, attested by Manik Dias Amarathunge, Notary Public, by which the lease period was reduced to 53 years, ending on June 21, 2045. As quoted above, pursuant to Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Acquiring Officer must hold an inquiry into the market value of the land or servitude to be acquired, the claims for compensation, and the respective interests of the persons making such claims, as well as any other matters that require investigation for the purpose of making an award under Section 17. In making such an award under Section 9, the Acquiring Officer must, inter alia, determine the persons entitled to compensation and the nature of their interests in the land. Consequently, the Acquiring Officer is duty-bound to ascertain both the entitlement to compensation and the nature of each claimant’s interest in the land. In terms of Section 9(3)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, the Acquiring Officer conducting an inquiry is empowered to require the attendance of any person whose evidence, in his judgment, is likely to be material to the subject matter of the inquiry, by issuing summons for such attendance and to give evidence at the inquiry. He is also empowered to require any person to produce any document likely to contain information necessary to determine that person\'s interest, or the interest of any other person, in the land, or the amount of compensation payable for such interest. At the conclusion of an inquiry held under Section 9, the Acquiring Officer shall prepare a report setting out the names of the persons who, in his opinion, are entitled to compensation, the nature of their respective interests, and the amount of compensation he proposes to award in respect of each such interest or refer the matter for determination by Court. Section 10 reads thus; 10 (1) At the conclusion of an inquiry held under section 9, the Acquiring Officer holding the inquiry shall either- 13 a) make a decision on every claim made by any person to any right, title or interest to, in or over the land which is to be acquired or over which a servitude is to be acquired and on every such dispute as may have arisen between any claimants as to any such right, title or interest, and give notice of his decision to the claimant or to each of the parties to the dispute, or b) refer the claim or dispute for determination as hereinafter provided. (2) – (5) (…) [Emphasis added] When Section 10(1) is read in isolation, one might gain the impression that the decision of the Acquiring Officer is only confined to the claims made before him. However, as I have already stated above, the Acquiring Officer conducting an inquiry is expected to summon any person whose evidence is likely to be material to the subject matter, and to require the production of any document likely to contain information necessary to determine the interest of that person or of any other person in the land. Consequently, the Acquiring Officer is expected to diligently determine not only the rights of the claimants who have submitted claims, but also the rights of any other persons who, despite not having made a claim, hold an interest whatsoever in the land. As such, not only the claimants but also those with interests in the land should be considered \'parties\' to the dispute, to whom the Acquiring Officer is required to give notice of his decision after the inquiry, in terms of Section 10(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, any person having an interest in the land who ought to have been summoned by the Acquiring Officer, but was not, must be regarded as a necessary party to the dispute. In this context, it is relevant to dig into the legal definition of the word \'necessary party\'. The Black\'s Law dictionary 7 provides the meaning of the word as follows. “In pleading and practice, those persons who must be joined in an action because, inter alia, complete relief cannot be given to those already parties without their joinder. Necessary parties are those who must be included in 7 Black\'s Law Dictionary, Bryan A. Garner, 6th Edition at page 1030. 14 action either as plaintiff or defendants, unless there is a valid excuse for their non-joinder. City of Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, Kansas Office of Kansas State Employment Service, 213 Kan. 399,517 P 2d 117, 122. Those persons who have such an interest in controversy that a final judgment or decree cannot be made without either affecting their rights or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final adjudication may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. Royal Petroleum Corp vs Dennis 160 Tex 392, 332 S.W. 2d 313, 314.\" As a result, when a matter is referred to the District Court under Section 10(1)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, such parties should be named as parties to the dispute referred by the Acquiring Officer for determination by Court. In the present case, the Director of the Land Reform Commission (LRC), in his statement before the Acquiring Officer, acknowledged the existence of Gazette (Extraordinary) Notification No. 181/12 dated February 27, 1982, by which Talgaswelawatte was vested in the Sri Lanka State Plantation Corporation (SLSPC). The General Manager of Elpitiya Plantations PLC stated that Talgaswelawatte, which was owned by the SLSPC, had been leased to Elpitiya Plantations PLC and produced the deed of lease in support. However, the Acquiring Officer failed to summon the SLSPC to the inquiry under Section 9(3)(a) and (b) of the Land Acquisition Act which was a fatal error committed by him. In fact, from the very outset of the inquiry, he was unable to correctly identify the parties having interests to the subject land, which led to all the subsequent issues. After referring the dispute to Court, the District Judge of Galle, having accepted the plaint, issued summons to the 1st and 2nd Defendants. Consequently, the 1st Defendant filed a statement of claim dated November 30, 2015, filed on March 28, 2016 and the 2nd Defendant filed a statement of claim on March 20, 2017. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for inquiry. Prior to the commencement of the inquiry, the 3rd Defendant, SLSPC, filed a motion through an attorney-at-law requesting a date to file a proxy along with an application to intervene in the case8. However, only a proxy for the 3rd Defendant was filed9. Nevertheless, the Court allowed the 3rd Defendant to file a 8 Vide page 170 of the Appeal brief. 9 Vide Journal entries dated May 16, 2019 and June 25 2019. 15 statement of claim which he did10.Now the question would be whether the 3rd Defendant is eligible to intervene in the District Court action without claiming his interests before the Acquiring officer. (note: this is because his intervention is already done without objection) The relevant statutory provision for the addition of parties is contained in Section 18(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, the pertinent part of which reads as follows: \"18(1) (…) the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in that action, be added\" Section 18(2) of the Civil Procedure Code provides that any order for amendment or alteration of parties shall state the facts and reasons which together form the grounds on which the order is made. However, in this instance, the learned District Judge has failed to comply with the requirements of Section 18(2). Thereafter, the matter proceeded to inquiry before the District Court. At the inquiry, three admissions were recorded. The 1st Defendant framed issues numbered 1 to 17; the 2nd Defendant framed issues numbered 18 to 26 and 35; and the 3rd Defendant framed issues numbered 27 to 34, and 36 and 37. Subsequently, the parties moved to try issue No. 25 framed by the 2nd Defendant and issue No. 36 framed by the 3rd Defendant as issues of law at the first instance11. Consequently, the parties were allowed to file their written submissions, to which the 2nd and 3rd Defendants acceded. Although the proceedings dated December 6, 2019, state that the application was to decide issues No. 25 and 36 as preliminary issues, the written submissions of the 2nd Defendant refer to issues No. 35, 36, and 37, while those of the 3rd Defendant refer only to issues No. 35 and 36. 10 Vide Journal entry dated July 29, 2019. 11 Vide proceedings dated December 6, 2019 at page 75 and 76 of the appeal brief. 16 In any event, issue No. 25 is not a question of law and therefore not an issue that could be decided as a preliminary issue. The learned District Judge, in his order dated February 24, 2020, proceeded to answer the three issues No. 35, 36, and 37. The learned District Judge took into account the fact that the 2nd Defendant, Elpitiya Plantations PLC, is the lessee under the lessor, the SLSPC (3rd Defendant). He also considered the explanation in the SLSPC’s statement of claim regarding its inability to make a claim before the Acquiring Officer, stating that, since it did not have prior notice, it was unable to participate in the inquiry. Despite this, the learned District Judge gave weight to the 2nd Defendant’s submission that since the 3rd Defendant failed to prefer a claim before the Acquiring Officer, it is not entitled to prefer any claim in the District Court or to obtain any relief. The learned District Judge heavily relied on the decision of Basnayake C.J. in the case of Perera v. Dingiri Menike12. Relying on that decision, the learned District Judge answered issues No. 35(i), (ii), and (iii), as well as issues No. 36 and 37, against the 3rd Defendant and dismissed the claim made by the 3rd Defendant. Consequently, the conflicting claims made by the 1st and 2nd Defendants, who inter-pleaded, were fixed for inquiry. At this juncture, it is pertinent to consider and compare the facts in Perera v. Dingiri Menike13 (Supra) with the facts of the case at hand. In the former case, the disputed claim put forward by the 9th Respondent had been a belated one, made even after the decree had been entered, claiming compensation in respect of a 2/3 share of an extent of 2 acres of land. The 9th Respondent moved that she be added as a Defendant, be permitted to file a statement of claim, and that an inquiry be held. The Court rejected the application of the 9th Respondent on the ground that her presence was not necessary for the determination of the dispute referred to the Court by the Government Agent. In his judgment, Basnayake C.J. reproduced the following observations made by Withers J. in Templer v. Seneviratne14, which read as follows: 12 63 NLR 169. 13 (Supra). 14 [1892] 2 C.L Reports 70. 17 \"According to clause 19 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1889, which governed the procedure herein, no person can intervene in any action other than as provided by Clause 18 of Ordinance No 2 of 1889. The intervention of the additional claimants could not possibly be necessary for the adjudication of the question raised between the Government Agent and the four claimants who had attended in pursuance of the notice.\" [Emphasis added] Basnayake C.J. also reproduced the following observations made by De Sampayo J. in Assistant Government Agent, Kalutara v. Wijesekara15, which reads as follows: \"The Court’s jurisdiction is limited by the Ordinance; it is either to make an award as to the amount of compensation where the claimants and the Government Agent are disagreed on that point, or to decide the question of title to the land where there is any dispute among the claimants or where all the parties interested have not appeared before the Government Agent. The proceedings are purely statutory and do not, I think, admit of legal exceptions or dilatory pleas, as in an ordinary action, where the case falls under the first head of inquiry.\" (Emphasis added) The above statements relied on by Basnayake C.J. themselves demonstrate that the Court has jurisdiction to decide the question of title to the land where all the parties interested have not appeared before the Acquiring Officer. Furthermore, Basnayake C.J. has not completely ruled out the application of Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Code to proceedings of this nature, namely inter-pleader actions. In the course of the judgment, he went on to observe that16: “… Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Code which can undoubtedly be resorted to in an appropriate case …\" Moreover, according to Section 12(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, proceedings in Court on a reference made under Section 10 shall be subject to the procedure provided by the Civil Procedure Code for civil suits. Therefore, in the absence of a specific exclusion, no Court can rule out or restrict the application of any of the provisions contained in the Civil Procedure Code. 15 4 C.W.R. 257. 16 At page 171. 18 It is important to note that in Perera v. Dingiri Menike17 itself, Basnayake C.J. allowed the addition of the heirs of the deceased 5th Defendant, who had died after the matter was referred to Court even without the filing of an answer. Further, in Government Agent, Sabaragamuwa v. Asirwatham et al 18, cited by Basnayake C.J., where the land that was the subject of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act had been transferred by the claimant while the reference to Court was pending, the vendee was permitted to be added as a party. Hence, it is clear that the addition of parties is not alien to inter-pleader actions. In light of the above analysis, I am of the view that the facts of Perera v. Dingiri Menike19 are distinguishable from the present case and, therefore, do not constitute a judicial precedent applicable to this matter. Above all, when the Charter of Justice of 1801 declared the Supreme Court to be a court of law and equity, it commenced the reception of equitable concepts into the system of justice. Therefore, this Court is mindful that it ought to consider not only the black-letter law contained in statutes, but also the equitable principles that mitigate the rigidity of the law when determining a case. In this context also, the 3rd Defendant suffered significant prejudice, as the Acquiring Officer failed to follow the statutory procedure correctly. Consequently, although being the owner of the land, the 3rd Defendant was on the verge of being deprived of the proprietary rights to which he is entitled under the Land Acquisition Act, due to the absence of prior notice. Had the Acquiring Officer duly notified the 3rd Defendant, he could have appeared at the inquiry. The legal maxim ubi jus ibi remedium, meaning “where there is a right, there is a remedy”, is applicable here. It is therefore the duty of this Court is to protect and restore the rights of the 3rd Defendant where they have been infringed. This Court cannot, even in equity, place the derivative rights of the 2nd Defendant lessee above the 17 (Supra). 18 [1928] 29 NLR 367. 19 (Supra). 19 rights of the 3rd Defendant, who is the owner as well as the lessor of the subject estate. Consequently, I hold that the learned District Judge erred in disallowing the claim made by the 3rd Defendant, SLSPC. When the 3rd Defendant sought leave to appeal against the order of the learned District Judge dated February 24, 2020, disallowing the claim of the 3rd Defendant, SLSPC, the Civil Appellate High Court of the Southern Province holden at Galle granted leave to appeal and thereafter proceeded to hear the appeal. The learned High Court Judges also distinguished the facts of Perera v. Dingiri Menike20 on the ground that, in that case, the party sought to be added was a complete outsider who had not made any claim before the Acquiring Officer. In contrast, in the instant case, neither the 1st Defendant, LRC, nor the 2nd Defendant, Elpitiya Plantations PLC, both of whom made claims before the Acquiring Officer for compensation holds title to the subject land. The learned High Court Judges observed that the learned District Judge failed to consider the attributes of property rights, bearing in mind that the 2nd Defendant, Elpitiya Plantations PLC, is merely a lessee holding leasehold rights under the 3rd Defendant, SLSPC, who is the owner of the property. Therefore, despite this procedural defect, it is clearly apparent from the grounds stated above in this judgment that the SLSPC is a necessary party to the Acquiring Officer’s inquiry. Accordingly, the learned High Court Judges held that the learned District Judge erred in law and set aside the order of the learned District Judge and directed the District Judge to hold an inquiry based on the issues raised by all parties, including the 3rd Defendant, the SLSPC. 20 (Supra). 20 In light of the analysis set out above, I answer the questions of law framed before this Court as follows: i. No. ii. No. iii. No. iv. The learned Judges of the High Court of Civil Appeal rightly held that the District Court of Galle possesses jurisdiction to inquire into the claim and/or title of the 3rd Defendant, notwithstanding the fact that the 3rd Defendant had not made a claim at the inquiry conducted before the Acquiring Officer. v. No. vi. Yes. I affirm the decision of the learned High Court Judges dated April 27, 2021, and dismiss this appeal. No costs. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT S. Thurairaja, P.C., J. I Agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT Menaka Wijesundera, J. I Agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT 21		Download
2025-09-18	SC/CHC APPEAL/9/2016	1. Jayawardana Mulge Susantha Jayawardana 2. Udumullage Dona Inoka Ushani Jayasinghe Both of Birmenstorsertrasse 586 8055, Zurich, Switzerland. Acting through their Power of Attorney Holder Jayaweerawardana Mulge Gamini Sathyapala of No. 382A, Dippitigoda Kelaniya. Plaintiff-Appellants Vs. Minnerigamage Samarakkody Perera No.17, Kavinda Place, Kirulapona Colombo 06. And No. 11, Masjid Mosque Road Kirulapona Colombo 06. Defendant-Respondent View More	Hon. Menaka Wijesundera J			Download
2025-09-18	SC/FR/313/2020	Sriramachandran Thanikumar Attorney-at-Law, No.14, Dr. E A Cooray Mawatha, Wellawatta Colombo 6. On behalf of, Kumarasamy Manoharan Munich, Germany. Presently at, Old Prison Detention Centre Tangalle. No.45, Rasapuram, Sinna Adamban Nadunkeni, Vavuniya (Presently in Anuradapura Remand Prison) Petitioner Vs. 1. The Director, Terrorist Investigation Division, Police headquarters, Colombo 01. 2. The Officer In Charge, Police Station, Batticaloa. 3. Vickneshwaran, Police Constable, Police Station, Batticaloa. 4. Madushanke, Police Constable, Police Station, Batticaloa. 5. Officer In charge, Foreshore Police Station, Colombo 13. 6. Acting Inspector General of Police Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 7. The Honorable Attorney General, Department of the Attorney General, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Menaka Wijesundera J			Download
2025-09-18	SC/FR/524/2012	H.D.S. Wimalarathna No. 209, Mahabopitiya, Alawwa. PETITIONER Vs. 1. D.M.S.K. Dassanayake, Inspector of Police, Police Station, Alawwa. 2. Senaratna, 52524, Police Constable, Police Station, Alawwa. 3. A.B. Mahinda Pushpakumara Inspector of Police, Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Alawwa. 4. Lal Kumara 20167, Police Sergeant, Police Station, Alawwa. 5. Karunarathna,, 32182, Police Sergeant, Police Station, Alawwa. 6. Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 7. Hon. Attorney-general, Attorney- General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J	1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application in terms of Article 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic S.C. FR Application No.1. H.D.S. Wimalarathna 524/2012 No. 209, Mahabopitiya, Alawwa. PETITIONER Vs. 1. D.M.S.K. Dassanayake, Inspector of Police, Police Station, Alawwa. 2. Senaratna, 52524, Police Constable, Police Station, Alawwa. 3. A.B. Mahinda Pushpakumara Inspector of Police, Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Alawwa. 4. Lal Kumara 20167, Police Sergeant, Police Station, Alawwa. 5. Karunarathna,, 32182, Police Sergeant, Police Station, Alawwa. 6. Inspector General of Police, 2 Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 7. Hon. Attorney-general, Attorney- General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS BEFORE: A.L. Shiran Gooneratne, J. Menaka Wijesundera, J. & M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J. COUNSEL: P.K. Prince Perera with S. Panchacharam for the Petitioner. Razik Zarook, PC for the 1st - 5th Respondents. Ms. V. Hettige, ASG for the 6th and 7th Respondents. ARGUED ON : 30.05.2025 DECIDED ON: 18.09.2025 M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J. Introduction The Petitioner filed this application in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution seeking inter alia a declaration that his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 11, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Constitution were infringed by the 1st to 5th Respondents who are police officers attached to Alawwa Police station; compensation in a sum of Rs. 3 million from 1st to 5th Respondent and to direct the 7th Respondent, the Attorney General to institute criminal proceedings under the 3 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Act, No. 22 of 1994, against the 1st to 5th Respondents who are liable for the infringement of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 11 of the Constitution. The Petitioner’s complaint is that he was subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the 1st to 5th Respondents using the colour of their office whilst he was unlawfully arrested and detained in the Alawwa police station. Accordingly, this Court granted leave to proceed on the alleged violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 11, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Constitution.1 Petitioner’s version of the Case According to the Petitioner, on 12.06.2011 at around 8.15 a.m. when he reported for duty in the Abans Alawwa branch where he worked as a sales assistant, he came to know that the shop has been broken into. On the same day 1st and 2nd Respondents together with two other Police officers have come to his workplace and have taken the Petitioner to Alawwa Police station without informing him of the reasons for the arrest. When he was taken to the backside of the Alawwa Police station, the 3rd Respondent who is the OIC of Alawwa Police station had arrived. After learning who the Petitioner was, the 3rd Respondent had slapped the Petitioner’s face twice and as a result of these assaults the Petitioner had fallen down. The Petitioner claims that there was a bed in the place which was also used to assist the torture inflicted upon the Petitioner. The Petitioner describes the torture he was subjected to while he was unlawfully detained at the Alawwa police station in the following manner; \'\' පලමු වග උත්තරකරු විසින් මා ගේ කකුලට මාං චු දමලා ඇද කකුලට අනෙ ක් මාං චුව දමන ලදි. එලෙ ස දමා පලමු 1 Journal entry dated 01.10.2012. 4 වගඋත්තරකරු පෙ ත්සම්කරුව බිම ඉන්දවන ලදි. එලෙ ස ලද්දේ පෙ ත්සම්කරුගේ කකුල් දෙ ක දිග ඇරය. 3 වන වග උත්තරකරු විසින් වේ වැ ලක් ගෙ නවිත් පෙ කකුල් දෙ කේ යටි පතුල් වලට පහර දෙ න ලදි. මෙ ම පහර කෑ මෙ න් දැ ඩි වේ දනා වක් දැ නුන අතර එම වේ ව හිස් මුදුනින් පිට ව්ය. පලමු වගඋත්තරකරු ස්ථා නයෙ න් පිටව ගො ස් නයි කො ච්චි වගයක් ෂො පිං බෑ ගයක දමා ගෙ න ගෙ නෙ න ලදි නයි කො ච්චි ටික 2 වන වග උත්තරකරුට 1 වගඋත්තරකරු විසින් දෙ න ලදි. 2 වග උත්තරකරු එම නයි කො ච්චි ටික තලා ලේ න්සුවකට ගෙ න පො ඩ් පො ට්ටනියක් හදලා එතන තිබුන වතුර බෝ තලයක් අරගෙ න ලේ න්සුවෙ න් හදා ඇති පො ඩ් පො ට්ටනියකට දමා ඒක ගෙ න 1 වන වගඋත්තරකරුට දෙ න ලදි. 2 වගඋත්තරකරු ව්සින් පෙ ත්සම්කරුගේ ඇස් උඩටම සිටින සේ ඔලුව අල්ලා ගන්නා ලදි. 1 හා 3 වග උත්තරකරුවන් විසින් මා රුවෙ න් මා රුවට වතුරෙ න් පො ගවා තිබු තලන ලද නයි කො ච්චි සහිත පො ට්ටනිය පෙ ත්සම්කරුගේ ඇස් දෙ කට නා සයට නලළට කටට මිරිකන ලදී.” On the same day at or about 7.30 PM, the Petitioner was further tortured by 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Respondents after stripping down the garments of the Petitioner forcibly. “ඉන් පසුව 1,2.4 සහ 5 වග උත්තකරුවන් පෙ ත්සම්කරුගේ අත් දෙ කයි කකුල් දෙ කයි එතන තිබූ ලණුවකින් ගැ ට ගසන ලදී. එතන කබඩ් දෙ කක් තිබුණි. 1,2 4 සහ 5 වන වග උත්තකරුවන් විසින් යකඩ ඉන්නක් ගෙ න එම යකඩ ඉන්න 5 ගැ ට ගසා තිබූ පෙ ත්සම්කරුගේ අත් දෙ කයි කකුල් දෙ කයි අතරින් දමා 1 සහ 2 වන වගඋත්තරකරුවන් විසින් ගල් ඉන්නේ එක පැ ත්තක්ද 4 සහ 5 වග උත්තරකරුවන් විසින් ගල් ඉන්නේ අනිත් පැ ත්තද අල්ලා කබඩ් දෙ ක උඩ සිටින සේ රදවන ලදී. එසේ රදවා පලමු වගඋත්තරකරු විසින් පෙ ත්සම්කරුව තල්ලු කරන ලදී. දෙ වන වගඋත්තරකරු විසින් කුඩු කල නයි කො ච්චි ඉහත සදහන් පරිදි ගෙ නවිත් වතුර දමා පෙ ත්සම්කරුගේ ඇස් දෙ කටත් මුහුණටත් පුරුෂ ලිං ගයටත් වතුරෙ න් පො ගවා තිබූ කො ච්චි පො ට්ටනිය මිරිකන ලදී. එලෙ ස මිරිකීම 1,2 සහ 4 වග උත්තකරුවන් විසින්ද මා රුවෙ න් මා රුවට කරන ලදී. මෙ ලෙ ස පෙ ත්සම්කරු පැ ය 3 පමණ එල්ලා තබන ලදී. ඉන් පසුව 1,2,4 සහ 5 වගඋත්තරකරුවන් විසින් එතනින් යන ලදී. පැ ය තුනකට පමණ පසුව 1,2, 4 සහ 5 වන වග උත්තරකරුවන් පැ මිණ පෙ ත්සම්කරුව ලිහා බිමට ගන්නා ලදී. ඉන් පසුව 1,2 4 සහ 5 වන වගඋත්තකරුවන් මා රුවෙ න් මා රුවට පෙ ත්සම්කරුගේ අත් වලට පා දයට පිටට අතින් පයින් සහ කො ටුවලින් පහර දෙ න ලදී.” After obtaining Petitioner’s signature to some papers forcibly, he was put into a detention cell and subsequently produced before the magistrate of Warakapola at his residence on or about 6.30 pm by the 1st and 2nd Respondents on or around 08.06.2011. The Petitioner was also threatened by the 1st and 2nd Respondent to not to disclose that he was assaulted in the Police station. The Petitioner was enlarged on bail on 21.06.2011. On the same day he was admitted to Kurunegala teaching hospital and was examined by the JMO on or about 30.06.2011. Upon being discharged, the Petitioner has complained to Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (hereinafter ‘HRCSL’). After an inquiry the HRCSL has 6 issued a recommendation dated 24.08.2012 which ordered the 1st Respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000 and each 2nd, 4th and 5th Respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 7,500. It was informed to the Court that the Petitioner has received a money order from 1st ,2nd, 4th and 5th Respondents pursuant to HRCSL recommendations for a sum amounting to forty-seven thousand five hundred, but that has not been encashed by the Petitioner as he wishes to proceed with this application.2 The 1st to 5th Respondents’ Version of Event The Respondents contend that the Petitioner was lawfully arrested on 18.06.2011 pursuant to an investigation on a complaint made on 13.06.2011 and was duly produced before the Magistrate on the same day. The 1st to 5th Respondents contend that on the day he was taken into custody, he attempted to escape and run away from the Police custody and as a result, sustained injuries to the hands and feet. According to 1st to 5th Respondents’ version, the injuries depicted in the Medico-Legal Report (MLR) are due to this attempted escape. The 1st to 5th Respondents further submit that since they have already paid the compensation that the Human Right Commission has ordered to pay to the Petitioner, he is not entitle to seek further relief from this Court. However as already noted above, the Petitioner has not acknowledged the compensation offered by the Respondents as he wishes to pursue this application. Time Bar objection The preliminary objection of the Respondents was that the Application of the Petitioner has been filed outside the mandatory period of one month stipulated in Article 126(2) of the Constitution and on that basis, the Respondents moved to have this application dismissed in limine. 2 Journal entry dated 21.02.2013. 7 Article 126(2) of the Constitution reads as follows: Article 126(2) -“Where any person alleges that any such fundamental right or language right relating to such person has been infringed or is about to be infringed by executive or administrative action, he may himself or by an attorney-at-law on his behalf, within one month thereof, in accordance with such rules of court as may be in force, apply to the Supreme Court by way of petition in writing addressed to such Court praying for relief or redress in respect of such infringement. Such application may be proceeded with only with leave to proceed first had and obtained from the Supreme Court, which leave may be granted or refused, as the case may be, by not less than two judges.” (emphasis added) However, Section 13 (1) of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka Act No. 21 of 1996 provides as follows: Section 13 (1) - “Where a complaint is made by an aggrieved party in terms of section 14, to the Commission, within one month of the alleged infringement or imminent infringement of a fundamental right by executive or administrative action, the period within which the inquiry into such complaint is pending before the Commission, shall not be taken into account in computing the period of one month within which an application may be made to the Supreme Court by such person in terms of Article 126(2) of the Constitution.” In the case of A.M.K. Aththanayake v. H. W. S. Udayakumara, IP of Police and Others,3 Justice Padman Surasena (now Chief Justice of Sri Lanka) quoting Justice 3 S.C. F.R. Application No. 412/ 2015, S.C.M 27-06-2024. 8 Janak De Silva in Thilangi Kandambi v State Timber Corporation and others4 observed that, “The initial view was that mere production of a complaint made to the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka within one month of the alleged infringement is sufficient to get the benefit of the provisions in section 13(1) of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka Act No. 21 of 1996[…]However, the correct position is that a petitioner must show evidence that the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has conducted an inquiry regarding the complaint or that an inquiry is pending. Simply lodging a complaint is inadequate.” In Ranasinghe Arachchige Nadeesha Seuwandi Ranasinghe and another v Ceylon Petroleum Storage Terminals Limited5 that, “ … in view of the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Human Rights Commission Act, time would not run during the pendency of proceedings before the Human Rights Commission and such time will not be taken into account in computing the period of one month within which an application may be made to this Court in terms of Article 126(2) of the Constitution.”. In the case before us not only the Petitioner has filed a complaint in the HRCSL but also has received recommendations to which he is not satisfied. Therefore, in computing one month period, the period in which the inquiry was pending has to be excluded. 4 S.C. F.R. Application No. 452/2019, S.C.M 14.12.2022. 5 SC FR No. 244/2017 – S.C.M of 22.02.2019. 9 In order to consider whether the Petitioner has complied with Article126(2), the following dates stated in the paragraph 1 of the Written Submissions of the Petitioner would be of relevance: “He was enlarged on bail on 21.06.2011. On the same day he got admitted to the Kurunegala teaching hospital. He was examined by the JMO on 11 am on 30.06.2011. He was discharged from the hospital on 30.06.2011. He made a complaint to the Human Right Commission on 18.07.2021 (P2). An inquiry was held before the Human Right Commission. (P4-P7). The Human Right Commission had made it’s recommendation on 14.08.2012(P 11) whereas he received the recommendation through normal post on 27.08.2012, and he filed this application before your Lordships Court on 05.09.2012.” In the case of Saman v Leeladasa,6 it was held that, “Here, the Petitioner was hospitalised from 2.12.87 until his release, and was thus prevented from taking immediate action to petition this Court for redress : an impediment, to the exercise of his fundamental right (under Article 17) to apply to this Court, caused by the very infringement complained of. Further, the fact that he had been assaulted, or that an injury had been inflicted on him, would not per se bring him within Article 11 ; whether the treatment meted out to him would fall within Article 11 would depend on the nature and extent of the injury caused ; until the Petitioner had knowledge, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered, that an injury sufficient to bring him within Article 11 had resulted, time did not begin to run.” Similarly, in Gamaethige v Siriwardana7, Mark Fernando J had held that, 6 [1989] 1 Sri LR 1. 7 (1988) 1 Sri L.R. 384 at p.402. 10 “… in exceptional cases, on the application of the principle lex non cogit ad impossibilia, if there is no lapse, fault or, delay on the part of the petitioner, this Court has a discretion to entertain an application made out of time.” On the application of that principle, time did not begin to run in this case until 30.06.2011, the date in which he was discharged from the hospital. As the HRCSL made its recommendations on 14.08.2012 and the instant application was made on 05.09.2012, the Petitioner’s application is well within the one-month time period stipulated by Article 126(2) of the Constitution. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the preliminary objection taken up by the Respondent, and must necessarily be overruled. Purported violation of Article 11 of the Constitution Article 11 of the Constitution provides that, Article 11 -“No person shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Here it is important to note that Article 11 of the 1978 Constitution is an entrenched provision with no restrictions whatsoever. United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment defines torture in Article 1 of the Convention as follows: Article 1 -“For the purposes of this Convention, the term ‘torture’ means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, 11 punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.’ This convention has been signed and ratified by the government of Sri Lanka and has also incorporated into the domestic law of Sri Lanka through Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Act No. 22 of 1994. Article 12 of the Act No 22 of 1994 provides: Article 12 -“torture” with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means any act which causes severe pain, whether physical or mental, to any other person, being an act which is― (a) done for any of the following purposes that is to say― (i) obtaining from such other person or a third person, confession; or any information or (ii) punishing such other person for any act which he or a third person has committed, or (iii) is suspected of having committed; or intimidating or coercing such other person or a third person; or (b) done for any reason based on discrimination and being in every case, an act, which is, done by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, public officer or other person acting in an official capacity.” 12 Our Courts have sought to interpret what amounts to ‘cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment’ under Article 11 of the Constitution in different cases that have come before it. Justice Sharvananda in his treatise, Fundamental Rights in Sri Lanka (A Commentary) [(1993) at page 69] has pointed out that, “The fundamental nature of the right of freedom from torture or inhuman treatment is emphasized by the fact that it is an absolute right subject to no restriction or derogation under any condition, even in times of war, public danger or other emergency. This human right from cruel or inhumane treatment is vouched not only to citizens, but to all persons, whether citizens or not, irrespective of the question whether the victim is a hard-core, criminal or not.” In Kumara v Silva, Sub-Inspector of Police, Welipenna and Others8 this Court noted that, “Article 11 refers to torture separately from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment similarly to Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights, Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as Article 3 of the European Convention which had referred to torture separately from inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment. The importance of the right to protection from torture has been further recognized and steps had been taken to give effect to the universally accepted safeguards by the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment signed in New York in 1984, which has been accepted in Sri Lanka by the enactment of Act No. 22 of 8 [(2006) 2 Sri LR 236 at page 244. 13 1994 on the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.” Atukorale J. in Amal Sudath Silva v Kodituwakku Inspector of Police and Others9 commenting on Article 11 of the Constitution held as follows, “Article 11 of our Constitution mandates that no person shall be subjected to torture, or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It prohibits every person from inflicting torturesome, cruel or inhuman treatment on another. It is an absolute fundamental right subject to no restrictions or limitations whatsoever. Every person in this country, be he a criminal or not, is entitled to this right to the fullest content of its guarantee. Constitutional safeguards are generally directed against the State and its organs. The police force being an organ of the State is enjoined by the Constitution to secure and advance this right and not to deny, abridge or restrict the same in any manner and under any circumstances. Just as much as this right is enjoyed by every member of the police force, so is he prohibited from denying the same to others, irrespective of their standing, their beliefs or antecedents. It is therefore the duty of this court to protect and defend this right jealously to its fullest measure with a view to ensuring that this right which is declared and intended to be fundamental is always kept fundamental and that the executive by its action does not reduce it to a mere illusion.” The ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’ is not limited to the physical force used or any physical pain thereby caused but also extend to dignity of a person as a human being. Therefore, in the case of Subasinghe v Police Constable Sandun and Others10 this Court held that, 9 [(1987) 2 Sri LR 119 at page 126-127. 10 [1999] 2 Sri L.R. 23. 14 “The fact that the petitioner was taken handcuffed in a private vehicle to the Dankotuwa town and ‘exhibited’ in the manner spoken to by the petitioner in my view, is an affront to the petitioner’s dignity as a human being and amounts to ‘degrading treatment’ within the meaning of Article 11.” The conduct complained of in the case at hand, as I have already noted above, includes infliction of severe pain and suffering to the Petitioner accompanied by humiliation of torturing him while stripping him naked. The Medico-Legal Report that has been tendered before this Court, supports the Petitioner’s version of the facts of the case rather than 1st to 5th Respondents’ version. According to the Judicial Medical Officer (JMO), the statement made by the Petitioner at the time of being admitted to Kurunegala teaching hospital is compatible with the history of the injuries. Further MLR identifies around 11 injuries in the body of the Petitioner where one of which has been identified as an injury that falls within the category of grievous injury. “foot drop of right led [sic]- he cannot walk properly with right foot due to nerve damage and temporary paralysis”. HRCSL following an investigation and upon examination of images of injuries submitted by the Petitioner, notes that statements made by 1st to 5th Respondents regarding the Petitioner’s injuries that were reported in the MLR were owing to Petitioner jumping out of the moving vehicle is not compatible with the nature and the situation of the injuries in question. The HRCSL is in the opinion that these injuries are result of a torture inflicted upon the Petitioner. When considering all the evidences tendered before this Court together with the observation of the HRCSL, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner has been subjected to ‘torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ within the meaning of Article 11 of the Constitution. 15 Alleged violation of Article 13(1) and 13(2) of the Constitution The Petitioner submits that the arrest and detention of the Petitioner was in contravention of the Constitution and provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No.15 of 1979 (as amended). Article 13 (1) of the Constitution provides as follows: Article 13 (1) -“No person shall be arrested except according to procedure laid down by law. Any person arrested shall be informed of the reason for his arrest” Section 23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979 lays down the procedure in which a lawful arrest can be done which reads as follows: Section 23 (1)-“In making an arrest the person making the same shall actually touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested unless there be a submission to the custody by word or action and shall inform the person to be arrested of the nature of the charge or allegation upon which he is arrested. Section 23 (2)- If such person forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him or attempts to evade the arrest, the person making the arrest may use such means as are reasonably necessary to effect the arrest.” Section 32 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979 as follows: Section 32 (1) – “Any peace officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant arrest any person – (a) (…..) 16 (b) who has been concerned in any cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so concerned; (c) –(i)(…..) In Corea v Queen 11 Gratien J. held that, “A police officer acts illegally in Ceylon (as in England) if he arrests a man without a warrant on a mere \" unexpressed suspicion \" that a particular cognizable offence has been committed-unless, of course, \" the circumstances are such that the man must know the general nature of the offence for which he is detained\" or unless the man \"himself produces the situation which makes it practically impossible to inform him \" As clearly enumerated above, the narration of events by the parties are vastly different and contradictory. So are the date and time the alleged event took place. Even though there are no clear evidence supporting the date of arrest of the Petitioner, particularly the affidavit of one Balagalla Ralalage Susantha Sampath presented before HRSCL support the Petitioner’s version that he was in Police custody on 16.06.2011, the date which is prior to the date which the arrest claimed to have taken place by the 1st to 5th Respondents. Therefore, it is probable that the Petitioner’s version that he was arrested without giving reasons or having reasonable grounds to do so. Here it is noteworthy that the Petitioner was acquitted of all the charges by the learned the Magistrate by order dated 03.09.2012 under which the questionable arrest was done, that formed the basis for the instant application. 11 55 NLR 457. 17 In the case Gerald Mervin Perera v. Suraweera, Officer-In-Charge, Police Station Wattala and Others12 Court held that, “Further, had the Respondents been acting bona fide when they arrested the Petitioner, they would have promptly recorded his statement, and would then have either produced him before a Magistrate or released him. The fact that they failed to record a statement (or if the IB extracts are accurate, waited ten hours to do so) strongly suggests that they did not, even subjectively, believe that he had committed an offence, but were merely hoping that something would turn up. It is also probable that the Petitioner was not given a reason for arrest.” Similarly in the case of G.S.T.P. Akalanka v. Wijesinghe and Others13 Thurairaja, PC, J. made the following observation: “This Court observes that if there had been a reasonable suspicion that the Petitioner was in some manner involved in the alleged theft due to a name divulged by an arrested suspect, the officers should have followed the correct procedure and made an ‘official arrest’ of the Petitioner as prescribed by law. The blatant disregard of the relevant procedure by the Respondents leads to the finding that the Petitioner was illegally arrested and detained contrary to Article 13 of the Constitution.” Once a person is arrested, such person ought to be brought before the judge of the nearest competent court. Article 13(2) of the Constitution thus provides: 12 (2003) 1 Sri LR 317. 13 SC FR 46/2018, SCM dated 21.10.2021. 18 Article 13(2) -“Every person held in custody, detained or otherwise deprived of personal liberty shall be brought before the judge of the nearest competent court according to procedure established by law and shall not be further held in custody, detained or deprived of personal liberty except upon and in terms of the order of such judge made in accordance with procedure established by law.” Section 37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979 reads; Section 37 -“Any peace officer shall not detain in custody or otherwise confine a person arrested without a warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate.” The Petitioner claims that he was unlawfully detained at the Alawwa Police Station for a period of over 144 hours which is a clear violation of aforesaid provisions in the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979. The contention of the Petitioner regarding unlawful detention is also supported by the following observation made by the HRCSL consequent to an investigation that was conducted upon the Complaint of the Petitioner. “මෙ හිදි සලකා බැ ලිය යුතු කරුණ වන්නේ පැ මිණිලිකරු අත්අඩං ගුවට ගන්නා ලද්දේ 2011.06.12 දින ද එසේ ත් නො මැ තිනම් වගඋත්තරකරුවන් සදහන් කරන ආකා රයට 2011.06.18 දිනයේ ද යන්නයි. මේ පිළිබඳ සලකා බැ ලීමේ දි 2011.06.12 දින අත්අඩං ගුවට ගත් බව පැ මිණිලිකරු ප්‍රකා ශ කල ද එය ඔප්පු කිරීමට ප්‍රමා ණවත් වෙ නත් සා ක්ෂි පැ මිණිලිකා ර පා ර්ශවය ඉදිරිපත් කිරිමට 19 අපො හො සත් වී ඇත. නමුත් පැ මිණිල්ල වෙ නුවෙ න් සා ක්ෂියක් ලෙ ස දිව්රුම් ප්‍රකා ශයක් ඉදිරිපත් කරන ලද බලගල්ල රා ළලා ගේ සුසන්ත සම්පත් යන අය ශ කර ඇත්තේ 2011.06.16 වන දින පස්වරු 4.00 ට පමණ තමා දිවුලපිටිය පො ලිස් ස්ථා නයෙ න් අත්අඩං ගුවට ගෙ න අලව්ව පො ලිසියට භා ර දෙ න විට පො ලිසියේ සිර මැ දිරියේ දුමින්ද සම්පත් විමලරත්න යන අය ඉතා අපහසුවෙ න් සිටිනු දුටු බවත් ඔහුගේ අත් වල, කකුල් වල, පිටේ තුවා ල තිබෙ නු දුටු බවත් ඔහු න් සිටිනු දුටු බවත්ය. ඒ අනුව එම සා ක්ෂිය පිළිගත හැ කි සා ක්ෂික් බව පෙ නි යන අතර, සැ කකරු 2011.06.16 වන දින පස්වරු 4.00 ට පමණ පො ලිස් අත්අඩං ගුවේ සිටි බව සනා ථ සා ක්ෂියකි. සැ කකරු අධිකරණය වෙ ත ඉදිරිපත් කර ඇත්තේ 2011.06.18 වන දින බැ වින් පැ ය 24 කට වඩා වැ ඩි කා ලයක් රඳවා තබා ගෙ න ඇති බව නිරීක්ෂණය වී ඇත.” Upon consideration of all the aforementioned facts, this Court finds that the rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Article 13(1) and Article 13(2) have been violated. Can this Court review the decision of the HRCSL? The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) is an independent Commission established in 1997 pursuant to the enactment of the Human Rights Commission Act No. 21 of 1996. The Commission has a broad mandate as well as powers, inter alia, to investigate into any complaints of fundamental rights violations or imminent fundamental rights violations and grant suitable redress, including compensation. 20 As correctly pointed out by Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J in Chandana Suriyarachchi and Others v Secretary Ministry of Defence and others,14 “[I]t must be appreciated that the investigational, inquisitorial and dispute resolution mechanisms created by the HRCSL Act is aimed at inter-alia providing the public a mechanism to which they may have convenient and expeditious access for the resolution of disputes arising out of the alleged infringement of their fundamental rights and to obtain relief, without having to access the Constitutional mechanism by invoking the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. In the circumstances, for the purpose of having fundamental rights related disputes resolved and to obtain relief, if they choose to, the public need not go through what is now observable as being a cumbersome, complicated, time-consuming and possibly expensive method of judicial adjudication of disputes.” The investigations, findings and observations of HRCSL provides valuable assistance to Court in dispensing the justice. However, the Supreme Court is not bound by such findings or investigations of the HRCSL. The recommendations or orders that are being made by HRCSL could be reviewed by the Supreme Court. In the case of Chandana Suriyarachchi and Others v. Secretary Ministry of Defence and others (supra) Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J. further states: “the creation of an independent, para-judicial or administrative state (nevertheless independent) institution statutorily empowered to engage in investigation and inquiry, ascertainment of the truth, possessing authority to engage in dispute resolution pertaining to infringement of human rights, and for the performance of a multitude of other functions aimed at the promotion and protection of human rights, is a globally 14 SC/FR/ 329/2017, SCM 12.01.2023. 21 recognized, critically important norm. An independent, competent and effective national human rights institution is a cornerstone of a country’s mechanism for the promotion and protection of human rights. In Sri Lanka’s context, it is aimed at subordinately augmenting the role of the Supreme Court in the area of disputes arising out of alleged infringement / imminent infringement of fundamental rights. The investigative, inquisitorial and dispute resolution mechanisms provided for in the Act are subordinate and alternate to the Constitutional mechanism created by Article 17 read with Article 126 of the Constitution for the protection of fundamental rights through judicial adjudication of disputes pertaining to the infringement and imminent infringement of fundamental rights. A careful consideration of the provisions of the Act clearly reveals that the HRCSL has not been created to make inroads towards the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Nor has the Commission been established to create a parallel system for judicial or quasi-judicial adjudication of disputes.” Hence in the event a person comes before the Supreme Court against decision made by HRCSL, such decisions can be quashed, modified or implemented by this Court. State Responsibility The learned State Counsel on behalf of the 6th to 7th Respondents submit that subsequent to the inquiry, indictment was filed against 1st to 3rd Respondents and prompt actions have been filed against the accused Police officers of Alawwa Police station, and urge the Court to absolve the state for the alleged violation of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner. The Learned state Counsel rely on the cases of Kanda Udage Malika vs D.M.Abeyratna and others 15and Gunawardene vs Perera and others16 to support his position. 15 SC/FR/157/2014, SCM 21.05.2021. 16 [1983] 1 SRI LR 305. 22 In Amal Sudath Silva v Kodituwakku Inspector of Police and Others (supra) Atukorale, J. dealing with strongly condemns torture while in police custody in the following manner; “This court cannot, in the discharge of its constitutional duty, countenance any attempt by any police officer however high or low, to conceal or distort the truth induced, perhaps, by a false sense of police solidarity. The facts of this case have revealed disturbing features regarding third degree methods adopted by certain police officers on suspects held in police custody. Such methods can, only be described as barbaric, savage and inhuman. They are most revolting to one’s sense of human decency and dignity particularly at the present time when every endeavour is being made to promote and protect human rights. Nothing shocks the conscience of a man so much as the cowardly act of a delinquent police officer who subjects a helpless suspect in his charge to depraved and barbarous methods of treatment within the confines of the very premises in which he is held in custody. Such action on the part of the police will only breed contempt for the law and will tend to make the public lose confidence in the ability of the police to maintain law and order. The petitioner may be a hard-core criminal whose tribe deserve no sympathy. But if constitutional guarantees are to have any meaning or value in our democratic set up, it is essential that he be not denied the protection guaranteed by our Constitution.” In the aforementioned case Atukorale, J. went on to hold the state vicariously liable for the acts committed by its errant officers. “…However as the petitioner has established that he has been subjected to torture and cruel treatment by the police, whoever they be, 23 when he was under arrest, the State is liable to pay compensation to the victim of such action.” The blatant violations of law and order and the abuse of the powers by the Police officers who are responsible to uphold law and justice should be strongly condemned and punished. However, in my view, it is illogical to impose the liability on the state for acts committed by such errant officers to fulfill their own personal agendas in the context where state has already taken appropriate steps to bring such officers before law. A similar view has been adopted in the case of Kanda Udage Malika v D.M. Aberathna and others,17 where Thurairaja, PC, J. quoting Soza J. in Goonewardene v. Perera and Others (supra) made the following observation. “It is illogical to hold the state responsible for acts committed by such officers in pursuing their personal vengeance without the authorization or knowledge of the persons in authority. This was also highlighted in Goonewardene v. Perera and Others [1983] 1 Sri LR 305 (Soza, J.) as follows, ‘The State no doubt cannot be made liable for such infringements as may be committed in the course of the personal pursuits of a public officer of to pay off his personal grudges. But infringements of Fundamental Rights committed under colour of office by public officers must result in liability being cast on the State.’ In light of the above, the phrase \'colour of office is not limited to whether or not the officers were in official uniform but includes factors surrounding the conduct of the officers and the authority given to them. In the instant case the acts committed by the errant officers were not 17 SC/ FR/ 157/2014, SCM 21.05.2021. 24 committed under the supervision or the orders of a senior officer. The state has not in any manner approved nor shall approve such conduct. In considering the facts laid before this court the acts of the officers were conducted in their personal capacity and not in the \'colour of office.’.” Deterrence is of prime importance in awarding compensation in the context of violations of fundamental rights, because the impugned conduct is the very action that the framers of the Constitution sought to avoid. However, when a court awards compensation against the state, it is ultimately the taxpayers’ money which is being expended to make up for such commission or omission on the part of government officials. Thus, I am of the opinion that, as the burden of compensation against the state has to be born by ordinary tax payers, state should not be imposed with the burden of compensating the victims of such wrongful acts on the part of its errant officers unless there is evidence to the effect that state through its omission is responsible for encouraging or continuance of such discreditable conduct. In the event the state has proceeded against such deviant officers, it is more appropriate for the court to directly hold the deviant officer personally liable rather than the state. In the instant case, as the state has fully co-operated to serve justice to the Petitioner by instituting criminal proceedings in the High Court of Kurunegala against 1st to 3rd Respondents in accordance with the provisions of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Act, No. 22 of 1994, I hold that liability need not be imposed on the state for the wrongdoings of the 1st to 5th Respondents and the said officers themselves are personally liable for their discreditable conduct. 25 Conclusion In the above premise, I declare that the fundamental rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Articles 11, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Constitution have been infringed by executive and administrative action. Accordingly, acting under Article 126(4) of the Constitution which empowers the Supreme Court to grant such relief as it may deem just and equitable in the circumstances in respect of any petition referred to it under Article 126(2), I order a. The 1st Respondent to pay Rs. 50,000 (Fifty thousand rupees) from his personal funds in addition to the Rs. 25,000 ordered by HRCSL. b. The 2nd to 5th Respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000 each, (Twenty -five thousand rupees) in addition to Rs. 7,500 ordered by HRCSL from their personal funds. as compensation to the Petitioner within six months from the date of this judgment. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT A.L. Shiran Gooneratne, J. I Agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT Menaka Wijesundera, J. I Agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT		Download
2025-09-18	SC/FR/233/2020	Attanayakage Don Susil Attanayake No. 234/A, Kudamaduwa, Siddamulla, Piliyandala. PETITIONER Vs. 1. W.M.J. Sudath Bandara (Deceased), Chief Inspector of Police, Officer in Charge, Kiriella Police Station, Kiriella. 2. Chanaka Weerasinghe, Sub Inspector of Police, Kiriella Police Station, Kiriella. 3. PS. No. 42837 Silva, Kiriella Police Station, Kiriella. 4. PS. No. 40284 Pushpakumara, Kiriella Police Station, Kiriella. 5. PC No. 81053 Embuldeniya, Kiriella Police Station, Kiriella. 6. PSD No. 42590 Chandrasiri, Kiriella Police Station, Kiriella. 7. J.I. Ajith Kumara Assistant Superintendent of Police, Ratnapura District II. 8. C.D. Wickramaratne, Acting Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, 311, Olcott Mawatha, Colombo. 9. The Honourable Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 10. Welikadage Chaminda Perera, Chief Inspector of Police, Officer in Charge, Kiriella Police Station, Kiriella. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Janak De Silva J			Download
2025-09-17	SC/FR/77/2018	1. Atham Lebbe Mohamed Nawas No. 30, Methaippalli road, Kattankudy 2 Petitioner V. 1. Pujitha Jayasundara Inspector General of Police Police Head Quarters Colombo-01 1A. C.D. Wickramaratne Inspector General of Police Police Head Quarters Colombo-01 2. P.P. Kasthooriarachchi Office-in-Charge 3. Mr. Muwsseer PC 5867 Police Constable 4. Mr. Muhajith PC 5868 Police Constable The 2nd to the 4th Respondents above named all of Police Station of Kathankudy Hisbulla Street Ward No 19 Manchanthuduwai 5. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando	1. The Petitioner is a citizen of Sri Lanka who is engaged in a business known as “Gaya Bakers” since 2012. He alleges that the 1st - 4th Respondents violated fundamental rights guaranteed to him under Articles 11, 12(1), 12(2), 13(1), and 13(5) of the Constitution. This Court granted leave for the alleged violations of Articles 12 (1) and 13 (1) of the Constitution. The Facts 2. The Petitioner is a member of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) where he obtained membership in 2017. Mr. H.A. Munaff and Mrs. Yohara Ummah (husband and wife respectively) were known to the Petitioner owing to them being candidates in the additional list for the Kaththankudy Urban Council of SLPP. 3. The Petitioner states that the aforementioned Mr. H.A. Munaff was arrested as a suspect for the possession of cannabis in a house rented by him between 19:00 – 20:00 hours on or around the 7th of January 2018. On the same day, two individuals claiming to be from the Criminal Investigation Division (CID), having arrived at the residence of the aforementioned Yohara Ummah, had demanded Rs. 250,000 to release Mr. H.A. Munaff from police custody. Yohara Ummah, suspecting the veracity of their identities, had called the Petitioner stating she was in danger. 4. Upon receiving this call, the Petitioner states that he immediately went to the residence of Yohara Ummah with some friends. The two individuals had still been there. Upon questioning the individuals and realizing they are not police officers, he has called “119” and reported the incident to the Police, whereby the Police had come and arrested the individuals. The Petitioner has later got to know that Yohara Ummah had lodged a 4 complaint about this incident to the Kaththankudy police upon the arrest of the individuals. 5. Thereafter, on the 9th of January 2018 the Petitioner has received a call from the Kaththankudy Police Station stating that he is required to give a statement regarding the aforementioned incident. As the Petitioner was not in Kaththankudy at the time, he had communicated his difficulty to attend, requesting a further date. 6. Later, the Petitioner has become aware that the 2nd Respondent has reported a false story in relation to case No. B/17/2018 to the learned Magistrate of Batticaloa stating that the Petitioner had assaulted the aforementioned individuals who claimed to be CID officials and that the Petitioner has disappeared from the area. It is the contention of the Petitioner that this was done in order to obtain arrest warrants against the Petitioner and his friends. He further submits that the aforementioned individuals who claimed to be CID officials had been hospitalized by the Respondents with the intention of obtaining an arrest warrant as well. 7. The Petitioner submits that the issuing of such warrant was refused by the Learned Magistrate of Batticaloa and that instead, the Learned Magistrate had issued summons to the Petitioner alongside two others to appear before the Magistrates’ Court on the 13th of March 2018. 8. He submits that the SLPP main rally for the 2018 Local Government Elections was to be held on the 26th of January 2018 and that he played an active role in its organization. He states that the above false “B” report that was filed in the Magistrates’ Court of Batticaloa was done with the intention of preventing the Petitioner’s involvement in the aforementioned rally. 9. Thereafter, on the 20th of January, the Petitioner states that he was illegally arrested by the 3rd and 4th Respondents albeit the refusal by the Learned 5 Magistrate to issue an arrest warrant. At the time of the arrest, the Petitioner had been at a friends’ house, in close proximity to the Police Station of Kaththankudy. 10. The Petitioner states that he was treated in a degrading and humiliating manner in being arrested publicly and that reasons for arrest were not disclosed by the 3rd and 4th Respondents even at the police station. He further contends that he was arrested by officers who are usually entrusted with other duties – officers in the traffic police attire. Upon being produced before the Learned Magistrate of Batticaloa on the 21st of January 2018, the Learned Magistrate had enlarged the Petitioner on bail. The Petitioner states that this impugned arrest caused an irreparable damage to him during the election campaign and that it was carried out contrary to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, further stating that he was deprived of the equal protection of the law having being discriminated against on grounds of political opinion. Whereby, he submits that fundamental rights guaranteed to him under Articles 11, 12(1), 12(2), 13(1), and 13(5) of the Constitution were in violation. 11. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents in their affidavit state that on the 7th of January 2018, Hanifa Abdul Munaf was arrested at 23:30 hours for having 34 kilograms of cannabis in possession and that he was subsequently produced before the Magistrate on 08th of January 2018. 12. The Respondents submit that a call was made to “119” on 08th of January 2018 at 01:24 hours and that a statement of Kalandara Lebbe Jafer was recorded on 08th of January 2018 at 02:20 hours. The Respondents, in their written submissions provide that prompt action was taken by them to arrest the alleged suspects with regards to this complaint. 13. In relation to “B” Report 17/2018, the Respondents submit that a complaint was lodged by Asath alleging that the Petitioner, together with other persons had assaulted him. The complainant had been produced 6 before the judicial medical officer on the same date. It is submitted that on the 20th of January 2018, the Petitioner was made aware of the alleged assault committed by him and was arrested at 23:00 hours in front of the Kaththankudy Police Station and that the Petitioner’s statement was recorded therein. The Petitioner has then been produced before the Magistrates’ Court. 14. The Respondents further submit that due process was followed in arresting the Petitioner and that the reasons for arrest were communicated to the Petitioner as admitted by the Petitioner himself in his statement made to the police. Further, it is stated that the 3rd Respondent has never carried out duties attached to the traffic unit and that the 4th Respondent was not involved in the arrest on any level. It is their contention that the Petitioner is attempting to fabricate a story. My Observations 15. Given the vast inconsistencies between the two factual backgrounds presented to this Court, I am compelled to, upon the perusal of the material before me, note the following. 16. The Petitioners state that “B” Report No.17/2018 states that the Petitioner had assaulted the two individuals who claimed to be CID officials and that it was on this basis that a case was filed in the Magistrates’ Court. The aforementioned “B” Report is submitted to this Court marked “R 10” and it presents a completely different version. 17. According to the “B” Report, on the 8th of January one Asath, having had dinner had been returning home. Where one Kaleel has stopped him and his friend Najath stating that Asath was the one who informed the police of the possession of cannabis by the individual who was arrested for the same on the same day. They had then been assaulted by the Petitioner and one Siraj Ahamed and taken to a secondary location, a house. They 7 had then learned that this was the same house where cannabis was previously found, and an arrest was made. The aforementioned Kaleel has told Asath and Najath had come to this house to receive money. They had then been brought to the police. The “B” Report notes that this is an offence in terms of sections 314 and 316 to be read in conjunction with section 32 of the Penal Code. The report also provides that the suspects (the Petitioner, Kaleel and Siraj Ahamed) are absconding and moved for a date to produce the suspects before the Magistrates’ Court. 18. I must also note that the Petition repeatedly mentions of a refusal to issue an arrest warrant to arrest the Petitioner by the Learned Magistrate. The same was also submitted at the hearing by the Counsel for the Petitioner. However, I fail to find any material to support such a claim that there was an application to issue a warrant to arrest the Petitioner. According to the “B” report, police have only moved for a further date to produce the suspects. Whereby I am inclined to believe such was merely an attempt to mislead the Court by stating that applications for a warrant of arrest was refused by the learned Magistrate. 19. Having resolved the inconsistencies and clarified the factual background, I will move to discuss any possible violation of fundamental rights. Alleged violation of Fundamental Rights 20. The standard of proof required in cases filed under Article 126 of the Constitution for infringement of Fundamental Rights is proof by a preponderance of the probabilities, as in a civil case, rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as said in the case of Velmurugu v. The Attorney General and Others [1981] 1 Sri LR 406. 21. Further, in Gunawardene v. Perera and Others [1983] 1 Sri LR 305 at 313, Soza J. held that 8 “...It is generally accepted that within this standard there could be varying degrees of probability. The degree of probability required should be commensurate with the gravity of the allegation sought to be proved. This court when called upon to determine questions of infringement of fundamental rights will insist on a high degree of probability as for instance a court having to decide a question of fraud in a civil suit would. The conscience of the court must be satisfied that there has been an infringement.” Alleged violation of Article 12(1) 22. Article 12(1) of the Constitution provides: “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law.” 23. Looking at the jurisprudential development vis-à-vis Article 12 (1) of the Constitution, it must be noted that it is rich in interpretation. In Palihawadana v. Attorney General & Others (1978-79-80) 1 Sri LR 65 at page 68 Shravananda J. comprehensively interprets Article 12 (1) as follows: “…Article 12 of the Constitution lays down the general rule of equality that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law and that no citizen shall be discriminated against on grounds of race, religion, language, caste, sex, political opinion, place of birth or any of such grounds.” His Lordship goes on to further analyse its applicability in the following way in page 69: “…Though Article 12 prescribes equality before the law and equal protection of the law, it has to be recognized that equality in any literal or abstract sense is not attainable. Its strict enforcement will, in fact, 9 bring about the very situation it seeks to avoid. The fundamental act is, all men are alike. Some, by the mere accident of birth, inherit riches; others are born to poverty. Some acquire skills and qualifications while others are untrained. There are differences in social standing and economic status. It is, therefore, impossible to apply rules of abstract equality to conditions which predicate inequality from the start. Yet the words have meaning. What is postulated is equality of treatment to all persons in utter disregard of every conceivable circumstance of the difference, such as age, sex, education and so on and so forth as may be found amongst people in general. Indeed, while the object of the Article is to ensure that invidious distinction or arbitrary discrimination shall not be made by the State between citizen A and citizen B who answer the same description and the differences which may obtain between them are of no relevance for the purpose of applying a particular law or operating an administrative scheme, reasonable classification is permissible and a certain measure of inequality permitted. The State is permitted to make unequal laws or take unequal administrative action if it is dealing with individuals or groups whose circumstances and situations are different.” 24. It must also be noted that the scope of Article 12 (1) has significantly widened over the years. Cases such as Wijerathna v. Sri Lanka Ports Authority [SC/FR/ 256/2017 S.C. Minutes of 11 December 2020] which captures this change as follows: “…The concept of ‘equality’ was originally aimed at preventing discrimination based on or due to such immutable and acquired characteristics, which do not on their own make human being unequal. It is now well accepted that, the ‘right to equality’ covers a much wider area, aimed at preventing other ‘injustices’ too, that are recognized by law. Equality is now a right as opposed to a mere privilege or an entitlement, and in the context of Sri Lanka a ‘Fundamental Right’, conferred on the people by the Constitution, for the purpose of curing not 10 only injustices taking the manifestation of discrimination, but a host of other maladies recognized by law.” 25. I must also note that Article 12 (1) has often been a catalyst in protecting one’s right to not be discriminated against on grounds of political opinion, as witnessed in cases such as U. N. S. P. Kurukulasuriya and J. K. W. Jayasekara v. Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation and others [SC FR Application No. 556/2008 SC FR Application No. 557/2008 SC Minutes of 17. 02. 2021], Deshapriya and Another v. Municipal Council, Nuwara Eliya and Others [SC FR 884/92] 1995 1 Sri LR page 362, and Palihawadana v. Attorney General & Others (1978-79-80) 1 Sri LR 65. 26. The Petitioner in the instant application contends that his Article 12 (1) protections were taken away by way of discrimination on grounds of political opinion as he believes the arrest was made to hinder his participation in SLPP activities. There is no evidence to back this claim except for the fabricated story the Petitioner presents to this Court, which I have previously dealt with and concluded to be factually untrue. 27. To award protection under Article 12 (1) in cases such as the instant application, where there is absolutely no material to conclude discrimination on any basis, in my opinion is not only illogical but also an abuse of Constitutional protections guaranteed by way of fundamental rights. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, as there are no credible grounds to conclude discrimination based on political opinion, there is no violation of Article 12 (1). Alleged Violation of Article 13 (1) 28. Article 13 of the Constitution concerns the due process of arrest and detention. Therein, Article 13 (1) provides as follows: 11 “No person shall be arrested except according to procedure laid down by law. Any person arrested shall be informed of the reason for his arrest” 29. In the instant application, two arguments were raised by the Petitioner in this regard. Firstly, that due process was not followed in making the arrest as the arrest took place albeit summons being issued for the Petitioner to appear in Court on 13.03.2013 and secondly, that he was not informed of the reason for arrest. 30. Regarding the first argument, in the case of Joseph Perera Alias Bruten Perera v Attorney General [1 Sri LR 1992 199 at page 236] the following is noted with regards to making an arrest: “The principles and provisions relating to arrest are materially different from those applying to the determination of the guilt or innocence of the arrested person. One is at or near the starting-point of criminal proceedings while the other constitutes the termination of those proceedings and is made by the judge after hearing submissions from all parties. The power of arrest does not depend on the requirement that there must be clear and sufficient proof of the commission of the offence alleged. On the other hand, for an arrest a mere reasonable suspicion or a reasonable complaint of the commission of an offence suffices.” 31. The manner in which an arrest ought to be conducted is provided in section 23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979 which reads: “(1) In making an arrest the person making the same shall actually touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested unless there be a submission to the custody by word or action and shall inform the person to be arrested of the nature of the charge or allegation upon which he is arrested. 12 (2) If such person forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him or attempts to evade the arrest, the person making the arrest may use such means as are reasonably necessary to effect the arrest.” 32. In the instant application, as per the “B” Report 17/2018, the Petitioner was arrested for commission of offences under sections 314 and 316 of the Penal Code read in conjunction with section 32. 33. As per schedule 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act (No. 15 of 1979), persons who are suspected of committing offences under S.314, and S.316 may be arrested without a warrant by a peace officer. Therefore, in the case at hand, I am of the opinion that due process was followed in making the arrest as the arrest was not arbitrary and was a result of an investigation conducted by the Police following a complaint they had received against the Petitioner. 34. The Petitioner also alleges that the reasons for arrest were not communicated at the time of arrest. In response to this the 2nd and 3rd Respondents have taken up the position that the reason was communicated both at the time of making the arrest and when getting the Petitioner’s statement. The latter is also reflected in the Petitioner’s statement to the police upon getting arrested (see “R9”). In these circumstances, I am inclined to believe that the reason for arrest was communicated to the Petitioner. 35. Therefore, I am of the opinion that due process was in fact followed by the Respondents in making the arrest and that there is no violation of Article 13 (1) of the Constitution. 13 36. In the above premise, I declare that the fundamental rights that have been guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 12 (1), and 13 (1) of the Constitution have not been violated. Application is Dismissed.		Download
2025-09-16	SC/FR/3/2009	1. Sumith Aluthkorala. 42/C, Western Malamulla, Panadura. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Western Province Provincial Road Development Authority, No. 50, Kithulwala Road, Colombo 08. And presently No. 59, Sebastian Hill, Colombo 12. 2. W. Jayasekara Former Chairman, Western Province Provincial Road Development Authority, Kithulwatta Road, Colombo 08. 2a. Rohan Kulasiri, Former Chairman, Western Province Provincial Road Development Authority, No. 50, Kithulwatta Road, Colombo 08. 2b. Upali Kodikara Chairman, No. 59, Sebastian Hill, Colombo 12 Kithulwatta Road, Colombo 08. 3. I.A.M. Jousie, Former Director, 3a. N. Bandula Prama Kumara, Director, 4. Lakshman Hettiarachchi Former Director, 4a. P.K.D. Thisera, Director, 5. Sepala Ruparatne, Former Director, 5a. J.E.L.T. Rathnayake, Former Director, 5b. T.M.W. Mudali, Director, 6. Silva Priyaratne, Former Director, 6a. I.J. Mirando Former Director, 6b. N.I. Senaratne, Director, 7. P. Sivapada Sundaram, Former Director, 7a. U.O. Janmuthupura, Former Director, 7b. T.G.W. Rajapaksha, Director, All of the Western Province Provincial Road Development Authority, No. 50, Kithulwatta Road, Colombo 08. 8. R.M.S. Bandaranayake, General Manager, Western Province Provincial Road Development Authority, No. 50, Kithulwatta Road, Colombo 08. 9. A. Ramanayake, Former Secretary, Provincial Ministry of Roadways and Co-operatives, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Battaramulla. 9a. Sunil Abayawardena, Former Secretary, Provincial Ministry of Roadways and Co-operatives, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Battaramulla. 9b. Champa N. Perera, Secretary, Provincial Ministry of Roadways and Co-operatives, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Battaramulla. 10. Lalith Wanigaratne Former Provincial Ministry of Roadways and Co-operatives, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Battaramulla. 10a. W.A. Nimal Lansa, Former Provincial Ministry of Road Development Housing and Constructions, Live Stock Development, Fisheries and Tourism, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Battaramulla. 11. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2025-09-15	SC/FR/344/2020, SC/FR/345/2020, SC/FR/346/2020, SC/FR/347/2020, SC/FR/348/2020, SC/FR/349/2020	N.W. Chaminda Kudahetti, 7/5/L, Nagahawatta Place, Ambalanwatta, Galle. PETITIONER Vs. 1. State Engineering Corporation No. 130, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 2. Mr. Rathnasiri Kalupahana, Chairman/CEO, State Engineering Corporation, No. 130, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 3. Eng. Bhagya Jayathilaka, Vice Chairman, State Engineering Corporation, No. 130, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. a. Eng. Y.D.C. Weerakkody, Director, State Engineering Corporation, No. 130, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 4. Ms. Malarmathy Gangaratharan, Director (Treasury Representative), State Engineering Corporation, No. 130, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 4a. Eng. Nalin S. De Silva, Director, State Engineering Corporation, No. 130, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 5. Mr. Sarath Jayawardene, Director, State Engineering Corporation, No. 130, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 5a. Nirosh Wathukarawatta, Direcotr, State Engineering Corporation, No. 130, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 6. Mr. Amarapala Gamage, Director, State Engineering Corporation, No. 130, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 7. Mr. Didula Rajapaksha, Director, State Engineering Corporation, No. 130, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 8. Mr. P.A.P. Cooray, Director, State Engineering Corporation, No. 130, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 9. Eng. D.T. Rajasekaran, General Manager, State Engineering Corporation, No. 130, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 9a. Eng. Prasad Amarasooriya, Acting General Manager, State Engineering Corporation, No. 130, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 10. K.D.S. Priyadarshana, Assistant Manager (Human Resources), State Engineering Corporation, No. 130, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 11. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS View More	Hon. P. Padman Surasena CJ	The learned Counsel for both parties agree that Court can consolidate all these cases and conduct one hearing in respect of all of them. They also agree that it would suffice for this Court to pronounce one Judgment in respect of all these cases i.e. SC/FR/344/2020, SC/FR/345/2020, SC/FR/346/2020, SC/FR/347/2020, SC/FR/348/2020 and SC/FR/349/2020. Court heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondents and concluded the argument of this case. According to the Petition, the Petitioner has joined the State Engineering Corporation of Sri Lanka in the year 1999 as a Security Officer (Casual). Thereafter, by the letter dated 09-03-2006 (P2 and P3) he was promoted to the Post of Clerk Grade XIII while being absorbed in to the permanent carder of the Corporation. Thereafter, by the letter dated 30-10-2009 (P4), the Petitioner was appointed to the Post of Management Assistant Grade III of the Corporation with effect from 01-11- [SC/FR/344/2020, SC/FR/345/2020, SC/FR/346/2020, SC/FR/347/2020, SC/FR/348/2020 & SC/FR/349/2020] Page 19 of 20 2009. Thereafter, the Petitioner was promoted to the Post of Management Assistant Class II of Grade III of the Corporation by the letter dated 11-08-2010 (P5). Subsequently, by the letter dated 16-05-2006, the Petitioner was again promoted to the Post of Administrative Officer Grade III of the Corporation (P6). Admittedly, the Petitioner was engaged in active Politics for a specified Political Party while working as a Committee Member for a specified Trade Union of the Corporation. (Vide paragraph 19 of the Petition dated 16-12-2020) Petitioner in his Petition has also admitted having being engaged in political activities in the Country from time to time. In the instant case, the Petitioner has challenged the documents marked P8 and P23. By P8, the 1st Respondent has transferred the Petitioner to another station in Ekala. This transfer was based on the document marked P23. The Petitioner has presented this case on the basis that the Respondents have effected the impugned transfer for political reasons. However, we observe that no document produced by the Petitioner has successfully established this assertion before us. The minute made on P23 is by an official. There is no indication whatsoever that the discussion referred to in that minute has been made for political reasons. The transfer of the Petitioner has been effected on this decision. The learned Counsel for the Respondents has taken up the position that the Petitioner having joined as a Security Officer (Casual) has unduly raised himself up to the position of Administrative Officer Grade III of the 1st Respondent Corporation purely due to political affiliations the Petitioner has had with the afore-said specified Political Party. The learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that this has happened in total disregard to the accepted Scheme of Recruitment. [SC/FR/344/2020, SC/FR/345/2020, SC/FR/346/2020, SC/FR/347/2020, SC/FR/348/2020 & SC/FR/349/2020] Page 20 of 20 Indeed, we observe that the document marked R4 has shed some light on this. According to R4, the 1st Respondent Corporation has informed the Petitioner that it is in the process of conducting an Inquiry to ascertain whether the Petitioner has necessary qualifications to hold the Post he is currently holding. In the above circumstances, we are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the transfer of the Petitioner effected as per P8 has been done by the Respondents illegally, unlawfully, arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably as claimed by the Petitioner. For the above reasons, we hold that the Petitioner is not entitled to succeed with this Petition. Therefore, we decide to dismiss this case without costs. The issue in the other cases are the same. Therefore, this Judgment must apply to all the other cases and all the other cases, i.e. SC/FR/344/2020, SC/FR/345/2020, SC/FR/346/2020, SC/FR/347/2020, SC/FR/348/2020 & SC/FR/349/2020 must stand dismissed without costs.		Download
2025-09-12	SC/APPEAL/59/2024	China Great Wall Hospital Private Limited, No.32, Park Road, Colombo 05. And No.21, Upatissa Road, Bambalapitiya, Colombo 04. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Raguwan Sandanam, No.12, Dehiwala Road, Maharagama. And No.18/1 and 18/2, Sellamuttu Avenue, Colombo 03. Defendant-Petitioner-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2025-09-12	SC/APPEAL/40/2015	Ihala Hewage Don Bonny Jayaratne, Batuwatta, Helamada. PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT – APPELLANT Vs. Kusum Pokunage Premadasa, Batuwatta, Helamada. DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2025-09-11	SC/APPEAL/34/2021	Karunasundera Devayalage Upul Kumara Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Menaka Wijesundera J	Page 1 of 7 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA. In the matter of an application for Special Leave to Appeal in terms of Article 127/128 of the Constitution of the Democratic - Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka SC/APPEAL/34/2021 Complainant SC/SPL/LA/175/2019 Vs. CA Appeal no: CA/160/2013 Karunasundera Devayalage Upul Kumara High Court of Monaragala No: 5th Accused 515/2008 AND NOW Karunasundera Devayalage Upul Kumara 4th Accused-Appellant Vs. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent Page 2 of 7 AND NOW BETWEEN Karunasundera Devayalage Upul Kumara Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent Before : Janak De Silva, J. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J. Menaka Wijesundera, J. Counsel : Ms. Indika Mallawarachchi for the Accused-Appellant- Appellant. H. I. Pieris, SDSG for the Complainant-Respondent- Respondent. Written Submissions : Written submissions on behalf of the petitioner-appellant on 1st April, 2021. Written submissions on behalf of the complainant- Respondent 20th June, 2025 Page 3 of 7 Argued on : 26.06.2025 Decided on : 11.09.2025 MENAKA WIJESUNDERA J. The instant Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment dated 03.04.2019 of the Court of Appeal. The Appellant along with five others had been indicted under Sections 296 and 355 of the Penal Code on the basis of unlawful assembly and under Section 32 of the Penal Code as well. At the conclusion of the trial, the 1st to 5th, all accused were convicted of all charges and had been sentenced to death on the 4th and the 5th counts but the 4th accused had been acquitted of all charges. The Court of Appeal also has affirmed the said conviction and sentence and being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Court of Appeal the instant appeal has been lodged. When the instant matter had been supported this Court has granted leave to proceed and the following questions of law has been raised, (a) Have their Lordships of the Court of Appeal failed to consider that the evidence relating to the identification of the petitioner is plagued with serious infirmities which renders his conviction holy unsafe. Hence, the main question with regard to the instant matter is whether the prosecution has established the identity of the Appellants adequately. The prosecution had been mainly relied on the evidence of PW1 who is R.M. Seelawathi, the wife of the deceased. According to her testimony on the date of offence, around 2.00 am in the night, herself, her husband the deceased and the three daughters had been sleeping in the house when two people armed with knives had entered the house and had identified themselves to be from the Medagama Police station. The only source of illumination at that time had been the bottle lamp which had been burning inside the house. She had identified these two persons to be the 2nd and the 3rd Appellants. She has not seen them and known them before. These two persons had taken the deceased to the outside verandah and at that point she has seen the 1st and the 5th Appellant outside the house. The 1st Appellant Page 4 of 7 had been armed with a Katty, these two persons had been known to her before. The 2nd Appellant had assaulted the deceased. The assault has taken place in the verandah. This particular witness had identified the 2nd and 3rd Appellants who came to her house at the identification parade. Thereafter she had identified them in Court. She has said in evidence in page 108 that the four persons who came to her house had stayed inside her house for about 15 minutes. Therefore, I note that the interaction she had been with the two unknown Appellants had not been a fleeting glance. The other two Appellants whom she had seen outside her house were known people to her. Thereafter, the 1st Appellant, 2nd Appellant, 3rd Appellant and 5th Appellant had taken the deceased away from the house through the garden of Sriyalatha. The witness has further said that there had been a dispute between the deceased and the 1st Appellant regarding a tree to which both had claimed ownership. This witness had been led in the cross examination and she had reiterated her position taken up in examination in chief with regard to the participation of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and the 5th Appellants. Hence, her evidence had been consistent and with clarity. The body of the deceased has been found in the next morning. The doctor who had conducted the post mortem has observed 9 external injuries with corresponding internal injuries. The doctor has classified the impact of all injuries together to be necessarily fatal. The prosecution has led the evidence of M.W. Senevirathna who had been PW3 who said that on the day of the incident he had been woken up for the sound of stones being pelted on to his front door and when he had bushed out, a torch light has been flashed into his face and he had seen two persons taking away the deceased with some others following. He had identified the 1st Appellant by the voice who had told him that the same would happen to him if makes a protest. He had also identified the 4th and the 5th Appellants. He also had been lengthily cross examined. The police evidence had diverged the fact that, deceased wife had made the first complaint to the Medagama police at 3.30 am on the following morning and the body of the deceased had been recovered in close proximity to the house of the deceased with cut injuries. The question of law raised, is whether the Appellants have been identified adequately at the scene of crime. Page 5 of 7 The main witnesses who have identified the Appellants have been PW1 and PW3. PW1 has identified the 2nd and 3rd at the identification parade, the 1st and the 5th at the scene of crime because she has known them previously. PW3 has identified the first Appellant by voice. It has to be noted that during the cross-examination it has not been suggested by the defence to PW1 and PW3 that they have not identified the Appellants. It has been put to witness PW1 that the Appellants were shown to her prior to the identification parade. But she has vehemently declined the same. PW1 also has said that the interaction between 1A and 3A and between 1A and 5A in her house had lasted for over 15 minutes and during the entire period there had been a bottle lamp burning inside the house and the 1st Appellant has been flashing a torch light. Therefore, there had been ample light and time for PW1 to have identified the Appellants at the scene. This is even made easier for her because the 1st and the 5th Appellant have been known to her before. It also has to be noted that the defence at the Trial had not challenged the available illumination at the scene. Therefore, the recognition by PW1 of the Appellants is by no means by a fleeting glance as per the Turnbull principle. In the Indian case of Wijaya Bahu Rai v State of Bihar 1997 CRI.L.J.2531 it had been said that where identification was only by way of an earthen lamp that “Where the only source of light at place of occurrence which was village where dacoity in question took place was an earthen lamp, the identification of accused even in such light would not be a problem for villagers especially when many of dacoits were direct relations of complaint. The visibility capacity of urban people who are acclimatized to fluorescent lights or incandescent lamps is not the standard to be applied to villagers whose optical potency is attuned to country-made lamps. Their visibility is conditioned to such lights and hence it would be quite possible for them to identify men and matters in such lights.” Therefore, in the instant case also PW1’s recognition of the Appellants by the aid of the bottle lamp need not be disregarded at all because unlike the urbanized people who are used to fluorescent and neon lights the simple villager like PW1 who had not even gone to school has been used to the bottle lamp burning in the night all the life. A similar decision has also been taken in another Indian case, that is Machhi singh v State of Punjabi AIR 1983 SE 957. Page 6 of 7 Therefore, I am of the opinion that PW1 had ample light and opportunity to identify the assailants at the scene with her low level of literacy. PW3 had identified the 1st Appellant taking away the deceased by his voice whom according to the witness he had known before, he had also identified the 4th and the 5th Appellants as well. In the case of SC (SPL) APPEAL 7/2018 his Lordship the former Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya has held that: “However, the process of identification of a person who is known to a witness by name or otherwise is described as recognition as supposed to identification. Situations of recognition are considered more satisfactory than the instances of identification. However, even in situations of recognition the Courts should analyze the evidence of the witness who claims the accused is a known person and examine whether the evidence is satisfactory to bring home a conviction.” In the instant matter, PW3 has known the 1st, 4th and 5th Appellants for some time and he has identified the 1st appellant by voice and thereafter, he had flashed the torch light at PW3. Therefore, it is my opinion that there had been ample reason and opportunity for PW3 to have recognized and thereafter identify the 1st, 4th and the 5th Appellants taking away the deceased. The next item of evidence to be considered is the identification parade held by the police. It is PW1 who has identified the 2nd and 3rd Appellants at the identification parade. This identification has taken place after PW1 has had an interaction with the 2nd and the 3rd Appellants for a duration of 15 minutes at the scene which I have decided above is not a fleeting glance. Therefore, there is no reason for me to disregard her identification of the Appellants at the parade. The Trial Judge and their Lordships of the Court of Appeal has considered adequately the identification of the Appellants by PW1 and PW3 at the scene of crime. Therefore, the totality of evidence against the Appellants are considered. It is my view that PW1 and PW3 have placed before the Trial Court credible and cogent evidence which cannot be rejected by mere suggestions made by the defence. Page 7 of 7 Therefore, on evaluating the weight of the evidence the submissions made by the counsel for the Appellants do not have any merit or worth. Therefore, I too see no reasons whatsoever to depart from the said decision. As such, the main question of law raised in the instant matter is the identification of the Appellants at the scene. As stated above, it is my opinion that the Appellants from the 1st to 5th had been adequately identified. Therefore, I see no reason to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal. Hence, the instant Appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal is hereby affirmed. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT Janak De Silva, J. I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT Mahinda Samayawardhena, J. I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT		Download
2025-09-11	SC/FR/403/2015 AND SC/FR/404/2015	I.P.D.P. Kulasuriya, No. 53/2C, Priya Mawatha, Makuluduwa, Piliyandala. Petitioner Vs. 1. Air Marshal Harsha Abewickrama, 1A. Air Marshal Gagana Bulatsinghala, 1B. Air Marshal Kapila Jayampathie, 1C. Air Marshal Sumangala Dias, 1D. Air Marshal S.K. Pathirana, 1E. Air Marshal Udeni Rajapakshe, Commander - Air Force, Sri Lanka Air Force, Air Force Head Quarters, Colombo 02. 2. Air Commodore P.D.K.T. Jayasingha, 2A. Base Commander, R.P. Liyanagamage, Air Commodore, Sri Lanka Air Force Rathmalana Camp, Rathmalana. 3. A.K.S. De Silva, Wing Commander, Officer-in-Charge & Procurement Division, Sri Lanka Air Force Rathmalana Camp, Rathmalana. 4. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents AND Danushka Mihiran Arumappemachchi, No. 466/467, Southern Court Manavila, Walahanduwa, Galle. Petitioner Vs. 1. Air Marshal Harsha Abewickrama, 1A. Air Marshal Gagana Bulatsinghala, 1B. Air Marshal Kapila Jayampathie, 1C. Air Marshal Sumangala Dias, 1D. Air Marshal S.K. Pathirana, 1E. Air Marshal Udeni Rajapakshe, Commander - Air Force, Sri Lanka Air Force, Air Force Head Quarters, Colombo 02. 2. Air Commodore P.D.K.T. Jayasingha, 2A. Base Commander, R.P. Liyanagamage, Air Commodore, Sri Lanka Air Force Rathmalana Camp, Rathmalana. 3. A.K.S. De Silva, Wing Commander, Officer-in-Charge & Procurement Division, Sri Lanka Air Force Rathmalana Camp, Rathmalana. 4. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne	P a g e 1 \| 10 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application under Article 126 of the Constitution read with Article 17 of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. I.P.D.P. Kulasuriya, No. 53/2C, Priya Mawatha, Makuluduwa, Piliyandala. Petitioner SC FR Application No: 403/2015 Vs. 1. Air Marshal Harsha Abewickrama, 1A. Air Marshal Gagana Bulatsinghala, 1B. Air Marshal Kapila Jayampathie, 1C. Air Marshal Sumangala Dias, 1D. Air Marshal S.K. Pathirana, 1E. Air Marshal Udeni Rajapakshe, Commander - Air Force, Sri Lanka Air Force, Air Force Head Quarters, Colombo 02. 2. Air Commodore P.D.K.T. Jayasingha, 2A. Base Commander, R.P. Liyanagamage, Air Commodore, P a g e 2 \| 10 Sri Lanka Air Force Rathmalana Camp, Rathmalana. 3. A.K.S. De Silva, Wing Commander, Officer-in-Charge & Procurement Division, Sri Lanka Air Force Rathmalana Camp, Rathmalana. 4. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents In the matter of an application under Article 126 of the Constitution read with Article 17 of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. Danushka Mihiran Arumappemachchi, No. 466/467, Southern Court Manavila, Walahanduwa, Galle. Petitioner SC FR Application No: 404/2015 Vs. P a g e 3 \| 10 1. Air Marshal Harsha Abewickrama, 1A. Air Marshal Gagana Bulatsinghala, 1B. Air Marshal Kapila Jayampathie, 1C. Air Marshal Sumangala Dias, 1D. Air Marshal S.K. Pathirana, 1E. Air Marshal Udeni Rajapakshe, Commander - Air Force, Sri Lanka Air Force, Air Force Head Quarters, Colombo 02. 2. Air Commodore P.D.K.T. Jayasingha, 2A. Base Commander, R.P. Liyanagamage, Air Commodore, Sri Lanka Air Force Rathmalana Camp, Rathmalana. 3. A.K.S. De Silva, Wing Commander, Officer-in-Charge & Procurement Division, Sri Lanka Air Force Rathmalana Camp, Rathmalana. 4. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents P a g e 4 \| 10 Before: Justice A.H.M.D. Nawaz Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne Justice Achala Wengappuli Counsel: Nuwan Bopage for the Petitioner. Saliya Pieris, PC with Varuna de Seram instructed by Manjula Balasuriya for the 3rd Respondent. Sajith Bandara, SC instructed by State Attorney for the Hon. Attorney General. Argued on: 09/07/2025 Decided on: 11/09/2025 A. L. Shiran Gooneratne J. 1. When SC/FR/403/2015 and SC/FR/404/2015 were taken up for Argument, the respective parties agreed that a single Judgment be delivered in both matters. Accordingly, SC/FR/403/2015 was taken up for consideration. At the commencement of proceedings, learned President’s Counsel for the 3rd Respondent, Mr. Saliya Pieris, raised a Preliminary Objection against the maintainability of the Petition on the ground of prescription. 2. By the Amended Petition and Affidavit dated 11/12/2015 in SC/FR/403/2015, the Petitioner previously attached to the Sri Lanka Air Force, invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 126 of the Constitution, alleging violations of his Fundamental Rights arising from acts of physical assault, unlawful detention, procedural injustice, and harassment at the hands of superior officers. The Petitioner seeks redress for the infringement of his rights guaranteed under Articles 11, 12(1), 12(2), and 14(1)(g), and calls upon this Court to examine the legality, proportionality, P a g e 5 \| 10 and bona fides of the Respondents’ actions within the framework of constitutional justice. 3. The Petitioner avers that the alleged infringement of his Fundamental Rights by the 3rd Respondent occurred on or about the 10/09/2015. However, the initial Fundamental Rights application was filed before this Court only on the 30/10/2015, which is beyond the one-month period prescribed under Article 126(2) of the Constitution. The said Petition or the subsequent Amended Petition dated 11/12/2015 does not provide any justification for the lapse in time. 4. It is a well-established principle of Constitutional Law that an application under Article 126(2) must be instituted within one month of the alleged infringement of a Fundamental Right. This requirement is not merely procedural but jurisdictional in nature. 5. Article 126(2) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka reads as follows; 126. (2) “Where any person alleges that any such fundamental right or language right relating to such person has been infringed or is about to be infringed by executive or administrative action, he may himself or by an Attorney-at-Law on his behalf, within one month thereof, in accordance with such rules of court as may be in force, apply to the Supreme Court by way of petition in writing addressed to such Court praying for relief or redress in respect of such infringement. Such application may be proceeded with only with leave to proceed first had and obtained from the Supreme Court, which leave may be granted or refused, as the case may be, by not less than two judges.” 6. The Petitioner seeks to rely on a complaint purportedly lodged with the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) on 01/10/2015, marked P9, in order to invoke Section 13(1) of the Human Rights Commission Act of Sri Lanka Act No. 21 of 1996 and thereby exclude such period from the P a g e 6 \| 10 computation of time. However, the said receipt does not disclose the nature or content of the complaint, nor a copy of the complaint is filed of record. More significantly, there is no material before this Court to indicate that any inquiry was pending before the HRCSL. 7. Section 13(1) of the Human Rights Commission Act stipulates that where a complaint is made to the Commission within one month of the alleged infringement, the period during which an inquiry is pending shall be excluded from the computation of time under Article 126(2) of the Constitution. 8. Section 13(1) of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka Act No. 21 of 1996 reads as follows; 13. (1) “Where a complaint is made by an aggrieved party in terms of section 14, to the Commission, within one month of the alleged infringement or imminent infringement of a fundamental right by executive or administrative action, the period within which the inquiry into such complaint is pending before the Commission, shall not be taken into account in computing the period of one month within which an application may be made to the Supreme Court by such person in terms of Article 126 (2) of the Constitution.” 9. However, the benefit of this provision is contingent upon the existence of a valid and pending inquiry. A mere assertion that a complaint was made, unsupported by any evidence of its contents or progress, is insufficient to invoke the statutory exception. 10. In the case of Subasinghe vs. Inspector General of Police1, His Lordship S. N. Silva CJ had held that; \"The Petitioner seeks to bring the complaint within the time limit on the basis that he made the complaint to the Human Rights Commission of 1 Subasinghe v. Inspector General of Police SC Sp. 16/99 SCM 11.9.2000 P a g e 7 \| 10 Sri Lanka within the stipulated time. In this regard the petitioner relies on section 13 and 14 of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka Act No. 21 of 1996 which provides that where a complaint has been made within a period of one month to the Human Rights Commission, the period within which the inquiry into such complaint was pending before the Commission will not be taken into account in computing the period within which an application should be filled in this Court. The Petitioner has failed to adduce any evidence that there has been an inquiry pending before Human Rights Commission. In the circumstances, we have to uphold the preliminary objection raised by learned State Counsel.” 11. The aforementioned case was referred to by His Lordship Justice Gamini Amaratunga, in the case of Ranaweera & Others vs. Sub Inspector Wilson Siriwardena & Others2, where His Lordship held that; “It is very clear from the section quoted above that the mere act of making a complaint to the Human Rights Commission is not sufficient to suspend the running of time relating to the time limit of one month prescribed by Article 126(2) of the Constitution. In terms of the said section 13(1), the period of time to be excluded in computing the period of one month prescribed by Article 126(2) of the Constitution is \"the period within which the inquiry into such complaint is pending before the Commission.\" Section 14 of the Human Rights Commission Act (in so far as it is relevant to the present purpose) reads as follows. \"The Commission may... on a complaint made to it by an aggrieved person investigate an allegation of an infringement or imminent infringement of a fundamental right of any person \" 2 Ranaweera & Others V. Sub Inspector Wilson Siriwardena & Others [2008]1 SLR 260 P a g e 8 \| 10 Thus the Human Rights Commission is not legally obliged to hold an investigation into every complaint received by it regarding the alleged violation of a fundamental right. Therefore, a party seeking to utilize section 13(1) of the Human Rights Commission Act to contend that \"the period within which the inquiry into such complaint is pending before the Commission shall not be taken into account in computing the period of one month within which an application may be made to the Supreme Court\" is obliged to place material before this Court to show that an inquiry into his complaint is pending before the Human Rights Commission.” 12. In Thilangani Kandambi vs. State Timber Corporation & Others3, this Court identified four key principles on the application of Section 13(1) of the Act concerning Article 126(2) of the Constitution. They are as follows: a. “The initial view was that mere production of a complaint made to the HRCSL within one month of the alleged infringement is sufficient to get the benefit of the provisions in section 13(1) of the HRCSL Act [Romesh Coorey v Jayalath (2008) 2 Sri.L.R. 43, Alles v. Road Passenger Services Authority of the Western Province, (S.C.F.R. 448/2009, S.C.M. 22.02.2013)]. b. However, the present position is that a petitioner must show evidence that the HRCSL has conducted an inquiry regarding the complaint or that an inquiry is pending. Simply lodging a complaint is inadequate. [Subasinghe v. Inspector General of Police, SC (Spl) 16/1999, S.C.M. 11.09.2000; Kariyawasam v. Southern Provincial Road Development Authority and 8 Others, (2007) 2 Sri.L.R. 33; Ranaweera and Others v. Sub-Inspector Wilson Siriwardene and Others (2008) 1 Sri.L.R. 260; K.H.G. Kithsiri v Faizer Musthapha, (S.C.F.R. 362/2017, S.C.M. 3 Thilangani Kandambi v. State Timber Corporation & Others (S.C.F.R. Application No: 452/2019; S.C.M. 14.12.2022, page 9) P a g e 9 \| 10 10.01.2018); Wanasinghe v. Kamal Paliskara and Others, (S.C.F.R. 216/2014, S.C.M. 23.06.2021)]. c. A party cannot benefit from the provisions in section 13(1) of the HRCSL Act where the complaint to the HRCSL is made one month after the alleged violation [Alagaratnam Manoranjan v. G.A. Chandrasiri, Governor, Northern Province, (S.C.F.R. 261/2013, S.C.M. 11.09.2014)]. d. The provisions of section 13(1) of the HRCSL are not available to a petitioner who has made a complaint to the HRCSL only to obtain an advantage by bringing his application within Article 126(2) of the Constitution [K.H.G. Kithsiri v Faizer Musthapha, (S.C.F.R. 362/2017, SCM 10.01.2018)].” 13. This Court finds that, when the Petitioner filed the initial application dated 30/10/2015, he was fully aware that the jurisdictional requirement under Article 126(2) of the Constitution had already been breached. By producing P9, the Petitioner sought to rely on the statutory exclusion from the computation of time under Section 13(1) of the Human Rights Commission Act, thereby placing the Respondents on notice of such reliance. This obviates the need for the Respondents to have raised a specific objection in that regard. 14. Nevertheless, the Petitioner has failed to establish that an inquiry was in fact pending before the Human Rights Commission. No documentation has been produced, and neither the original Petition nor the Amended Petition provides any clarification in this regard. Accordingly, this Court holds that the Petitioner cannot invoke the protection afforded by Section 13(1) of the Act. The burden of proving the applicability of the statutory exception lies squarely with the Petitioner, and that burden has not been discharged. 15. The legal maxim “vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt”, which means; “the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights”, applies with full force in this instance. In effect, the law supports P a g e 10 \| 10 individuals who are proactive in protecting their rights and interests, and it will not assist those who are negligent or fail to act within reasonable timeframes. 16. The Petitioner, having been aware of the alleged infringement, chose not to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court within the prescribed time. No material has been placed before this Court to suggest that the Petitioner was prevented from doing so due to circumstances beyond his control, and the delay is unexplained. CONCLUSION 17. The Petitioner failed to satisfy the threshold requirement under Article 126(2) of the Constitution, and the statutory exception under Section 13(1) of the Human Rights Commission Act was applicable. The application is time-barred and procedurally untenable. The Preliminary Objection is accordingly upheld, and the application numbers SC/FR/403/2015 and SC/FR/404/2015 are dismissed in limine. Judge of the Supreme Court A.H.M.D. Nawaz, J. I agree Judge of the Supreme Court Achala Wengappuli, J. I agree Judge of the Supreme Court		Download
2025-09-11	SC/APPEAL/153/2018	Pathirana Arachchige Vipulasiri Ariyawansa, No. 27/3, Naramminiya Road, Kelaniya. Presently at: No. 770/6, Samagi Mawatha, Arawwala, Pannipitiya. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Matarage Dona Kusumawathie, Administratrix of the estate of deceased Pinidiya Pathirage Ariyadasa Perera, No. 337/1, High Level Road, Navinna, Maharagama. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant- Respondent View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne	P a g e 1 \| 15 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application, seeking the inherent powers of the Hon. Supreme Court pertaining to the Appeal bearing No. SC Appeal 153/2018. Pathirana Arachchige Vipulasiri Ariyawansa, No. 27/3, Naramminiya Road, Kelaniya. Plaintiff SC Appeal No: 153/2018 SC/HCCA/LA 200/2017 WP/HCCA/MT/90/2008(F) DC Mt. Lavinia Case No: 1435/01/L Vs. Matarage Dona Kusumawathie, Administratrix of the estate of deceased Pinidiya Pathirage Ariyadasa Perera, No. 337/1, High Level Road, Navinna, Maharagama. Defendant AND P a g e 2 \| 15 Pathirana Arachchige Vipulasiri Ariyawansa, No. 27/3, Naramminiya Road, Kelaniya. Presently at: No. 770/6, Samagi Mawatha, Arawwala, Pannipitiya. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. Matarage Dona Kusumawathie, Administratrix of the estate of deceased Pinidiya Pathirage Ariyadasa Perera, No. 337/1, High Level Road, Navinna, Maharagama. Defendant-Respondent AND BETWEEN Matarage Dona Kusumawathie, Administratrix of the estate of deceased Pinidiya Pathirage Ariyadasa Perera, No. 337/1, High Level Road, Navinna, Maharagama. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant P a g e 3 \| 15 Vs. Pathirana Arachchige Vipulasiri Ariyawansa, No. 27/3, Naramminiya Road, Kelaniya. Presently at: No. 770/6, Samagi Mawatha, Arawwala, Pannipitiya. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Pathirana Arachchige Vipulasiri Ariyawansa, No. 27/3, Naramminiya Road, Kelaniya. Presently at: No. 770/6, Samagi Mawatha, Arawwala, Pannipitiya. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. P a g e 4 \| 15 Matarage Dona Kusumawathie, Administratrix of the estate of deceased Pinidiya Pathirage Ariyadasa Perera, No. 337/1, High Level Road, Navinna, Maharagama. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant- Respondent Before: Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne Justice Janak De Silva Justice Sampath B. Abayakoon Counsel: W. Dayaratne, PC with Ranjika Jayawardena instructed by C. Dayaratne for the Defendant-Respondent-Appellant. Thishya Weragoda with Prathap Welikumbura and Kalani Dassanayake instructed by Thamila Dinushi Perera for the Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent. Argued on: 19/03/2025 Decided on: 11/09/2025 P a g e 5 \| 15 A.L. Shiran Gooneratne J. [1] By Plaint dated 22/04/2001, the Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff-Respondent) filed Case No. 1435/01/L in the District Court of Mt. Lavinia against the Defendant-Respondent-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant-Appellant). The Plaintiff-Respondent sought inter alia, a declaration that the Defendant is holding the land described in the schedule of the Plaint as a Constructive Trust on behalf of the Plaintiff and for ejectment of the Defendant-Appellant, her agents, and all holding under her from the said property. As an alternate cause of action, the Plaintiff sought an Enjoining Order in the first instance, then an Interim Injunction and a Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant and her agents and all persons holding under her from selling, mortgaging, or leasing the said property. [2] In paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Plaint, the Plaintiff states that upon the death of the original owner of the land, one Kanakanige Johanahami, her husband Pinidiya Pathirage Sugathan Perera, became entitled to the land. The Plaintiff-Respondent, by Deed of Transfer No. 4455, dated 28/06/1969, marked as ‘P1’, purchased the land for a valuable consideration from Sugathan Perera. The Plaintiff had thereafter permitted the Defendant\'s husband, one Ariyadasa Perera, to possess the said land under his leave and license. Sugathan Perera had passed away on 29/08/1982. [3] In paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Plaint, the Plaintiff states that he came to know that the husband of the Defendant (now deceased), by Deed No. 20499 dated 09/05/1973, had purchased the said land from Sugathan Perera, which the Plaintiff claims to have been executed illegally and fraudulently and contrary to law. P a g e 6 \| 15 [4] The Plaintiff’s position is that by the Deed of Transfer No. 4455 dated 28/06/1969, Sugathan Perera transferred the disputed property to him. Therefore, on 09/05/1973, when Sugathan Perera transferred the property, he did not possess legal title to transfer the property to the deceased husband of the Defendant. [5] The Defendant, by answer dated 08/06/2001, stated that she had filed Case No. 548/SPL against parties who claimed to be the lessees of the Plaintiff, Respondent, in which the Court had given the Judgment and writ executed in her favor. Defendant-Appellant sought a dismissal of the Plaintiff\'s action. [6] At the conclusion of the trial, the learned District Judge by Judgment dated 29/08/2008 decided in favor of the Defendant and dismissed the Plaintiff\'s action. [7] Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Defendant filed an Appeal in the Civil Appellate High Court of the Western Province exercising Civil Appellate jurisdiction holden in Mt. Lavinia (“the Appellate Court”) by Petition of Appeal dated 23/10/2008. [8] After hearing and considering the submissions of both parties, the Appellate Court, by its Judgment dated 28/02/2017, set aside the Judgment of the District Court, allowed the Appeal, and directed the learned District Judge to enter the Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, granting the relief for ejectment of the Defendant-Appellant from the disputed property as set out in paragraph (b) of the prayer to the Plaint. [9] When this case was taken up for hearing on 19/03/2025, both parties agreed that the hearing should proceed on the Questions of Law raised on 25/09/2018. The questions of Law on which leave was granted are as follows: P a g e 7 \| 15 I. Did their lordships of the Civil Appellate High Court misdirected themselves when they held that the learned District Judge having accepted the title of the Plaintiff-Respondent by proving Deed No. 4455, erred in law when they dismissed the plaint on the basis that the cause of action was constructive trust. II. Did Their Lordships err in law in holding that the Plaintiff-Respondent was entitled to the ejectment of the Defendant-Petitioner, although he had failed to pray for a declaration of title in his favor and failed to realize that the Plaintiff was estopped from claiming the said relief since his cause of action was based on constructive trust. III. In view of the findings of the learned District Judge in the judgement can the relief (A) to the prayer of the Plaint be granted in terms of Section 96 of the Trust Ordinance. Findings of the District Court. [10] The learned District Judge in his Judgement has analyzed the evidence relating to the Defendant’s title in extensive detail, and has determined that Sugathan Perera sold the property in dispute to the Plaintiff and therefore, by the subsequent deed of Transfer No. 20499, Sugathan Perera had no title to convey the same to the deceased husband of the Defendant. The learned District Judge has observed that the Deed of Transfer No. 4455, dated 28/06/1969 (marked P1), was executed nearly three years before Deed No. 20499. [11] Having considered the two deeds executed and duly registered by Sugathan Perera bearing Nos. 4455 dated 28/06/1969 and 20499 dated o9/09/1973, the Court, based on prior registration, made a categorical finding that the Deed No. P a g e 8 \| 15 4455 had priority over the Deed No. 20499 and therefore Deed No. 20499 is not a valid deed. [12] The District Court answered the issues on title in favour of the Plaintiff-Respondent. It also noted that no issues had been raised by either party on the claim of a Constructive Trust. The Court dismissed the action on the ground that the Plaintiff-Respondent had failed to establish that the property was held by the Defendant-Appellant on a Constructive Trust, and held that ejectment could not be granted as the Plaint was framed on that basis. [13] The Court held that the title to the property in dispute has passed to the Plaintiff-Respondent, and such has been established. However, since no declaration of title was prayed for as a substantial relief, no order for ejectment can be granted. The Court relied on the Judgment in Surangi vs. Rodrigo1, where it was held that “no court is entitled to or has jurisdiction to grant reliefs to a party which are not prayed for in the prayer to the Plaint” Findings of the Civil Appellate High Court [14] In the Civil Appellate High Court, the Defendant-Appellant took up the position that the Plaintiff-Respondent did not establish his title on the said Deed No. 4455 dated 28/06/1969, and therefore, the District Court erred in answering issues No. 1, 8, 9, 13 and 14, on the title to the property in favour of the Plaintiff-Respondent. The Civil Appellate Court, in its findings, held; “However, the Defendant filed no appeal challenging such findings of the learned trial judge unfavourable to her, and no steps taken to file cross appeal 1 2003 (3) SLR 35 P a g e 9 \| 15 or objections in terms of section 772 of the Civil Procedure Code at least. Therefore, I am of the view that the Defendant is not entitled to challenge such findings by way of submissions at this stage without adhering to the provisions of the section 772 of the Civil Procedure Code or filing a separate Appeal.” [15] Upon careful examination of the District Court Judgment, I am of the view that the Plaintiff-Respondent pleaded his title to the satisfaction of the Court and the findings on title in favor of the Plaintiff-Respondent is supported by an analysis of the available evidence, a reasoning based on prior registration, and the absence of fraud in the execution of the deed. Therefore, I have no reason to disagree with the said finding. [16] If then, has the Civil Appellate High Court erred in law in holding that the Plaintiff-Respondent is entitled to an Order of ejectment of the Defendant-Appellant, in terms of the sub-paragraph ‘b’ to the prayer, in the absence of a prayer for a declaration of title? [17] The Plaintiff-Respondent contends that the learned District Judge ought not to have dismissed the action, on the basis that the cause of action was on Constructive Trust and that the Plaintiff-Respondent had not prayed for a declaration that he is the owner of the property in dispute. Since the Court heard and determined the relevant issues of title that give rise to an enforceable claim, the Court was not impeded from granting the relief prayed for in prayer (b) for ejectment of the Defendant-Appellant, granting lawful possession of the property to the Plaintiff-Respondent. P a g e 10 \| 15 [18] Relying on the dicta laid down in Surangi Vs. Rodrigo2, the learned Counsel for the Defendant-Appellant, submits that no Court is entitled to grant any relief not prayed for in the Plaint. He also relies on the Judgment in Dharmasiri vs. Wickramatunga3, where it was held that although the relief is not prayed for in the prayer, the Plaintiff must plead in the body of the Plaint his cause of action. The Defendant-Appellant submits that there is no cause of action formulated in terms of Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code as required by Section 40(d), which forms the basis of the action. [19] However, as held in Fonseka vs. Fonseka4 “If the grievance of the Defendant was that the Plaint does not contain sufficient particulars or a non-disclosure of a cause of action, the correct procedure under section 46(2) of the Civil Procedure Code is to move before pleading to the merits to have the Plaint taken off the file.” There was no application made by the Defendant-Appellant to have the Plaint taken off the file for want of cause of action in this case. [20] Moreover, as de Sampayo A. J. explained in Lowe vs. Fernando5, “Cause of action generally imports two things, viz, a right in the Plaintiff and a violation of it by the Defendant and cause of action means the whole cause of action, i.e., all the facts which together constitute the Plaintiff’s right to maintain the action ---\" [21] The Plaintiff-Respondent has established a denial of a right by sufficiently pleading, correctly presenting evidence, and raising issues based on his title Deed No. 4455, which has been answered in his favor. Having evaluated the relevant facts in terms of the law, the learned Trial Judge has arrived at a finding 2 ibid 3 2002 02 SLR 218 4 1989 2 SLR 95 5 16 NLR 398 P a g e 11 \| 15 that the Plaintiff-Respondent has proved his title to the property. In that the District Court was satisfied that the Plaintiff-Respondent had proved a right to the property through legal title and a violation of it by the Defendant-Appellant. [22] The relief prayed for in the Plaint also included an action to eject the Defendant-Appellant from the property on the ground that the Plaintiff-Respondent is the owner thereof and that the Defendant-Appellant is in unlawful possession of it. If so, the Plaintiff-Respondent be denied appropriate redress. The Civil Appellate High Court not only looked at the form but also at the grounds of the Plaint and granted the relief prayed for in sub paragraph (b) to the prayer, which is an Order for ejectment of the Defendant-Appellant and her agents, servants, and all those who are under her, and restore the Plaintiff-Respondent in vacant, undisturbed, and peaceful possession of the subject matter. [23] As held in Aziz et al. vs. Thondaman et al6, “Once the Plaint is presented and the court does not refuse under section 46(2) of the Code to entertain it on any of the grounds stated therein or does not reject it thereunder, the action must be decided by the court in the manner provided for in the code. The judge had no right to refuse to grant a decree in favor of the Plaintiff if he holds that the Plaintiff has established his right to relief.” [24] The Plaintiff-Respondent, having sought an Order for ejectment of the Defendant-Appellant from the disputed property, outlined in the Plaint, the facts relied on as establishing his title. The District Court answered all issues relevant to the title in favour of the Plaintiff-Respondent. The Civil Appellate High Court considered the evidence and concluded that the Plaintiff-Respondent has discharged the burden on him on the issue as to the entitlement 6 61 NLR 217 P a g e 12 \| 15 of the disputed property and granted the relief prayed for in the said prayer. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the Plaintiff-Respondent had a cause of action which entitled him to maintain an action for an Order of ejectment and to assert his right to the appropriate relief. [25] In Jayawickrama vs. Amarasuriya7 the Privy Council stated that a court must not defeat a claim solely due to the form in which the action is framed. In that case, the Plaintiff had framed her claim on the basis of a “trust,” which was not legally established. However, the evidence proved that a valid agreement had been reached between the parties in settlement of a possible legal dispute. The Privy Council held that the District Judge erred by focusing narrowly on the term “trust” and failing to grant relief despite the Plaintiff having established a good cause of action on the facts [26] The Code of Civil Procedure discourages multiplicity of action as it places an undue burden on the parties, consume judicial time, and may lead to conflicting decisions. As expressed in the common law interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is in the public interest that litigation should come to an end) therefore, Courts must endeavor as much as practicable to dispose the dispute between the parties with a finality. [27] Section 33 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that every regular action shall, as far as practicable, be framed to afford ground for a final decision upon the subjects in dispute and to prevent further litigation concerning them. [28] In Baban Appu vs. Gunewardene8 Wendt J. held: “Now our law of res judicata, as laid down in section 207 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is very 7 20 NLR 289 8 10 NLR 167 P a g e 13 \| 15 strict. The whole object of the Code is to discourage a multiplicity of actions and to make each action, once begun, absolutely decisive of the rights of parties in respect of the subject-matter. Section 207 accordingly makes the judgment of the Court conclusive not only as to matters actually pleaded, put in issue, and tried and decided, but also to matters which might, and (according to the rules of the Code) ought to, have been\' pleaded tried, and decided.” [29] In the above case Wendt J. illustrated the effect of Section 207 CPC with the example of a party holding two titles to the same land. If he sues on one and is defeated, he cannot later sue on the other; equally, if he is sued in ejectment and defends on one title only, he cannot afterwards assert the other. His Lordship explained that the Code requires all claims and defenses relating to the same subject matter to be raised and determined in a single action, so that each case, once begun, is “absolutely decisive of the rights of parties.” [30] The circumstances in the example given in Baban Appu and in the present case are not identical, but they rest on the same principle. In that, it was the litigant who attempted to divide his rights, withholding one title and then seeking to assert it in a later action. In the present case, the Plaintiff-Respondent pleaded his cause of action on the basis of Constructive Trust. However, the District Court, while accepting that the Plaintiff-Respondent had proved his title by Deed No. 4455 and that the Defendant-Appellant was in unlawful possession, dismissed the action on the ground that the trust as pleaded was not established. The effect of this reasoning is to compel the Plaintiff-Respondent to institute a further action based on title to obtain the relief of ejectment, despite those matters having already been tried and determined. Both situations involve the fragmentation of a single subject matter into multiple suits. Whether the division is attempted by a party who sues or results from the P a g e 14 \| 15 procedural approach adopted by the Court, the consequence leads to multiplicity of actions, which Baban Appu’s case discourages. [31] The Supreme Court has affirmed this position in Mohamed Zarook vs. Tokyo Cement Company9 Aluwihare J. stated: “Rules of procedure have to be interpreted, keeping in view the concept of justice as well as to see that multiplicity of proceedings is avoided. If Parties were allowed to file distinct actions pertaining to the same subjects in dispute without any restriction, this could definitely lead to multiplicity of litigation concerning the same dispute and might cause inconvenience as far as the administration of Justice is concerned. Permitting separate suits on closely connected claims compels duplication of evidence and proceedings, and amounts to an abuse of the process of Court.” [32] In the present case, the District Court has determined the title of the Plaintiff-Respondent and the unlawful possession of the Defendant-Appellant. In the circumstances of the Plaintiff respondent should not be denied relief in terms of sub-paragraph ‘b’ to the prayer granting an order for ejectment for the Defendant-Appellant. To require a fresh action for ejectment would amount to duplication of proceedings. [33] The 3rd question of law is a consequential issue raised by the Plaintiff-Respondent was not pursued. 9 SC CHC Appeal No. 22/2014, S.C. Minutes of 12.01.2023 P a g e 15 \| 15 CONCLUSION [34] In all the above circumstances, the questions of law Nos. 1 and 2 stated earlier in this Judgment are answered in the negative. The impugned Order dated 28/02/2017 delivered by the Civil Appellate High Court is affirmed, and the Judgment of the District Court is set aside. [35] The Appeal is dismissed. The Plaintiff-Respondent is entitled to costs in the Civil Appellate High Court and in this Court. Judge of the Supreme Court Janak De Silva, J. I agree Judge of the Supreme Court Sampath B. Abayakoon, J. I agree Judge of the Supreme Court		Download
2025-09-11	SC/FR/402/2019 AND SC/FR/429/2015	1. N. Jayasena, No. 290/4, Nidahas Mawatha, Pullayar Junction. 2. B.A.D.R.N Basnayake, B/17, Bandaranayake Mawatha, Gemunupura, Ampara. 3. W.M.R.K.S.B. Parakubura, No. 353/21, Nadun Uyana, 4th Lane, Parakandeniya, Ibulgoda. 4. E.M.R.B Edirisuriya, No. 77/D, Harischandra Mawatha near Station Housing Complex, Anuradhapura. 5. K.M. Chandrasoma, Anuradha Road near Anagarika Monastary, Mihinthale. 6. M.A. Mendis, No. 08 Namal Gamuwa, Kalankuttiya. 7. B.M. Nishantha Jayalath Basnayake, Ranhamige Watte, Old Mihinthale Road, Jaffna Junction, Anuradhapura. 8. K.M.K Upasena, Mahadiyulwewa, Ataweeragollawa. 9. D.M.K. Dissanayake, Wanewatte, Thiththagonewa, Kebatigollawa. 10. P.D.W.M.B Talagune, Udaya House, Alawattegama, Rikillagaskada. 11. W.M. Piyal Weerasinghe, No. 244, Adaduwawa, Peradeniya. 12. A.M. Ratnayake, Rathnasiri, Goradiyawaka, Welikemulla, Badulla. 13. P. Piyasena, 3rd Lane, Bodirajapura, Kurundankulama, Anuradhapura. 14. W.F.N. Costa, No. 07, Rathmal Oya Road, Balagolla, Kengalla. 15. R.M.P. Kumaratilake, No. 161, Illukwatte, Maussagolla, Passara. 16. M.B.S.P. Kanakaratne, Mahadiyulwewa, Ataweeragollewa, Madawachchiya. 17. S. Nishantha Sirisena, Athakada, Ataweeragollewa, Madawachchiya. 18. K.D. Seneviratne, No. 162/2, Bulatwatte, Tismada, Menikdiwela. 19. R.M.W. Ratnayake, No. 725, Galwala Road, Thambuttegama. 20. W.A.U. Priyantha Kumara, No. 395/22, Nawanagaraya, Digana. 21. L.L. Tudor, Wilpattuwa Road, Horawila. 22. E.H.M. Sirimal, No. 2/95, Paragahakelle, Ampara. 23. P.A. Nimal Ananda, No. 158/B, Dayaraba Junction, Mirahawatte, Bandarawela. 24. M.D.K.K. Jayalath, Nillapadara Arawa, Kurundugolla, Makulella, Bandarawela. 25. R.M. Wimal Ratnayake, No. 511/5, Galagedara, Nikaweratiya. 26. C. Anuraratne, No. 60/30, Ramakele, Walawwatte, Anuradhapura. 27. D.M.H.B. Kumarasinghe, 2485, 111th Stage, Anuradhapura. 28. D.M.T.B. Jayalath Semasinghe, “Charuka Sevana”, Bulugahalanada, Ralapanawa, Nochchiyagama. 29. D.H. Ajith Ratnasiri, B/57, 4th Mawatha, Nawagampura, Ampara. 30. S.D. Ranjith, No. 344, Wan Ela, Kantale. 31. A.D. Athukorale, No. 377/9, Ampara Road, Uhana. 32. R.M. Weeraratne Banda, No.372/1, Wan Ela, Kantale. 33. N.A. Podiralahami, No.19/26/2, Tissapura, Dadayamtalawa. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. C.D. Wickremaratne, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 1A. Deshabandu Thennakoon, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 2. S.S.C. Fernando, (Former Chairman) Chairman, National Police Commission. 3. S. Liyanagama, (Former Member) Member, National Police Commission. 4. M.S.M. Samsudeen, (Former Member) Member, National Police Commission. 5. M.P.P. Perera, (Former Member) Member, National Police Commission. 6. G. Wickramage, (Former Member) Member, National Police Commission. 7. T.P. Paramaswaran, (Former Member) Member, National Police Commission. 8. Thanuja Fernando, (Former Secretary) Secretary (Acting), National Police Commission. 2A. Mr. E.W.M. Lalith Ekanayake (Present Chairman), Chairman, National Police Commission. AND OTHERS View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J	Page 1 of 29 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application under and in terms of Article 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. SC/FRA/402/2019 1. N. Jayasena, No. 290/4, Nidahas Mawatha, Pullayar Junction. 2. B.A.D.R.N Basnayake, B/17, Bandaranayake Mawatha, Gemunupura, Ampara. 3. W.M.R.K.S.B. Parakubura, No. 353/21, Nadun Uyana, 4th Lane, Parakandeniya, Ibulgoda. 4. E.M.R.B Edirisuriya, No. 77/D, Harischandra Mawatha near Station Housing Complex, Anuradhapura. 5. K.M. Chandrasoma, Anuradha Road near Anagarika Monastary, Mihinthale. 6. M.A. Mendis, No. 08 Namal Gamuwa, Kalankuttiya. Page 2 of 29 7. B.M. Nishantha Jayalath Basnayake, Ranhamige Watte, Old Mihinthale Road, Jaffna Junction, Anuradhapura. 8. K.M.K Upasena, Mahadiyulwewa, Ataweeragollawa. 9. D.M.K. Dissanayake, Wanewatte, Thiththagonewa, Kebatigollawa. 10. P.D.W.M.B Talagune, Udaya House, Alawattegama, Rikillagaskada. 11. W.M. Piyal Weerasinghe, No. 244, Adaduwawa, Peradeniya. 12. A.M. Ratnayake, Rathnasiri, Goradiyawaka, Welikemulla, Badulla. 13. P. Piyasena, 3rd Lane, Bodirajapura, Kurundankulama, Anuradhapura. 14. W.F.N. Costa, No. 07, Rathmal Oya Road, Balagolla, Kengalla. 15. R.M.P. Kumaratilake, No. 161, Illukwatte, Maussagolla, Passara. Page 3 of 29 16. M.B.S.P. Kanakaratne, Mahadiyulwewa, Ataweeragollewa, Madawachchiya. 17. S. Nishantha Sirisena, Athakada, Ataweeragollewa, Madawachchiya. 18. K.D. Seneviratne, No. 162/2, Bulatwatte, Tismada, Menikdiwela. 19. R.M.W. Ratnayake, No. 725, Galwala Road, Thambuttegama. 20. W.A.U. Priyantha Kumara, No. 395/22, Nawanagaraya, Digana. 21. L.L. Tudor, Wilpattuwa Road, Horawila. 22. E.H.M. Sirimal, No. 2/95, Paragahakelle, Ampara. 23. P.A. Nimal Ananda, No. 158/B, Dayaraba Junction, Mirahawatte, Bandarawela. 24. M.D.K.K. Jayalath, Nillapadara Arawa, Kurundugolla, Makulella, Bandarawela. 25. R.M. Wimal Ratnayake, No. 511/5, Galagedara, Nikaweratiya. Page 4 of 29 26. C. Anuraratne, No. 60/30, Ramakele, Walawwatte, Anuradhapura. 27. D.M.H.B. Kumarasinghe, 2485, 111th Stage, Anuradhapura. 28. D.M.T.B. Jayalath Semasinghe, “Charuka Sevana”, Bulugahalanada, Ralapanawa, Nochchiyagama. 29. D.H. Ajith Ratnasiri, B/57, 4th Mawatha, Nawagampura, Ampara. 30. S.D. Ranjith, No. 344, Wan Ela, Kantale. 31. A.D. Athukorale, No. 377/9, Ampara Road, Uhana. 32. R.M. Weeraratne Banda, No.372/1, Wan Ela, Kantale. 33. N.A. Podiralahami, No.19/26/2, Tissapura, Dadayamtalawa. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. C.D. Wickremaratne, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. Page 5 of 29 1A. Deshabandu Thennakoon, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 2. S.S.C. Fernando, (Former Chairman) Chairman, National Police Commission. 3. S. Liyanagama, (Former Member) Member, National Police Commission. 4. M.S.M. Samsudeen, (Former Member) Member, National Police Commission. 5. M.P.P. Perera, (Former Member) Member, National Police Commission. 6. G. Wickramage, (Former Member) Member, National Police Commission. 7. T.P. Paramaswaran, (Former Member) Member, National Police Commission. 8. Thanuja Fernando, (Former Secretary) Secretary (Acting), National Police Commission. 2A. Mr. E.W.M. Lalith Ekanayake (Present Chairman), Chairman, National Police Commission. Page 6 of 29 3A. Mrs. D.K. Renuka Ekanayake (Present Member), Member, National Police Commission. 4A. Mr. K. Karunaharan, (Present Member), Member, National Police Commission. 5A. Mr. P.G.S. Gamini De Silva, (Present Member), Member, National Police Commission. 6A. Mr. Dilshan Kapila Jayasuriya, (Present Member), Member, National Police Commission. 7A. Mr. A.A.M. Illiyas, (Present Member), Member, National Police Commission. 8A. Mrs. Thamara D. Perera (Present Secretary), Secretary, National Police Commission. All of National Police Commission, BMICH, Colombo 7. 9. Ranil Wickremasinghe, Minister of Finance, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. Page 7 of 29 10. Prof. G.L. Peiris, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Ministry, Republic Building, Sir Baron Jayathilake Mawatha, Colombo 01. 10A. M.U.M. Ali Sabri, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Ministry, Republic Building, Sir Baron Jayathilake Mawatha, Colombo 01. 11. Dinesh Gunawardena, Minister of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils & Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 11A. Hon. Janaka Wakkubura, Minister of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils & Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 20. Hon. Prasanna Ranatunga, Minister of Urban Development & Housing, 8th, 17th & 18th Floor, “Suhurupaya”, Subhuthipura Road, Battaramulla. Page 8 of 29 21. Hon. Kanchana Wijesekara, Minister of Power & Energy, No. 437, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 22. Hon. Nimal Siripala De Silva, Minister of Ports, Naval & Aviation Services, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19 Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 23. Hon. Bandula Gunawardana, Minister of Mass Media, Minister of Transport & Highways, 7th Floor, Sethsiripaya Stage II, Battaramulla. 24. Hon. Keheliya Rambukwella, Minister of Water Supply, Minister of Health, “Suwasaripaya”, No. 385, Rev. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 24A. Hon. Jeevan Thondaman, Minister of Water Supply, Minister of Health, “Suwasaripaya”, No. 385, Rev. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. Page 9 of 29 24B. Hon. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of Water Supply, Minister of Health, “Suwasaripaya”, No. 385, Rev. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 25. Hon. Roshan Ranasinghe, Minister of Irrigation, Minister of Sports & Youth Affairs, No. 09, Philip Gunawardana Mawatha, Colombo 07. 25A. Hon. Pavithra Devi Vanniarachchi, Minister of Irrigation, No. 500, T.B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10. 26. Hon. Vidura Wickramanayake, Minister of Buddhasasana, Religious & Cultural Affairs, No. 135, Srimath Anagarika Dharmapala Mawatha, Colombo 07. 27. Hon. Mahinda Amaraweera, Minister of Wildlife & Forest Resources Conservation, Minister of Agriculture, No. 80/5, Govijana Mandiraya, Rajamalwatta Lane, Battaramulla. Page 10 of 29 28. Hon. Douglas Devananda, Minister of Fisheries, New Secretariat, Maligawatta, Colombo 10. 29. Hon. Dr. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of Plantation Industries, Minister of Industries, No. 73/1, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 30. Hon. Naseer Ahamed, Minister of Environment, Sobadam Piyasa, No. 416/C/1, Robert Gunawardana Mawatha, Battaramulla. 30A. Hon. Janaka Wakkumbura, Minister of Environment, Sobadam Piyasa, No. 416/C/1, Robert Gunawardana Mawatha, Battaramulla. 31. Hon. Susil Premajayantha, Minister of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 32. Hon. Wijayadasa Rajapakshe, Minister of Justice, Prison Affairs & Constitutional Reforms, Superior Courts Complex, Adhikarana Mawatha, Colombo 12. Page 11 of 29 33. Hon. Harin Fernando, Minister of Tourism & Lands, 25th Floor, West Tower, World Trade Centre, Colombo 01. 33B. Hon. Harin Fernando, Minister of Tourism & Lands, Minister of Sports & Youth, 25th Floor, West Tower, World Trade Centre, Colombo 01. 34. Hon. Manusha Nanayakkara, Minister of Labour & Foreign Employment, 6th Floor, Mehewara Piyasa, Narahenpita, Colombo. 35. Hon. Nalin Fernando, Minister of Trade, Commerce & Food Security, No. 492, R.A. De Mel Mawatha, Colombo 03. 36. Hon. Tiran Alles, Minister of Public Security, 14th Floor, Suhurupaya, Battaramulla. 37. W.M.D.J. Fernando, Secretary, Cabinet of Ministers, Office of the Cabinet of Ministers, Lloyd\'s Building, Sir Baron Jayatilake Mawatha, Colombo 01. Page 12 of 29 38. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, No. 159, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SC/FRA/429/2019 1. R.H.M. Nawaratne Rajakaruna, Wanniamunukole, Mahananneriya. 2. S. Anura Seneviratne, No. 7/3/A, Perakum Mawatha, Pothanegama, Anuradhapura. 3. D.S. Wijesinghe, No. 114, Janaudanagama, Murawesihena, Barawakumbuka. 4. A. Abeygunawardene, No. 42, Mudiyansegewatte, Aluth Road, Dickwella. 5. C.T. Ramanayake, Godakanduruwatte, Murathamuraya, Hakmana. 6. E.M.A.S Priyantha, No. 6213, Muwanpellessa, Sooriya Wewa. 7. U.J. Dangalla, No.11/1, Bogodawatte, Palugama, Dompe. 8. K.A.J.P.R. Perera, No. 368/A, Gamamada Road, Thudella, Ja-ela. Page 13 of 29 9. N.K.V.K. Wijegunasekara, No.116/5, Nisala Mawatha, Elawella Road, Matara. 10. U.G.T. Sisira Kumara, Godagangodawatta, Sandawala, Baddegama. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. C.D. Wickremaratne, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 1A. Deshabandu Thennakoon, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 2. S.S.C. Fernando, (Former Chairman) Chairman, National Police Commission. 3. S. Liyanagama, (Former Member) Member, National Police Commission. 4. M.S.M. Samsudeen, (Former Member) Member, National Police Commission. 5. M.P.P. Perera, (Former Member) Member, National Police Commission. 6. G. Wickramage, (Former Member) Member, National Police Commission. Page 14 of 29 7. T.P. Paramaswaran, (Former Member) Member, National Police Commission. 8. Thanuja Fernando, (Former Secretary) Secretary (Acting), National Police Commission. 2A. Mr. E.W.M. Lalith Ekanayake (Present Chairman), Chairman, National Police Commission. 3A. Mrs. D.K. Renuka Ekanayake (Present Member), Member, National Police Commission. 4A. Mr. K. Karunaharan, (Present Member), Member, National Police Commission. 5A. Mr. P.G.S. Gamini De Silva, (Present Member), Member, National Police Commission. 6A. Mr. Dilshan Kapila Jayasuriya, (Present Member), Member, National Police Commission. 7A. Mr. A.A.M. Illiyas, (Present Member), Member, National Police Commission. Page 15 of 29 8A. Mrs. Thamara D. Perera (Present Secretary), Secretary, National Police Commission. All of National Police Commission, BMICH, Colombo 7. 9. Ranil Wickremasinghe, Minister of Finance, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 10. Prof. G.L. Peiris, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Ministry, Republic Building, Sir Baron Jayathilake Mawatha, Colombo 01. 10A. M.U.M. Ali Sabri, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Ministry, Republic Building, Sir Baron Jayathilake Mawatha, Colombo 01. 11. Dinesh Gunawardana, Minister of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils & Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 07. Page 16 of 29 11A. Hon. Janaka Wakkubura, Minister of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils & Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 20. Hon. Prasanna Ranatunga, Minister of Urban Development & Housing, 8th, 17th & 18th Floor, “Suhurupaya”, Subhuthipura Road, Battaramulla. 21. Hon. Kanchana Wijesekara, Minister of Power & Energy, No. 437, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 22. Hon. Nimal Siripala De Silva, Minister of Ports, Naval & Aviation Services, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19 Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 23. Hon. Bandula Gunawardana, Minister of Mass Media, Minister of Transport & Highways, 7th Floor, Sethsiripaya Stage II, Battaramulla. 24. Hon. Keheliya Rambukwella, Minister of Water Supply, Minister of Health, “Suwasaripaya”, No. 385, Rev. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. Page 17 of 29 24A. Hon. Jeevan Thondaman, Minister of Water Supply, Minister of Health, “Suwasaripaya”, No. 385, Rev. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 24B. Hon. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of Water Supply, Minister of Health, “Suwasaripaya”, No. 385, Rev. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 25. Hon. Roshan Ranasinghe, Minister of Irrigation, Minister of Sports & Youth Affairs, No. 09, Philip Gunawardana Mawatha, Colombo 07. 25A. Hon. Pavithra Devi Vanniarachchi, Minister of Irrigation, No. 500, T.B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10. 26. Hon. Vidura Wickramanayake, Minister of Buddhasasana, Religious & Cultural Affairs, No. 135, Srimath Anagarika Dharmapala Mawatha, Colombo 07. Page 18 of 29 27. Hon. Mahinda Amaraweera, Minister of Wildlife & Forest Resources Conservation, Minister of Agriculture, No. 80/5, Govijana Mandiraya, Rajamalwatta Lane, Battaramulla. 28. Hon. Douglas Devananda, Minister of Fisheries, New Secretariat, Maligawatta, Colombo 10. 29. Hon. Dr. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of Plantation Industries, Minister of Industries, No. 73/1, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 30. Hon. Naseer Ahamed, Minister of Environment, Sobadam Piyasa, No. 416/C/1, Robert Gunawardana Mawatha, Battaramulla. 30A. Hon. Janaka Wakkumbura, Minister of Environment, Sobadam Piyasa, No. 416/C/1, Robert Gunawardana Mawatha, Battaramulla. 31. Hon. Susil Premajayantha, Minister of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. Page 19 of 29 32. Hon. Wijayadasa Rajapakshe, Minister of Justice, Prison Affairs & Constitutional Reforms, Superior Courts Complex, Adhikarana Mawatha, Colombo 12. 33. Hon. Harin Fernando, Minister of Tourism & Lands, 25th Floor, West Tower, World Trade Centre, Colombo 01. 33B. Hon. Harin Fernando, Minister of Tourism & Land, Minister of Sports & Youth. 25th Floor, West Tower, World Trade Centre, Colombo 01. 34. Hon. Manusha Nanayakkara, Minister of Labour & Foreign Employment, 6th Floor, Mehewara Piyasa, Narahenpita, Colombo. 35. Hon. Nalin Fernando, Minister of Trade, Commerce & Food Security, No. 492, R.A. De Mel Mawatha, Colombo 03. 36. Hon. Tiran Alles, Minister of Public Security, 14th Floor, Suhurupaya, Battaramulla. Page 20 of 29 37. W.M.D.J. Fernando, Secretary, Cabinet of Ministers, Office of the Cabinet of Ministers, Lloyd\'s Building, Sir Baron Jayatilake Mawatha, Colombo 01. 38. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, No. 159, Hulftsdorp Street, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS Before : P. Padman Surasena, C.J. : Mahinda Samayawardhena, J. : Sampath B. Abayakoon, J. Counsel : M.U.M. Ali Sabry, P.C. with Ruwantha Coray instructed by Dhammika Jiminige for the Petitioners. : Ganga Wakishta Arachchi, D.S.G. instructed by Rizni Firdous for all Respondents. Argument on : 15-05-2025 Written Submissions : 05-06-2025 (By the Respondents in SC/FRA/402/2019) : 11-08-2025 (By the Petitioners in SC/FRA/402/2019) : 20-09-2023 (By the Petitioners in SC/FRA/429/2019) Decided on : 11-09-2025 Page 21 of 29 Sampath B. Abayakoon, J. The petitioners in both these Fundamental Rights Applications allege that their fundamental rights guaranteed in terms of Article 12(1) and/or Article 14(1)(g) of the Constitution have been infringed and/or continued to be infringed by the actions of one or more respondents named in their petition; and seeks redress as prayed for in their respective petitions. The Fundamental Rights Application No. SC/FRA/402/2019 has been instituted on 24-10-2019, while SC/FRA/429/2019 has been instituted on 08-11-2019. When both these applications were supported together by the learned President’s Counsel who represented the petitioners, having considered the relevant facts and the circumstances, this Court granted Leave to Proceed on 25-10-2020 in terms of Article 12(1) of the Constitution against all the respondents named in their respective applications. At the hearing of this application, all parties agreed for a common judgment since the facts, circumstances and the reliefs sought were identical. This Court heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and that of the learned Deputy Solicitor General (DSG) for the respondents. This Court also had the benefit of considering the written submissions tendered in determining the applications. The facts that led to these applications can be summarized in the following manner. All the petitioners are retired police officers of Sri Lanka Police Service, who held different ranks at the time of their retirement. The petitioners belong to a group of police officers who sustain injuries on various occasions due to terrorist activities while performing their official duties. After their recovery from the said injuries, they have earned promotions within the ranks as serving police officers. Page 22 of 29 However, the petitioners being subsequently adjudged medically incapable of serving or continuing to serve in Sri Lanka Police due to their physical impairments and disabilities suffered during the separatist war, they have been sent on retirement on the recommendations made by a Medical Board appointed for that purpose. According to the contents of the petition, the petitioners, having been sent on retirement, had become entitled to the following benefits in terms of Sri Lanka Administrative Circular 21/88 dated 13-07-1988. a. Monthly salary up to the attainment of age 55 computed on the basis of the last drawn salary. b. Monthly payable pension as at the date of retirement calculated on the basis of the last drawn salary. The petitioners state that they were made aware that a policy decision had been made by the government of Sri Lanka in pursuance to a decision by a Cabinet of Ministers to, ‘Grant promotions to male and female police officers of the police rendered disabled due to LTTE acts of terrorism.’ The petitioners are seeking to challenge the aforementioned Cabinet decision, on the basis that it led to discriminatory promotions, where police officers with less seniority in their ranks to that of the petitioners were promoted ahead of them, and thereby treating the equals unequally. In paragraph 05 of SC/FRA/402/2019, the petitioners have pleaded the following; 5. The petitioners therefore, by this application is seeking the intervention of Your Lordship’s Court to remedy the said serious inequities which had been caused to the petitioners as a direct result of the said impugned Cabinet decision and to grant promotions to male and female police officers of the Sri Lank Police rendered disabled/ medically condemned due to LTTE acts of terrorism and backdating the said promotions to the date of said injury (the emphasis is mine). Page 23 of 29 The corresponding paragraph 07 of SC/FRA/429/2019 reads as follows; 7. The petitioners therefore, by this application is seeking the intervention of Your Lordship’s Court to remedy the said serious inequities which has been caused to these petitioners as a direct result of not granting any relief whatsoever, in pursuance to the impugned Cabinet decision and also by the conduct of the state to treat equals unequally in the manner morefully pleaded herein in detailed, thus violating and/or continuing to violate the rights of these petitioners (the emphasis is mine). It is therefore manifestly clear from the contents of the petitions that the petitioners have come before this Court on the basis of violation of their fundamental rights as a result of a Cabinet decision by the Cabinet of Ministers to grant promotions to police officers rendered disabled due to the acts of terrorism as stated earlier. The relevant Cabinet Memorandum No. 10/2015 dated 26-03-2015 has been presented by the Subject Minister having considered the necessity to grant special relief to those police officers who had received injuries due to terrorist activities, proposing and recommending several reliefs. (The document marked P-05). For better understanding of the scheme of reliefs, I will now reproduce the said recommendations in its full, which reads thus; නිර්දේශය 1. එල්.ටී.ටී.ඊ. ත්‍රස්තවාදී ක්‍රියා ද ්තුදවන් වවද්‍ය ද ්තුන් මත 2014.05.18 දිනට දෙර විශ්‍රාම ගන්වනලද්‍ ස අනතුරටෙත්වූ දින සිට 2014.05.18 දින ද්‍ක්වා උසස්ීම් දනාලද්‍ නිලධාරීන්/නිලධාරිනියන් සඳ ා ඊළඟ තනතුරට උසස් කිරීමටත්ව, 2. දමම කාලය තුළ අනතුරට ෙසු උසස්ීමක් ලබා ඇති නිලධාරීන්/නිලධාරිනියන් සඳ ා එම උසස්ීම අනතුරට ෙත්වූ දිනට දෙරද්‍ාතම කිරීමටත්ව, 3. වවද්‍ය නිර්දේශ මත සැ ැල්ු රාජකාරිවල දයාද්‍වා ඇති අනතුරට ෙත්වූ දින සිට දම් ද්‍ක්වා කිසිඳු උසස්ීමක් ලැබී දනාමැති නිලධාරීන් ා නිලධාරිනියන්ට විදශ්ෂ වැටුප් වර්ධක දද්‍කක් ලබාදීමටත්ව, Page 24 of 29 ඉ ත (1,2,3) කරුණුවලට අද්‍ාලව උසස්ීම් ා වැටුප් වර්ධක ලබාදීදම්දී එම නිලධාරීන් ා නිලධාරිනියන්ට වැටුප්/විශ්‍රාම වැටුප් දගීමට ෙ ත ෙරිදි වාර්ිකව (ද්‍ළ ඇස්තදම්න්තුව) රුපියල් මිලියන 348 ක් වැයදේ. (...) 4. දමම උසස්ීම්වලට අද්‍ාල හිඟ වැටුප් 2009.05.18 දින සිට ෙමණක් දගීමටත්ව, 5. වැටුප් වර්ධක ලබාදීදම්දී 2009.05.18 දින සිට ඇති හිඟවැටුප් වර්ධක මුද්‍ල් ෙමණක් දගීමටත්ව, අමාතය මණ්ඩල අනුමැතිය අදප්ක්ෂා කරමි. The petitioners’ position is that they fall into to the 2nd group of police officers as detailed in the petition. The document marked P-06 along with the petition, which is the relevant Cabinet decision in relation to the above Cabinet Memorandum, shows that the Cabinet of Ministers have decided to implement the said recommendations at the Cabinet meeting held on 23-05-2017. It has been decided to grant approval to the previous Cabinet Memorandum and to implement it. Accordingly, Secretary to the Cabinet has been directed to communicate to the relevant authorities to implement the said decision, which reads as follows; (i) එවකට ම ජන සාමය ස ක්‍රිස්තියානි ආගමික කටයුතු ඇමති තුමා ඉදිරිෙත්ව කල 2015-03-26 දිනැති සංදේශදේ සඳ න් නිර්දේශ (1), (2), (3), (4), ස (5) සඳ ා අනුමැතිය ලබා දීම; ස (ii) ජාතික දොලිස් දකාම්ෂන් සභාව විමසමින් ඉ ත (i) හි සඳ න් තීරණය ක්‍රියාත්වමක කිරීම පිණිස අවශය පියවර ගන්න දලස නීතිය ා සාමය ස ද්‍ක්ිණ සංවර්ධන අමාතයංශදේ දල්කම් ට උෙදද්‍ස් දීම. The petitioners state that giving effect to the said Cabinet decision the then Inspector General of Police issued a directive dated 18-03-2019, outlining the dates of which the appointments of all eligible officers who had already received promotions after sustaining respective injuries were to be backdated based on their date of sustaining the injury. Page 25 of 29 The petitioners claim that by granting promotions in terms of the recommendation 01 to those officers who were similarly circumstanced and retired without earning a promotion, and making the petitioners earned promotions while in service backdated to their date of injury, amounts to equals being treated unequally. At the hearing of these applications, it was the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners have already earned a promotion before their retirement, they should have been granted a further promotion rather than backdating their earned promotions to their date of injury. In their petitions, the petitioners have averred that once they came to know about the directive of the Inspector General of Police, marked P-06A and P-07 in the respective petitions, they lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission in this regard. They have submitted the findings of the Human Rights Commission along with the petition to substantiate the said fact. It clearly appears that the complaints to the Human Rights Commission by the individual police officers had been after the Inspector General of Police issued the letter dated 18-03-2019 where he published the name list of the police officers whose promotions were back dated in compliance with the earlier mentioned Cabinet decision. The 1st and the 37th respondent, namely, the Inspector General of Police and the Secretary to the Cabinet of Ministers, have taken up the position that the relevant authorities have already implemented the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers. They have also taken up several objections as to the maintainability of these applications. The main objection amongst them is that the applications are time bared in terms of Article 126(2) of the Constitution. Therefore, let me first deal with the said main preliminary objection pertaining to the time bar as it amounts to a matter that goes into the core of the applications before the Court. Page 26 of 29 I am of the view that if the said objection succeeds, considering the other factual matters would become irrelevant. The relevant Article 126(2) of the Constitution reads as follows; 126. (2) Where any person alleges that any such Fundamental Rights or Language Right relating to such person has been infringed or is about to be infringed by executive or administrative action, he may himself or by an attorney-at-law on his behalf, within one month thereof, in accordance with such rules of Court as maybe in force, apply to the Supreme Court by way of petition in writing addressed to such Court praying for relief or redress in respect of such infringement. Such application maybe proceeded with only with leave to proceed first had and obtained from the Supreme Court, which leave maybe granted or refused, as the case maybe, by not less than two judges. As I have highlighted previously, the petitioners have come before this Court challenging the constitutionality of the Cabinet Memorandum No. 10/2015 dated 26-03-2015, and the Cabinet decision taken in that regard on 23-05-2017. I find that, in their petition, the petitioners have conveniently failed to mention when they become aware of the said Cabinet decision. However, it appears that by referring to the document marked P-06(A), which is the letter issued by the Inspector General of Police on 18-03-2019 as to the officers who would stand benefited from the said Cabinet decision, the petitioners stand appears to be that, since they have lodged complaints with the Human Rights Commission, the time limit of one month should not be computed as a bar in view of the inquiry into their complaints by the Commission. Page 27 of 29 The relevant section 13 of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka Act No. 21 of 1996 which refers to the applicability of the time limitation in terms of Article 126(2) of the Constitution reads as follows; 13 (1). Where a complaint is made by an aggrieved party in terms of section 14, to the Commission, within one month of the alleged infringement or imminent infringement of a fundamental right by executive or administrative action, the period within which the inquiry into such complaint is pending before the Commission, shall not be taken into account in computing the period of one month within which an application may be made to the Supreme Court by such person in terms of Article 126 (2) of the Constitution. The above section clearly provides that to claim protection under section 13(1); an aggrieved party must complain about the alleged or imminent infringement of a fundamental right within one-month of the occurrence of it to the Human Rights Commission. Evidently, the petitioners who are seeking to challenge the Cabinet Decision taken on 23-05-2017 have failed to lodge a complaint to the Human Rights Commission within one month of the said decision. I find no basis to consider that the alleged infringement amounts to a continuous violation of human rights as claimed in the respective petitions. As I have discussed previously, the petitioners have come before this Court based on the Cabinet decision, and not on the basis that the relevant authorities to whom the Secretary to the Cabinet communicated the Cabinet Decision for its implementation infringed their fundamental rights in any manner. In fact, the letter issued by the Inspector General of Police on 18-03-2019 clearly establishes that the petitioners, who fall under the 2nd category of officers and are entitled to be benefited in terms of the relevant Cabinet decision. Page 28 of 29 This Court has consistently held that the time period of one month set out in Article 126(2) of the Constitution shall be considered applicable, unless the alleged infringement amounts to a continuous infringement of fundamental rights or falls under the terms of section 13(1) of the Human Rights Commission Act. In the case of Edirisuriya Vs. Nawarathnam and Others (1985) 1 SLR 100 at page 105, it was observed: “This court has consistently proceeded on the basis that the time limit of one month set out in Article 126(2) of the Constitution is mandatory.” It was observed in the case of Gamaethige Vs. Siriwardena (1988) 1 SLR 385: “Three principles are discernible in regard to the operation of the time limit prescribed by Article 126(2). Time begins to run when the infringement takes place; if knowledge on the part of the petitioner is required (e.g. of other instances by comparison with which the treatment meted out to him becomes discriminatory), time begins to run only when both infringement and knowledge exists.” It is my considered view that the petitioners should have known that the Cabinet Decision reached on 23-05-2017 will not allow them an additional promotion rather than backdating the promotion they have already received to their date of sustaining the respective injuries. I find no basis for one to argue that fact was not within their knowledge. They would have known very well that there was no Cabinet Decision that would grant them an additional promotion. For the matters considered as above, I hold that the objection raised as to the time bar of these two applications shall succeed, and the applications should stand dismissed on that ground alone. In view of the above, I find that it is unnecessary for me to consider the other factual matters urged before this Court. Page 29 of 29 Accordingly, while upholding the objection raised as to the maintainability of the action on the basis that both the applications are time barred, I dismiss the two petitions filed before the Court by the petitioners. Having considered the relevant facts and the circumstances, I order no costs. Judge of the Supreme Court P. Padman Surasena, C.J. I agree. Chief Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena, J. I agree. Judge of the Supreme Court		Download
2025-09-11	SC/APPEAL/28/2023	1. Dr. Asela Gunawardena, Director General of Health Services, Ministry of Health, “Suwasiripaya”, No. 385, Baddegama Wimalawansa Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. Dr. H.S. Munasinghe, Secretary, Ministry of Health, “Suwasiripaya”, No. 385, Baddegama Wimalawansa Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3. Dr. Lal Panaipitiya, Director General of (Medical Services 1), Ministry of Health, “Suwasiripaya”, No. 385, Baddegama Wimalawansa Mawatha, Colombo 10. 4. Dr. Ayanthi Karunarathne, Acting Director (Tertiary Care Services), Ministry of Health, “Suwasiripaya”, No. 385, Baddegama Wimalawansa Mawatha, Colombo 10. 5. Dr. Sunil De Alwis, Additional Secretary (Medical Services), Ministry of Health, “Suwasiripaya”, No. 385, Baddegama Wimalawansa Mawatha, Colombo 10. 6. Mr. I.A. Kalukapurachchi, Secretary, Health Services Committee, Public Service Commission, 1200/9, Rajmalwatte Road, Battaramulla. 7. Hon. Minister of Health, Ministry of Health, “Suwasiripaya”, No. 385, Baddegama Wimalawansa Mawatha, Colombo 10. RESPONDENT – PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Dr. Liyana Arachchilage Tharanga Madubhashini Liyanarachchi, 5/2, Temple road, Kaluthara North. PETITIONER – RESPONDENT 2. Dr. Rasika Gunapala, Consultant paediatrician, Lady Ridgeway Hospital, Colombo 8. (Member of the Transfer Board) 3. Dr. Darshana Sirisena, Consultant Neurologist, National Hospital of Sri Lanka, Colombo 7. (Member of the Transfer Board) 4. Dr. S.M. Senanayake, Consultant Gastroenterologist, District General Hospital, Kaluthara. 5. Dr. K.R.P. Perera, Consultant Gastroenterologist, District General Hospital, Mathara. 6. Dr. S.K. Kodisinghe, Consultant Gastroenterologist, Provincial General Hospital, Badulla. 7. Dr. T.A.C.L. Piyaratne, Consultant Gastroenterologist, Teaching Hospital, Anuradhapura. RESPONDENT – RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2025-09-11	SC/APPEAL/86/2009	Dilani Nima Nanayakkara, 150, Wekunagoda Road, Galle. Petitioner-Petitioner 1. Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka, 214, Bauddaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 2. Prof. Ven. Wegama Piyaratana, Former Vice Chancellor, Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka. 3. Ven. Akiriyagala Nanda, Former Dean, Faculty of Buddhist Studies and a member of the Council, Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka. 4. Dr. Ven. Neluwe Sumanawansa, Dean, Faculty of Languages and former member of the Council, Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka. 5. E.A. Wickremasinghe, Associate Professor, Department of Sinhala and Modern Languages and former member of the Council, Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka. 6. Ven. Wauwae Dhamarakkita, Member of the Council, Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka. 7. Koggala Wellala Bandula, Former member of the Council, Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka. 8. Kodituwakku, Secretary Ministry of Religious Affairs and former member of the Council, Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka. 9. S.S.N. De Silva, Senior Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Higher Education and former member of the Council, Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka. 10. A.A. Nawarathne, Former member of the Council, Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka. 11. Dr. Ven. Thumbullae Sri Seelakkanda, Former member of the Council, Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka. 12. Prof. Ven. BellanwitaWimalarathna, Former member of the Council, Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka. 13. Ven. Kotugoda Dammawansa, Former member of the Council, Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka. 14. Ven. Depanama Sugathabandu, Former member of the Council, Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka. 15. Prof. Chandra Wickramagamage, Former member of the Council, Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka. 16. Ven. Valamitiyawe Kusala Damma, Former member of the Council, Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka. 17. Registrar, Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka. 18. Deputy Registrar, Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka, All of 214, Bauddaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. Respondents-Respondents 19. Prof. Ven. Itthademeliya Indasara, Former Vice Chancellor, Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka. 20. Prof. Ven. Uthurawala Dhammaratana, Former member of the Council, Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka. 21. H.M. Herath, Secretary Ministry of Religious Affairs and former member of the Council, Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka. 22. Piyasena Ranapura, Senior Assistant Secretary Ministry of Higher Education and former member of the Council, Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka. 23. Prof. Ven. Kollupitiye Mahinda Sangarakkita, Former member of the Council, Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka. 24. Ven. Balangoda Sobitha, Former member of the Council, Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka. 25. Ven. Banagala Upatissa, Former member of the Council, Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka. 26. Ven. Trikunamale Ananda, Former member of the Council, Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka, All of 214, Bauddaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. Respondents 27. Prof. Ven. Neluwe Sumanawansa, Vice Chancellor, Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka. and Others View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2025-09-10	SC/FR/282/2015	1. K. D. Chandrasekara, 2. K. D. H. Nadeeka Chandrasekara No.86/2, Sri Bodhi Road, Keppetipola Mw, Gampaha. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation, Independent Square, Colombo 7. 2. Somarathne Dissanayaka (Ex-Chairman) 2A. Mr. Ravi Jayawardena (Ex-Chairman) 2B. Ms. Enoka Sathyangani Keerthinanda (Ex-Chairman) 2C. Dr. Prasand Samarasinghe (Ex-Chairman) 2D. Senesh Dissanayake Bandara (Ex-Chairman) All of Sri Lanka Rupavahini Coorporation, Independence Squire, Colombo 7. 3. Sunil Shantha (Ex – Director General) 3A. Saranga Wijeyarathne (Ex – Director General) 3B. Ajantha Senevirathne (Ex – Director General) All of Sri Lanka Rupavahini Coorporation, Independence Squire, Colombo 7. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J			Download
2025-09-09	SC/FR/371/2015	1. Pitawasala Koralage Handunpriya Aravinda Premakeerthi, No. 44, Rathanajothi Mawatha, Godigamuwa, Ratnapura. 2. Sinhabahu Gottabaya Kirumbara Liyanage, No. 61/12, Saman Place, Ratnapura. 3. Elabada Liyanage Asantha Harshan Silva, 214/A, Horana Road, Wekada, Panadura. 4. Andawatta Kankanamge Jayampathi Karunarathne, 219/3A, 2nd Canal, Polonnaruwa. 5. Edirimannage Kulasinghe, 93/187, Kiralawelkatuwa, Embilipitiya. 6. Batugoda Gedara Wajira Sampath Batugoda, 124, Aththaragama, Pattiyawatta, Kandy (HP). 7. Herathge Priyantha Saman Kumara, No. 199, Thalihunna, Gangolla, Meethlawa. 8. Loku Vidanelage Rathnasekara, 143, Lassakanda, Erathna, Kuruwita. 9. Udukumbura Gedara Udeni Sisira Bandara, 101/2, Godagandeniya, Peradeniya. 10. Wasala Mudiyanselage Priyantha Kulasekara, 10/C/2, Kalugalawatta, Werelagama. 11. Lankeshwarage Gammedde Gedara Anoma Sugathadasa, 99/1, Hiddhaula, Handessa. 12. Kospala Wattage Don Chathura Chaminda Jayasena, No. 96, Dhambawela, Gurudeniya, Kandy. 13. Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Dulan Chulanga Rathnayake, 1/28, Prison Quarters, Mosque Road, Kandy. 14. Ekirige Herath Mudiyanselage Weerakoon Banda, 129/2, Ambakote, Kengalla. 15. Dewatha Pedige Shelton Abeysinghe, No. 2, Saman Place, Paradise, Kuruwita. 16. Hewayalage Premachandra, Dandeniya, Galapitamada. 17. Pallegedara Sumith Bandara Dodandeniya, 28/1, A1 Prison Quarters, Mosque Road, Bogambara, Kandy. 18. Hiniduma Liyanage Sarath, 311/B/3, Elhena, Heyley Road, Attiligoda, Galle. 19. Weerasinhage Sisira, B27/1, Kadadara, Imbulana, Ruwanwella. 20. Muhandiramlage Upali Muhandiram, D 256/1, Magammana, Dehiowita. 21. Willora Arachchige Stanley Perera, Gauda State, Malawa, Kuruwita. 22. Dasanayaka Ranasingha Mudiyanselage Waruna Eheliyagoda, Prison Head Quarters, Colombo 09. 23. Nagoda Liyanage Senevirathna, No. 181A, “Shanthi Nivasa”, Pethiyagoda, Gelioya. 24. Kubure Gedara Chandana Wijebandara, A1 Prisons Flats, Borella. AND OTHERS View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J	Page 1 of 26 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Article 126 read with Article 17 of the Constitution. SC Application No: SC FR 371/2015 1. Pitawasala Koralage Handunpriya Aravinda Premakeerthi, No. 44, Rathanajothi Mawatha, Godigamuwa, Ratnapura. 2. Sinhabahu Gottabaya Kirumbara Liyanage, No. 61/12, Saman Place, Ratnapura. 3. Elabada Liyanage Asantha Harshan Silva, 214/A, Horana Road, Wekada, Panadura. 4. Andawatta Kankanamge Jayampathi Karunarathne, 219/3A, 2nd Canal, Polonnaruwa. 5. Edirimannage Kulasinghe, 93/187, Kiralawelkatuwa, Embilipitiya. 6. Batugoda Gedara Wajira Sampath Batugoda, 124, Aththaragama, Pattiyawatta, Kandy (HP). Page 2 of 26 7. Herathge Priyantha Saman Kumara, No. 199, Thalihunna, Gangolla, Meethlawa. 8. Loku Vidanelage Rathnasekara, 143, Lassakanda, Erathna, Kuruwita. 9. Udukumbura Gedara Udeni Sisira Bandara, 101/2, Godagandeniya, Peradeniya. 10. Wasala Mudiyanselage Priyantha Kulasekara, 10/C/2, Kalugalawatta, Werelagama. 11. Lankeshwarage Gammedde Gedara Anoma Sugathadasa, 99/1, Hiddhaula, Handessa. 12. Kospala Wattage Don Chathura Chaminda Jayasena, No. 96, Dhambawela, Gurudeniya, Kandy. 13. Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Dulan Chulanga Rathnayake, 1/28, Prison Quarters, Mosque Road, Kandy. 14. Ekirige Herath Mudiyanselage Weerakoon Banda, 129/2, Ambakote, Kengalla. 15. Dewatha Pedige Shelton Abeysinghe, No. 2, Saman Place, Paradise, Kuruwita. Page 3 of 26 16. Hewayalage Premachandra, Dandeniya, Galapitamada. 17. Pallegedara Sumith Bandara Dodandeniya, 28/1, A1 Prison Quarters, Mosque Road, Bogambara, Kandy. 18. Hiniduma Liyanage Sarath, 311/B/3, Elhena, Heyley Road, Attiligoda, Galle. 19. Weerasinhage Sisira, B27/1, Kadadara, Imbulana, Ruwanwella. 20. Muhandiramlage Upali Muhandiram, D 256/1, Magammana, Dehiowita. 21. Willora Arachchige Stanley Perera, Gauda State, Malawa, Kuruwita. 22. Dasanayaka Ranasingha Mudiyanselage Waruna Eheliyagoda, Prison Head Quarters, Colombo 09. 23. Nagoda Liyanage Senevirathna, No. 181A, “Shanthi Nivasa”, Pethiyagoda, Gelioya. 24. Kubure Gedara Chandana Wijebandara, A1 Prisons Flats, Borella. Page 4 of 26 25. Wickramarachchige Don Sudaraka, No. 24, Hospital Junction, Nawagamuwa, Ranala. 26. Rathnayaka Mudiyanselage Vipula Priyantha, No. 02, Prison Quarters, Lesley Ranagala Mawatha, Colombo 08. 27. Solokara Mudiyanselage Kularatna Dasanayaka, 148/22/1/2, Prison Quarters, Baseline Road, Colombo 09. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. W.M.N.J. Pushpakumara, Commissioner General of Examinations, Department of Examinations, P.O. Box 1503, Colombo 09. 1A. B. Sanath Pujitha, Acting Commissioner General of Examinations, Department of Examinations, P.O. Box 1503, Colombo 09. 1B. L.M.D. Dharmasena, Commissioner General of Examinations, Department of Examinations, P.O. Box 1503, Colombo 09. Page 5 of 26 1C. H.J.M.C. Amith Jayasundara, Commissioner General of Examinations, Department of Examinations, P.O. Box 1503, Colombo 09. 1D. A.K. Subhashini Indika Kumari Liyanage, Commissioner General of Examinations, Department of Examinations, P.O. Box 1503, Colombo 09. 2. M.B.R. Pushpakumara, Commissioner General of Prisons, Prison Headquarters, Colombo 09. 2A. Mr. H.M.N.C. Dhanasinghe, Commissioner General of Prisons, Prison Headquarters, Colombo 09. 2B. Mr. T.M.J.W. Tennakoon, Commissioner General of Prisons, Prison Headquarters, Colombo 09. 2C. Mr. H.N.T.M. Upuldeniya, Acting Commissioner General of Prisons, Prison Headquarters, Colombo 09. 3. Mr. H.N.T.M. Upuldeniya, Superintendent of Prison, Prison Headquarters, Colombo 09. 4. Nalinda Bandara, Store Keeper, Prison Training School, Colombo 09. Page 6 of 26 5. Inoka Ponnamperuma, Female Guard, Female Ward, Welikada Prison. 6. A.L. Indika Pradeep Perera, No. 75/D, Ihala Yagoda, New Road, Gampaha. 7. Bandara Wickramarathna, Egodahawatta, Mudugamuwa, Weligama. 8. R.A. Samudra Dhammika Rajapaksha, Ihala Walahapitiya, Nattandiya. 9. S.M.T.C. Sudasinghe, No. 955/5, First Lane, Gothatuwa, Angoda. 10. G.M.I.K. Ganegoda, No. 767/3/B, Millagahawatta Road, Thalangama North, Malabe. 11. N.D. Gunawardana, No.121/18, Prison Quarters, Leslie Ranagala Mawatha, Colombo 08. 12. H.W.S.S.K. Wijewardena, No. 2/86, Indigolla, Gampaha. 13. S.H.G. Chandrawansha, No. 63/11, Prison Quarters, Leslie Ranagala Mawatha, Colombo 08. Page 7 of 26 14. M.W.D. Kumara, No. 270/10, Thudawa Road, Kerawalapitiya, Wattala. 15. A.D.C.C. Perera, No. 329/A/3, Siriwardana Mawatha, Walpola, Ragama. 16. S.P.J. Rohana, No. 32/1, Marapola, Veyangoda. 17. J.P. Buddhadasa, No. 674, Mahara Prison Quarters, Ragama. 18. K.H.M. Mahinda Bandara, No. 316/8, Neligama, Ragama. 19. W.A.D.C.G. Wijayasinghe, No. 75G, Diyawala, Kirindiwela. 20. M.P. Nimalarathna, No. 12, Arangala, Naththarampotha, Kandy. 21. A.P.U. Gunapala, “Nipuna Sevana”, Buluwemuduna, Lunuketiya Madiththa. 22. K.B.A. Ranathunga, No. 273/C/1, Samagi Mawatha, Ranawana, Katugasthota. 23. S.P. Aragoda, No. 899, “Samanala”, Athgala, Gampola. Page 8 of 26 24. H.M.R.I.K. Herath, No. 129/3, Ambagamuwa Road, Gampola. 25. W.A.V. Rathnayake, No. 57/3, Mirishena, Ethanamadala, Kaluthara-North. 26. W.A. Nihal, No. 109/1, Galle Road, Payagala North, Payagala. 27. R.U. Samantha, No. 14B, Second Lane, Richmond Hill, Galle. 28. G.D.C.D. Kumara, “Sisikirana”, Magura-West, Baduraliya. 29. K.M.N.S. Ranjith Bandara, “Nisala”, Weliwatta, Midigama, Weligama. 30. B.K.G. Priyarathna, Paradulla Watta, Galkaduwa, Imaduwa. 31. M.G.D.N. De Silva, “Siriniwasa”, Denuwala, Ahangama. 32. H.P. Piyathissa, No. 46A, Mahaheella, Beliatta. 33. K.G.J. Tharindranath, No. 80, Tangalle Road, Weeraketiya. Page 9 of 26 34. R.M.W. Disanayake, No. 106, Weerasinghe Mawatha, Eppawala. 35. Sugath Amarasinghe, No. 02, Malithi Mawatha, Bendiwewa, Jayanthipura, Polonnaruwa. 36. K.L.R. Kodikara, No. 03, Jayanthipura, Bogahamadiththa, Haliela. 37. R.M.N. Pushpakumara, Nalin Niwasa, Boliyadda, Thaldena, Badulla. 38. D.M.A.P Disanayaka, No. 02A, Lower Street, Badulla. 39. D.M.I. Arunashantha, No. 112, Miniran Pathalagama, 03rd Mile Post, Passara, Badulla. 40. K.G.S.C. Rajangana, No. 45/B, Uggashena, Walpola, Ragama. 41. R.M.N. Gunarathna, “Shanvilla” Bangalawatta, Ahugoda, Pothuhera. 42. T. Sanjeewa Chaminda, Galle Road, Padurana, Matara. Page 10 of 26 43. P.U.P. Jayawardena, No. 68/H, Seethawaka Uyana, Miriswatta, Puwakpitiya. 44. R.G.J.L. Ranasinghe, No. 02, Middle Class Housing Scheme, “Samarapura”, Nelumkulama, Anuradhapura. 45. B.S. Rajapaksha, Komarikawala, Mahapothana, Kahatagasdigiliya. 46. R.A.D. Sanjeewa Ramanayake, No. 320/A, Ramanayake Mawatha, Arawwala, Pannipitiya. 47. T.W. Sampath Thushan, No. 422/A, Sirimangala Watta, Mampe North, Piliyandala. 48. K.G.T. Pradeep Kumara, Galpatha, Ruwanwella. 49. N. Kalupathirana, No. 45/A, Horagasmulla, Divulapitiya. 50. S.M. Premathilaka, No. 11, Aluth Wewa, Ehatuwewa. 51. A.R. Perera, No. 4/1, Doradeka, Hingurakgoda. 52. D.C.S. Dias, No. 17, Selbi Road, Negombo. Page 11 of 26 53. W.G.W. Chandrakantha, No. 434, Vidyaloka Vidyala Road, Hingurakgoda. 54. D.S.K. Alupothgoda, No. 141/1, Haloluwa, Kandy. 55. J.G. Amunugama, Mahimpitiya Road, Dandagamuwa, Kuliyapitiya. 56. K.P.W.D. Wijekanthi, No. 48/B, Saranajothi Mawatha, Modara Patuwatha, Dodanduwa. 57. T.M.S.T. Bandara, No. 309/17, Jaya Mawatha, Kirillawala, Weboda. 58. M.L. Perera, No. 173, Kandaliyaddapaluwa, Ganemulla. 59. A.B. Sumith, Mahara Prison Quarters, Ragama. 60. N.G. Nalin Rajeeva, No. 954/2, Akkara-07, Debarawewa, Tissamaharamaya. 61. Mr. C. Pallegama, Former Commissioner General of Prisons. Page 12 of 26 62. Secretary, Ministry of Law and Order and Prison Reforms, Floor 13, Sethsiripaya (Stage II), Battaramulla. 62A. Secretary, Ministry of Prison Reforms, Rehabilitation, Resettlement and Hindu Religious Affairs, No. 143, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 63. Secretary, Public Services Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 62AB. Mrs. W.H.M.M.C.K. Dayaratne, Secretary, Public Service Commission. 63A. Mr. Dharmasena Dissanayake, Chairman, Public Services Commission. 63AA. Hon. Justice Jagath Balapatabendi, Chairman, Public Services Commission. 63AB. Mr. Sanath J. Ediriweera, Chairman, Public Services Commission. 63B. Mr. A. Salam Abdul Waid. 63BA. Mrs. Indrani Sugathadasa. 63BB. Mrs. S.M. Mohamed. 63C. Ms. Shirantha Wijayathilaka. 63CA. Mr. V. Shivagnanasothy. 63CB. Mr. N.H.M. Chithrananda. 63D. Dr. Prathap Ramanujam. 63DA. Dr. T.R.C. Rubera. 63DB. Prof. N. Selvakkumaran. 63E. Mrs. V. Jegarasasingam. 63EA. Mr. Ahamod Lebbe Mohammed Saleen. 63EB. Mr. M.B.R. Pushpakumara. Page 13 of 26 63F. Mr. Santhi Nihal Seneviratne. 63FA. Mr. Leelasena Liyanagama. 63FB. Dr. A.D.N. De Zoysa. 63G. Mr. S. Ranugge. 63GA. Mr. Dian Gomes 63GB. Mrs. R. Nadarajapillai 63H. Mr. D.L. Mendis. 63HA. Mr. Dilith Jayaweera. 63HB. Mr. C. Pallegama 63I. Mr. Sarath Jayathilaka. 63IA. Mr. W.H. Piyadasa. 63IB. Mr. G.S.A. De Silva, PC All Members of the Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. The 62AB to 63IB Respondents are of; Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 64. Honourable Attorney General, Department of the Attorney General, Colombo 12. 65. Dupana Durage Saman Susiri, No. 50, Muruthamulgama, Horewela, Walasmulla. 66. Marakkalage Ajantha Niroshana Kurukulasooriya, No. 316/1, Market, Kottegoda. 67. Malwana Vithanage Sarath Vithana, No. 270, Aluthgama Road, Mathugama. RESPONDENTS Page 14 of 26 Before : Kumudini Wickremasinghe, J. : Sobhitha Rajakaruna, J. : Sampath B. Abayakoon, J. Counsel : Saliya Peiris, P.C. with Yohan Peiris and Andrea Wijewansha instructed by Manjula Balasooriya for the Petitioners. : Yuresha De Silva, D.S.G. instructed by Nimalika Wickramasinghe for the 1st to 3rd and 62nd to 64th Respondents. : Upul Kumarapperuma, P.C. with Radha Kuruwitabandara, Duvini Godagama and Ganani Malagoda instructed by Darshika Nayomi for the 65th to 67th Respondents. Argued on : 09-06-2025 Written Submissions : 01-07-2025 (By the Petitioners) : 13-06-2025 (By the 1st to 3rd and 62nd to 64th Respondents) Decided on : 09-09-2025 Sampath B. Abayakoon, J. The petitioners preferred this application alleging that their fundamental rights have been infringed due to the actions of one or more respondents named in the petition, and thereby, claiming redress. When this matter was considered on 05-05-2016 for granting of Leave to Proceed, this Court granted leave for the alleged infringement of the Page 15 of 26 petitioners’ fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 12(1) of the Constitution. Having considered the application preferred by a few more petitioners seeking intervention into the application on the basis that they are also similarly circumstanced as the original petitioners and their fundamental rights have also been infringed, this Court allowed their intervention on 11-05-2016, and added them as the 65th, 66th and 67th respondents. Hence, the 27 petitioners and the 65th, 66th and 67th respondents will hereinafter be commonly referred to as the petitioners for the purposes of determining whether their fundamental rights have been violated as alleged. The facts that led to the filing of this fundamental rights application as stated in the petitions can be summarized in the following manner. All the petitioners are employees of the Department of Prisons functioning as either Prisons Sergeants or Prison Guards at the time of filing of this application. The 61st respondent being the then Commissioner General of Prisons had called for applications from the qualified officers of the Department of Prisons to fill the following vacancies; 1. Jailer Class (II) Male: 58 2. Jailer Class (II) Female: 04 3. Welfare Officers Class (II): 05 The petitioners as well as several other officers have applied to sit for the written competitive exam scheduled to be held in that regard. The 2nd respondent, the Commissioner General of Prisons, has delegated his power of holding the said exam to the 1st respondent named in the petition, namely, the Commissioner General of Examinations of the Department of Examinations. Accordingly, the said exam had been conducted, and the 4th to 60th respondents named in the petition have been promoted to fill the said vacancies based on the marks they obtained. Page 16 of 26 The petitioners have admitted the fact that the 24th to 27th petitioners have previously invoked the fundamental rights jurisdiction of this Court in SC/FR Application bearing No. 85/2014, and the said case was dismissed by this Court on 20-05-2014. However, the petitioners have claimed that after the pronouncement of the said judgment, the petitioners are now in possession of new material, which they did not possess at the time of the initial application. It is on that basis they have initiated this fundamental rights application before this Court. The petitioners state that around 900 fellow officers including they themselves sat for the competitive examination and it was the 3rd respondent named in the petition, who is a Superintendent of Prisons attached to the Prisons Headquarters, who set the relevant question paper and the marking scheme. It has been alleged that majority of the candidates who passed the examination were from the Prison Headquarters and Prison Training College, and the 4th and the 5th respondent, being the husband and wife, had obtained exactly the same marks. It has been alleged further that they have credible information that the marking scheme and the question paper had been circulated among some of the candidates prior to the examination. The petitioners have also intimated the respective marks obtained by them at the examination, which range from 54 to 74. Having narrated the above facts, they have averred that they are in possession of new documentary evidence to show that their fundamental rights have been infringed as pleaded by them. It has been alleged that one G.D.C.D. Kumara, the 28th respondent named in this application, who was the 23rd intervenient petitioner in the previous SC/FR Application No. 85/2014, had been promoted after sitting for the competitive examination which was held on 26-01-2014. The petitioners contend that they are now in possession of the result sheet of the said 28th respondent whose index number was 0357 where he has only obtained a final mark of 54 (the document marked P-06 along with the petition). Page 17 of 26 The petitioners also allege that the eligibility to sit for the said competitive exam was having a satisfactory service of 5 years, but the 40th respondent who had a charge sheet dated 02-11-2013 preferred against him was allowed to sit for the exam. It is alleged that he was later found guilty to the charges and was punished by the letter dated 03-08-2014, by suspending two salary increments, with a fine of Rs.30,000/- while holding him ineligible of facing any promotional interviews. The petitioners allege that the officers who marked the examination papers were not qualified enough to mark the same, and the departmental standing orders as to the manner in which the questions should be marked where it had been stated that they should be marked twice by two different markers had not been followed. It had further been alleged that although the marks were released on 01-03-2014, the same was not published in the website of the Department of Prisons as of usual practice. It was their contention that the names of the officers who are entitled to be promoted were also not published, but their results were received individually by post. It has been the position of the petitioners that, being officers who obtained equal or more marks than the 28th respondent G.D.C.D. Kumara who was later promoted, they should be considered as a group of officers treated unequally among equals. It was primarily on the basis of the alleged marks of the 28th respondent, this matter was argued before this Court claiming that the petitioners’ fundamental rights guaranteed in terms of Article 12(1) of the Constitution had been infringed by the respondents. The 1st respondent in his affidavit tendered to this Court has proceeded to explain the alleged marks given to the 28th respondent explaining that the 28th respondent’s initials had been stated wrongly in the admission card and the initial result sheet issued to him in that regard. It has been his position that this has occurred due to an administrative error. It has been submitted further that due to yet another error, the candidate who sat for the examination under Index No. 0357 having a similar surname has been issued Page 18 of 26 with a result sheet that carries the initials of the candidate who sat for the exam under Index No. 0356. He has submitted that after the matter was subsequently brought to the notice of the Department of Examinations, the Department corrected the said administrative error in relation to the names of the candidates, and as a result, it was confirmed that the 28th respondent who was issued with admission card No. 0356, in fact received 77 marks and the candidate who was issued with admission card No. 0357 received 54 marks. It has been his position that after the correction by the Department of Examinations, the 28th respondent has been correctly promoted based on his marks. The 1st respondent has submitted the documents marked 1R1 to 1R12 to substantiate his position. At the hearing of this application, this Court heard the submissions of the learned President’s Counsel who represented the petitioners as well as that of the learned President’s Counsel who represented 65th to 67th respondents who contended that the said petitioners’ fundamental rights have been infringed due to the reasons averred in their respective petitions. This Court also heard the submissions of the learned Deputy Solicitor General (DSG) who represented 1st to 3rd and 62nd to 64th respondents. The Court also had the benefit of considering the written submissions tendered by the parties in relation to their respective stands, and also had the benefit of looking at the original answer scripts and mark sheets of the candidates who were allocated index No. 0356 and 0357, for the purposes of this judgment. Having considered the material placed before this Court it is my view that although the petitioners have made several other allegations so as to suggest that there were several irregularities in the manner in which the examination was conducted, and the examination papers may have been leaked before the conduct of the examination, I find that the said allegations have been made on a mere speculation rather than on a sound basis which is acceptable to the Court. Page 19 of 26 However, the main ground under which they have relied to claim infringement of their fundamental rights in terms of Article 12(1) of the Constitution appears to be the marks obtained by the 28th respondent on the basis that he was promoted despite having obtained 54 marks, whereas the pass mark set was 75. It was on that premise; they have claimed that they were treated differently although they were similarly circumstanced. It needs to be noted that the questioned examination held in order to grant promotions was an examination that had been conducted by the Department of Examinations which is the premier government institution with vast experience in conducting examinations in Sri Lanka. It is clear that the Commissioner General of Prisons had delegated his power to conduct the questioned examination to the Commissioner General of Examinations in order to ensure the credibility of the process of granting promotions to the eligible officers of the Department. I have no reason to doubt that the Department of Examinations had conducted the examination in violation of the procedure and the relevant norms, or had marked the answer scripts in a biased manner so that preferred candidates would get any advantage. Having said that, I will now proceed to consider whether the 28th respondent had been granted the promotion despite him having obtained 54 marks, which was a much lesser mark than the pass mark of 75. Although an allegation has been made that most of those who were successful in obtaining the pass marks were officers who have been serving in the Prison Headquarters or Prison Training School, it has been established that the 28th respondent was serving in the prison lockup in Balapitiya at the time he sat for the examination. When qualified officers were called to submit their applications to sit for the exam, the said officer whose name is Gamathige Don Chaminda Deepthi Kumara has tendered his application No. 0356, which has been marked and produced as 1R1 to this Court. The said application which is in Sinhala Page 20 of 26 Language clearly provides for the actual full name of the candidate who tendered the said application under the above number. It also shows that the official address of the said candidate as prison lockup Balapitiya. In the said application, other than the full name written in Sinhala, his name has been written in English as “Kumara B.D.C.D.”, rather than the correct English initials of “G.D.C.D.”, while the official address has also been stated as Prison Lockup, Balapitiya, in English language. The document marked 1R2, which is the admission card issued bearing the examination index No. as 0356, which is the same number given in the application, shows that the mistake made in writing the candidate’s name in English language by whoever the person who wrote it had been carried forward to the admission card as well, though his official address has been correctly mentioned. The common result sheet issued by the Department of Examinations, which has been tendered along with the affidavit of the 1st respondent dated 30-09-2016 marked as 1R5, clearly shows that the same mistake as to the name of the candidate with index No.0356 has been repeated, obviously, as a result of the earlier mistake. The said candidate has obtained 77 marks which was more than the pass mark. The result sheet and the mark sheet issued in relation to the said index number marked 1R6 and 1R7 respectively, confirms that fact. However, the prison officer who tendered his application to sit for the same examination under application No. 0357 has also been one Kumara who carried the same surname as the candidate who submitted the application No. 0356. The document marked 1R8 confirms the fact that the said officer’s name is Murukkuwa Durage Sisira Kumara, whose official address was Sri Lanka Prisons, Galle. The said application as well has been filled in Sinhala Language. The said application also shows that the applicant’s name has been written in English to read as “Kumara M.D.S.” and his official address as “Galle Prison, Galle”. Page 21 of 26 Upon this application, the said officer, namely M.D.S. Kumara, has been issued with the admission card with index No. 0357 under the name Kumara M.D.S. giving official address as Galle Prison, Galle (the document marked 1R9). However, when issuing the results sheet of the said candidate (the document marked 1R10), it clearly appears that due to a mistake, his name has been referred to as Kumara G.D.C.D., which carried the actual initials of the officer who submitted application No.0356, and sat for the examination under the said number. Although the name has been wrongly mentioned, his official address has been correctly mentioned as Galle Prison, Galle. He has obtained 54 marks, which was lower than the pass mark. I find that this is the document the petitioners have used to claim that the 28th respondent named in their petition as G.D.C.D. Kumara of “Sirikirina”, Magura/West, Baduraliya was promoted despite obtaining low marks than the pass mark. However, the letter issued by the Department of Examinations on 19-03-2014 to Commissioner General of Prisons, which has been marked as 1R12 along with the 1st respondent’s objections, establishes that the said discrepancy as to the names has been corrected. It has been specifically stated in the said letter that the correction of names has not resulted in any change of the marks obtained by the candidates. For the better understanding of this judgment, I find it necessary to reproduce the said letter, which reads as follows: ශ්‍රී ලංකා විභාග දෙපාර්තදේන්තුව මදේ අංකය 10/03/12/212 ජාතික ඇගයීේ හා පරීක්ෂණ ද ේවාව ඔදේ අංකය ඩී2/දේ. පත්වීේ පැලවත්වත, බත්වතරමුල්ල. දිනය 2014.03.19 දින බන්තධනාගාර දකාම ාරි ේ ජනරාල්, බන්තධනාගාර මූල ේථානය, අංක 150, දේ ේලයින්ත පාර, දකාළඹ 09. Page 22 of 26 බන්ධනාගාර දෙපාර්තදේන්ුදේ II දපළ දේලර් II දපළ සුභසාධක නිලධාරි තනුරට උසස් කිරීම සඳහා වන ලිඛිත තරග විභාගය - 2013 (2014) විභාගය පැවැත්වූ දිනය - 2014.01.26 උක්ත විභාගයට අොලව 2014.02.20 දින නිකුත්ව කරන ලෙ විභාග ප්‍රතිඵල දල්ඛනය හා බැද ේ. 02. එහි අයදුේකරුවන්ත දෙදෙදනකුදේ නම පහත හන්ත පරිදි ංද ෝධනය කරමි. විභාග අංකය ප්‍රතිඵල දල්ඛනදේ හන්ත නම ංද ෝධිත නම 356 KUMARA, B.D.C.D. KUMARA, G.D.C.D. 357 KUMARA, G.D.C.D. KUMARA, M.D.S. 03. දමම නාම ංද ෝධනය දහේුදවන්ත අොල ප්‍රතිඵලදේ කිසිඳු දවන ක් සිදු දනාවන බව කාරුණිකව ෙන්තවා සිටිමි. ඩී. ජී. රංජිත්ව ධර්මගුණ විභාග දකාම ාරි ේ (ප්‍රතිඵල) විභාග දකාම ාරි ේ ජනරාල් දවනුවට The above letter of correction issued by the Commissioner of Examinations shows that no sooner the relevant discrepancy as to the names been discovered, it had been corrected so that no one would be prejudiced by the said mistake. When this Court granted Leave to Proceed in relation to this application, the Court ordered the Registrar of the Court to hold in his safe custody, the originals of the answer scripts relating to index No. 0356 and 0357, which was made available to the Court by the learned DSG, when this matter was supported for Leave to Proceed for the inspection of the Court. In the process of writing this judgment, I had the opportunity of perusing the originals of the two answer scripts, as well as the mark sheets prepared by the examiners who gave the relevant marks. Page 23 of 26 It is clear from the said mark sheets that the answers had been scrutinized and marks had been given by one examiner designated as “උත්වතර පත්‍ර පරීක්ෂක”, while the said marks had been re-checked by another officer designated as “ලකුණු පරීක්ෂා කදල්”. Both of them have been identified by using a code number to maintain the credibility of the examination. The above two officers had been functioning under the supervision of yet another officer who has been identified as “අධීක්ෂණය” who has supervised and signed the said mark sheets. The above-mentioned procedure as to the marking of the examination papers establishes the fact that there had been no procedural lapses as to the marking and supervision of the examination papers as claimed by the petitioners. Having examined the originals of the two answer scripts and mark sheets, it is abundantly clear to me that the candidate who sat under the index No. 0356 had obtained 77 marks, while the candidate who sat under the index No. 0357 has obtained 54 marks. The complete result sheet in relation to all the candidates who sat for the said competitive exam tendered to Court by the Commissioner of Examinations, along with the two original answer sheets, clearly establish the fact that no mix-up has occurred as to the index numbers of the two candidates considered, other than in their name initials in the individual result sheets which were originally issued to them. With the necessary correction in relation to the names, it has been established that only the candidate who obtained more than the minimum pass mark under index No. 0356, namely, G.D.C.D. Kumara of Prison Lockup, Balapitiya, had been promoted. It is obvious that the marks obtained by the petitioners who sat for the exam were below the required minimum mark and they would not have been qualified to be promoted accordingly. Page 24 of 26 Having considered the above factual matrix, now the question before me is whether the petitioners can claim that their fundamental rights have been infringed due to a mistake that took place, which has later been corrected. I find that the petitioners would not be in a position under any manner to claim that their legitimate expectations of being promoted to the next rank had been violated by the respondents due to a correction of an obvious mistake occasioned due to an administrative blunder. It has been the 28th respondent who would have suffered as a result of the mentioned administrative error of stating the initials of his name wrongly in the result sheet despite having the pass mark, if the said mistake was not corrected. The petitioners would not have suffered due to the said error as they have failed to obtain the minimum pass mark. When considering both the aspects together, it is clear that the petitioners cannot claim that they had any legitimate expectations of being promoted after failing to secure the minimum marks required. They cannot have any expectations based on the wrongly mentioned name of the 28th respondent. The petitioners cannot claim equality by comparing them with someone who was wrongly disadvantaged due to an administrative error, but later rightfully corrected. In the case of Ginigathgala Mohandiramlage Nimalsiri Vs. Cornel P.P.J. Fernando, SCFR 256/2010 – SC minutes of 17th September 2015, it was observed; “In order to seek redress under the doctrine of legitimate expectation the person must prove he had a legitimate expectation which was based on a promise or an established practice. Thus, the applicability of the said doctrine is based on the facts and circumstances of each case.” Considering the doctrine of legitimate expectation, it was observed in SCFR 66/2019 decided on 29-11-2024; “Considering the framework of Article 12(1) of the Constitution which guarantees the right to equality, and the applicability of the principle of legitimate expectation it becomes clear that the expectation in question Page 25 of 26 must be based on a promise or commitment made by the relevant authority.” In the case of Elmore Perera Vs. Major Montague Jayawickrama, Minister of Public Administration and Plantation Industries and Others (1985) 1SLR 285, it was held; “Any person setting up grievances of denial of equal treatment must establish that between persons similarly circumstanced some were treated to their prejudice and the differential treatment had no reasonable relevance to the object sought to be achieved. Before a person can claim to be discriminated against another, he must show that the other person was similarly situated or equally circumstanced. He must make out that not only he had been treated differently from others, but he had been so treated from persons similarly placed without any reasonable basis and such differential treatment is unjustifiably made.” In the present case, the Department of Prisons had used the procedure of conducting a written examination through the Department of Examinations in order to select those who are entitled to be promoted based on the marks obtained by each of the candidates who sat for the exam. This has been the procedure adopted by the Department of Prisons and there is no evidence to suggest that the respondents had deviated from the said procedure when determining the successful candidates who stand promoted. For the reasons as considered above, I am of the view that there is no basis for the petitioners as well as the added respondents to succeed in relation to their applications on the basis that the fundamental rights guaranteed to them in terms of Article 12(1) of the Constitution had been infringed. Accordingly, I hold that there had been no violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and, hence, the application is dismissed for want of any merit. Page 26 of 26 The Registrar of the Court is directed to return the originals of the answer scripts and the mark sheets tendered to the Court in relation to the candidates who sat for the examination under the index No. 0356 and 0357 to the Hon. Attorney General so that the same can be returned to the proper authority. The parties shall bear their own costs. Judge of the Supreme Court Kumudini Wickremasinghe, J. I agree. Judge of the Supreme Court Sobhitha Rajakaruna, J. I agree. Judge of the Supreme Court		Download
2025-09-08	SC/APPEAL/162/2013	1. W.H.M. Gunaratne, 251/1, Dharmapala Mawatha, Colombo 7. 2. Vishwa Jayawardena, 251/1, Dharmapala Mawatha, Colombo 7. 3. K. Karthigesan, Allington Estate, Rambukkana PETITIONER-APPELLANTS Vs. 1. Land Reform Commission, C 82, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 7. (Previously) No. 475, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. (Now) 2. Vidura Wikcramanayke, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, C 82, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 7. 2A. T. A Sumanathissa Thambugala, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, C 82, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 7. 2B. Sampath Subasinghe Arachchi, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, C 82, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 7. 2C. Sirimewan Dias, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, No. 475, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. 2D. Nilantha Wijesinghe, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, No. 475, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS Udage Gayan Wijeypala, Allington Estate, Rambukkana. PETITIONER-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J	Page 1 of 14 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of Article 128(2) of the Constitution from the Order of the Court of Appeal dated 27.06.2013. S.C. Appeal No: 1. W.H.M. Gunaratne, 162/2013 251/1, Dharmapala Mawatha, Colombo 7. (Deceased) SC (Spl) LA No: 2. Vishwa Jayawardena, 173/2013 251/1, Dharmapala Mawatha, Colombo 7. (Deceased) C.A. Writ No: 427/2005 3. Udage Gayan Wijeypala, Allington Estate, D.C. Ratnapura No: Rambukkana. 9152/L 4. K. Karthigesan, Allington Estate, Rambukkana. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Land Reform Commission, C 82, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 7. Page 2 of 14 2. Vidura Wikcramanayke, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, C 82, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 7. RESPONDENTS AND BETWEEN 1. W.H.M. Gunaratne, 251/1, Dharmapala Mawatha, Colombo 7. 2. Vishwa Jayawardena, 251/1, Dharmapala Mawatha, Colombo 7. 3. K. Karthigesan, Allington Estate, Rambukkana PETITIONER-APPELLANTS Vs. 1. Land Reform Commission, C 82, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 7. (Previously) No. 475, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. (Now) 2. Vidura Wikcramanayke, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, C 82, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 7. Page 3 of 14 2A. T. A Sumanathissa Thambugala, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, C 82, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 7. 2B. Sampath Subasinghe Arachchi, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, C 82, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 7. 2C. Sirimewan Dias, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, No. 475, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. 2D. Nilantha Wijesinghe, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, No. 475, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS Udage Gayan Wijeypala, Allington Estate, Rambukkana. PETITIONER-RESPONDENT Page 4 of 14 Before : P. Padman Surasena, C.J. : Janak De Silva, J. : Sampath B. Abayakoon, J. Counsel : Ikram Mohamed, PC for Charitha Jayawickrema for Petitioner-Appellants instructed by Sanjeewa Kaluarachchi. : Chathura Galhena with Ms. Sachini Handapangoda for 1st and 2nd Respondent-Respondents instructed by Rajapaksha. Argued on : 22-05-2025 Written Submissions : 28-01-2014 (By the 1st Respondent-Respondent) : 26-12-2013 (By the Petitioner-Appellants) Decided on : 08-09-2025 Sampath B. Abayakoon, J. The petitioner-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) initiated proceedings before the Court of Appeal seeking a Writ in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari in order to quash the notices to quit dated 13-01-2005, issued by the 2nd respondent-respondent on the appellants in terms of State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act No. 07 of 1979 as amended. The Court of Appeal of the judgment dated 27-06-2013 dismissed the said application with costs on the basis that it finds no merit in the application. Being aggrieved of the said decision, the appellants preferred an application for Special Leave to Appeal, and having considered the said application, this Court granted Leave to Appeal on 18-11-2013 in respect of questions of law set out in paragraph 11 subparagraph (a) to (f) of the petition dated 08-07-2013. Page 5 of 14 The said questions of law upon which Leave to Appeal was allowed read as follows, a. Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the petitioner-petitioners were in unauthorized occupation of the said land when the 1st respondent-respondents had accepted the title of the 2nd petitioner-petitioners as a statutory lessee of 50 acres and co-owner of the balance. b. Has the Court of Appeal erred by determining matters which were not in issue and taking into account irrelevant circumstances. c. Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that a course could be had to the provisions of the State Lands (Recovery of Possessions) Act in instances where there is serious title dispute. d. Did the Court of Appeal err in failing to take cognizance of the fact that there was no material of which the 2nd respondent-respondents could have formed the opinion that the corpus to which the notices relate is State land as contemplated by the State Land (Recovery of Possession) Act as such the notices were ultra vires the said act. e. Did the Court of Appeal err in failing to take cognizance of the fact that there was inconsistency on the part of the 1st respondent-respondents for the reason that in the previous Writ Application bearing No. CA 366/91 the 2nd respondent-respondents had categorically stated that the corpus was not State land, and in the present application bearing the LRC has taken an opposite position that the land is vested in the LRC. f. Did the Court of Appeal err in failing to take cognizance of the fact that there was no material on which the 2nd respondent-respondents could have formed the opinion that the petitioners were in “unauthorized occupation” of such land, as contemplated by section 3 of the State Land (Recovery of Possession) Act as amended by Act No. 29 of 1983, which is the subject matter of this application. Page 6 of 14 This is a matter where the 2nd respondent-respondents, namely, the Chairman of the Land Reforms Commission, being a Competent Authority in terms of section 3 of the State Lands (Recovery of Possessions) Act, have issued quit notices dated 13-01-2005. In the said quit notices which have been marked as P-11, P-12, and P-13 before the Court of Appeal, the Competent Authority has expressed the opinion that the land morefully described in the schedule of the said quit notices is a State land, and that the appellants are in unauthorized occupation of the same, requiring them to vacate the said land. It is against the said quit notices that the appellants have gone before the Court of Appeal seeking a Writ in the nature of Certiorari and other incidental reliefs. The Court of Appeal, after considering the positions taken up on behalf of the appellants to argue that the Competent Authority had no basis to come to an opinion that the land in question is a State land, and the appellants are the owners of the land, and also having referred to other factual matters, had decided by the judgment dated 27-06-2013 to dismiss the application. It has been observed that the petitioners do not have a basis to claim ownership as they claim, and the question of alleged ownership is in dispute; hence, the Court will not exercise Writ jurisdiction based on disputed facts. It has been observed further, that this is a matter where the appellants should obtain remedy by pursuing their rights in a competent Court and not by invoking the Writ jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. At the hearing of this appeal, this Court heard the submissions of the learned President’s Counsel who represented the appellants, also had the benefit of listening to the submissions of the learned Counsel who represented the respondent-respondents as to their respective stands. Having considered the arguments placed before the Court and the relevant documents submitted in support of the arguments, I find the following as the relevant facts that need to be considered. Page 7 of 14 The questioned land for which the Chairman of the Land Reforms Commission issued quit notices is a land called Allington Estate situated at Rakwana, containing about 290 acres in extent. The appellants have claimed co-ownership to the said land based on a deed of declaration and a District Court judgment which was in their favor, where it has been declared that the land mentioned in the schedule of the said plaint is owned by the plaintiffs by possession. The appellants have claimed rights to the land in question on the basis that the original owner of the land sold it to them, although no deed of formal transfer has been executed. They appear to have relied on the statutory declaration made by the said original owner of the land who has the paper title in terms of section 18 of the Land Reform Law No. 01 of 1972, where the said original owner of the land, namely, one A.M. Ismail had declared in the statutory declaration sent to the Land Reforms Commission in terms of the above section 18 declaration that he sold the property to one W.S.S. Jayawardena and Don William Wanigaratne on 25-05-1966, but did not execute the deed of transfer as a balance sum of Rs. 17, 500/- is still due to him. (the document marked R-01 before the Court of Appeal). The documents marked R-02 and R-03 before the Court of Appeal which are also statutory declarations in terms of Land Reform Law by the mentioned Don William Wanigaratne and W.S.S. Jayawardena respectively, show that they have also claimed rights to the property. The document marked P-01, which is the decree entered in the District Court of Ratnapura case No. 9152/L reveals that it was an action instituted without the Land Reforms Commission or the earlier mentioned Wanigaratne or the original owner Ismail being made parties. It is a judgment where only a declaration has been given, stating that the plaintiffs in the action are entitle for possessory ownership. Page 8 of 14 The documents marked P-01A, is a deed of declaration prepared among the parties to the deed to claim rights to the land where the quit notices have been issued by the Land Reforms Commission. Having considered the factual matrix as above, I will now proceed to consider whether the appellants being the petitioners before the Court of Appeal had established a basis upon which the Court could have issued a Writ in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari as sought by them. Since it was the argument of the learned President’s Counsel that there was no basis for the 2nd respondent to issue a quit notice in terms of section 03 of the State Land (Recovery of Possession) Act, and there was no basis for him to form an opinion that the land mentioned in the schedule of the quit notice is a State land, I will now proceed to consider the said argument. There cannot be any argument that the 2nd respondent-respondents named in this appeal, being the Chairman of the 1st respondent-respondent, the Land Reforms Commission, is a person statutorily authorized to function as a Competent Authority in terms of the State Land (Recovery of Possession) Act No. 07 of 1979 (The Act). Section 3 of the Act provides for a notice to be issued to a party in unauthorized possession or occupation of State land. The relevant section 3(1) of the Act reads as follows, 3(1). Where a competent authority is of the opinion a. That the land is state land; and b. That any person is in unauthorized possession or occupation of such land, the competent authority may serve a notice on such person in possession or occupation thereof, or where the competent authority considers such service in practicable or inexpedient, exhibit such notice in a conspicuous place in or upon that land requiring such person to vacate such land with his dependence, if any, and to Page 9 of 14 deliver vacant possession of such land to such competent authority or other authorized person as maybe specified in the notice on or before a specified date. The date to be specified in such notice shall be a date not less than 30 days from the date of the issue or the exhibition of such notice. Section 3(1) of the Land Reform Law, provides for ceiling on holding agricultural land a person can own. If the land consists exclusively of paddy land, it would be 25 acres, or if such land does not consist exclusively of paddy land, it would be 50 acres. If a person owned more than the above ceiling at the commencement of the law, namely, 26-08-1972, any agricultural land in excess would be deemed to be vested in the Land Reforms Commission. The relevant section 3(2) of the Land Reform Law reads as follows, 3(2). Any agricultural land owned by any person in excess of the ceiling on the date of the commencement of this law shall as from that date – a. Be deemed to vest in the Commission, and b. Be deemed to be held by such person under a statutory lease from the Commission. It was undisputed that one A.M. Ismail of No. 85, Rosmead Place, Colombo 07 was the owner of the land mentioned in the schedule of the quit notice when he submitted the statutory declaration, which needs to be submitted by a statutory lessee once the excess land is vested with the Commission in terms of section 18 of the Act. Although he has claimed that he sold the land to W.S.S. Jayawardena and Don William Wanigaratne, in view of the absence of any deed of transfer, for all intended purposes, it would be the said Ismail that will have to be considered as the statutory lessee in terms of section 18. Page 10 of 14 Therefore, I do not find merit in the argument that there was no basis for the Competent Authority to form an opinion that the land in question was State land. It is my view that once a land is vested with the Land Reform Commission by the operation of law, anyone other than a statutory lessee in terms of the law can be considered as a person holding the land without authorization for the purposes of the implementation of the provisions of the Land Reform Law. Hence, I am of the view that the respondent-respondents were well within the law when the Competent Authority issued the contended quit notices against the appellants. It is quite clear from the material placed before the Court that when the Writ Application preferred by the appellants was taken into consideration, it had been revealed as to a dispute in relation to the statutory lessee of the property. The actual statutory lessee, in his statutory declaration itself, has stated that he has already sold the land to one Jayawardena and Wanigaratne, although he has not executed a deed of transfer. The said persons have also submitted statutory declarations to the Land Reform Commission claiming them to be the statutory lessees of the land. As correctly observed in the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the occupiers of the land have obstructed the Land Reform Commission from carrying out their legitimate duties by objecting to a land survey being conducted in relation to the property. The Court of Appeal has also correctly observed that the deed of declaration upon which the appellants had claimed title is a self-serving document, and the District Court judgement produced before the Court to claim title was a judgment obtained without the necessary parties being named. It is also clear that the earlier mentioned Wanigaratne has also disputed the claims by the appellants as to the title in relation to the land in question. It was under these circumstances the Court of Appeal has come to a finding that the land where the appellants, as petitioners of the action, have come before the Court of Appeal seeking a Writ, is a matter based on disputed facts. Page 11 of 14 It has been determined that the alleged title as claimed was doubtful and was based on documents that are incomplete, lacking in authority, and self-serving. Therefore, the review procedure would not be well suited for the determination of disputed facts. In the case of Thajudeen Vs. Sri Lanka Tea Board and Another 1981 2 SLR 471 it was held that; where the major facts are in dispute, and the legal results of the facts are subject to controversy, it is necessary that the said questions should be canvased in a suit where parties would have ample opportunity of examining the witnesses so that Court would be better able to judge which version is correct, a Writ will not issue. Ranasinghe, J. cited CHOUDRI in his book on the Law of Writs and Fundamental Rights (2nd Ed.) Vol. 02, at page 381: “The rule has been stated that mandamus will not lie to compel a public officer to perform a duty dependent upon disputed and doubtful facts, or where the legal result of the facts is subject to controversy. If the right is in serious doubt the discretionary power rests with the officer to decide whether or not he will enforce it, till the right shall have been established in some proper action, and discretion fairly exercised in such circumstances cannot be controlled by mandamus,” Held further at page 449: “Where facts are in dispute and in order to get at the truth it is necessary that the questions should be canvased in a suit where parties would have ample opportunity of examining their witnesses and the Court would be able to judge which version is correct, a writ will not issue.” In the Indian Supreme Court case of D. Parraju Vs. General Manager, B.N. Railway and Others AIR 1952 CAL 610 it was stated, “It also appears to me that in the facts of this case the remedy by way of a suit is more convenient and effective. As I have stated the parties are in dispute on several questions, namely, the authority by which the petitioner was appointed, the natures on inquiry if any made in the Page 12 of 14 present case, the denial of a right of appeal, the alleged imperfect nature of the inquiry and the alleged arbitrary conduct of certain offices of the railway administration. It is difficult in my opinion, to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on these matters on mere affidavits. In order to get at truth, it is necessary that the questions referred to above should be canvased in a suit where the parties would have ample opportunity of examining their witnesses and the Court would be better able to judge which version is correct.” In the case of Aselro Financial Services (Private) Limited Vs. M.A. Wasantha Chandrasiri and Others CA/Application No. 797/2007 Per Sriskandrajah, J. “On careful consideration of the facts placed by both parties, now the issued before this Court is to decide whether ‘Kanibi Kotuwe Kumbura’ is situated within the land called ‘Polkotuwewatta Deniya’ or not. This factual position falls within the ambit of Court of first instance to decide after an inquiry or trial. In such an inquiry or trial, the petitioner will also get an equal opportunity to contest the trial. As factual matters are in issue this application is not amendable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.” I find that the appellants have gone before the Court of Appeal claiming co-ownership of the land, and their plea for a Writ of Certiorari had been based on very much disputed facts as contemplated above. Hence, I do not find any reason to disagree with His Lordship Justice of the Court of Appeal on his refusal to issue the Writ as sought for the reasons stated in the judgement. As considered in the said judgment, once a Competent Authority forms the opinion that the land in question is a State land, and decides to issue a quit notice under section 3 of the Act, the purpose of issuing such a notice is to obtain the possession of the State land without any delay. Page 13 of 14 Once an occupier issued with a notice is allowed to show cause as to why an application made under the Act should not be allowed, a scope of an inquiry that can be held has been defined in section 9 of the Act. In such an inquiry, it is up to the person who is in occupation of the State land to establish that he is in such possession or occupation upon a valid permit or other written authority of the State, granted in accordance with any written law and such permit or authority is in force. In the case of Muhandiram Vs. Chairman, No. 111, Janatha Estate Development Board (within 1992) 1 SLR 110 it was held that in an inquiry under the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act, the onus is on the person summoned to establish his possession or occupation that he is in possession or occupation upon a valid permit or under written authority of the State, granted according to any written law. If this burden is not discharged, the only option open to the Magistrate is to order ejectment. Besides that, in terms of section 12 of the Act, a statutory provision has been laid down, where a person who has been ejected from a land under the provisions of the Act or any person claimed to be the owner of the land thereof is to institute an action against the State for compensation for the loss of his rights. In the case of Farook Vs. Gunawardena, Government Agent Ampara (1980) 2 SLR 243, which was a case relating to a State land recovery of possession action, it was held, “The structure of the Act would also make it appear that where the competent authority had formed the opinion that any land is State land, even the Magistrate is not competent to question his opinion. Alternate relief is given by section 12 which empowers any person claiming to be the owner of a land to institute action against the State for the vindication of his title within 6 months from the date of the order of ejectment and section 13 is to the effect that where action is instituted by a person, if a decision is made in favor of that person, he will be entitled to recover Page 14 of 14 reasonable compensation for the damage sustained by reason of his having been compelled to deliver possession of such land.” It is my considered view that the appellants who are seeking to claim ownership of the land have the option of going before a competent Court, where the said Court could have gone into their claim of ownership, and the claim of the State in terms of the Land Reform Law in deciding the matter. Apart from the above remedy, the petitioners will also have the remedy of filing action against the State in terms of section 12 of the State Land (Recovery of Possession) Act even if they were ejected from the land. For the reasons as considered as above, I am of the view that there needs no disturbance of the judgment pronounced by the Court of Appeal in this regard. Accordingly, I answer all the questions of law in the negative. The appeal is dismissed as I find no merit in the same. The appellants shall pay Rs. 50,000/- as costs to the respondent-respondents. Judge of the Supreme Court P. Padman Surasena, C.J. I agree. Chief Justice Janak De Silva, J. I agree. Judge of the Supreme Court		Download
2025-09-08	SC/APPEAL/115/2013	1B,16A. Edirisingha Mudiyanselage Arachchilage Kanthi Manika of Wamulla Junction, Walpola, Bamunakotuwa. 19. Jayasingha Mudiyanselage Heenmanika of Walpola, Bamunakotuwa (deceased). 19A. Edirisingha Mudiyanselage Arachchilage Kanthi Manika of Wamulla Junction, Walpola, Bamunakotuwa. DEFENDANTS – APPELLANTS - APPELLANTS Vs. Edirisingha Mudiyanselage Herath Banda of Kalugamuwa Road, Bamunakotuwa near School, Bamunakotuwa. SUBSTITUTED PLATINTIFF – RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT 2A. W.M. Herath Banda of Kadihare, Bamunakotuwa. S.C. Appeal No. 115/2013 S.C. (S.P.L.) (L.A.) 208/2012 CA 159/97 (F) D.C. Kurunegala 5340/P 3A. Andasuriya Mudiyanselage Herath Banda of Walpola, Bamunakotuwa. 4A. Edirisingha Mudiyanselage Sirisena of Thibbatupitiya, Kudagalgamuwana. 5. Edirisingha Mudiyanselage Arachchilage Ukku Amma of Wevewelayaya, Ibbagamuwa. 6. H.M. Appuhamy of C/O H.M.N.N. Herath in front of 125th Post, Pamunugama, Pulathisigama, Polonnaruwa. 7. Andasuriya Mudiyanselage Piyasena of Walpola, Bamunakotuwa. 8. Andasuriya Mudiyanselage Sittamma of Walpola, Bamunakotuwa. 9. Andasuriya Mudiyanselage Dissanayaka of Kadihare, Bamunakotuwa. 10. Andasuriya Mudiyanselage Rajohamy alias Padmawathie Manike of Lenapelassa, Kosdeniya. 11. Andasuriya Mudiyanselage Nandawathi Manike of Wegama, Rathmale, Uhumiya. 12. Andasuriya Mudiyanselage Seelawathi Manike of Wegama, Rathmale, Uhumiya. 13. Andasuriya Mudiyanselage Somawathie Manike of Wegama, Rathmale, Uhumiya. 14. Andasuriya Mudiyanselage Kusumawathie Manike of Walpola, Bamunakotuwa. 15. Andasuriya Mudiyanselage Gunathilake of Walpola, Bamunakotuwa. DEFENDANTS – RESPONDENTS – RESPONDENTS 17. Edirisingha Mudiyanselage Arachchilage Somapala of 171, Koslanda, Kadihare, Bamunakotuwa. 18. Edirisingha Mudiyanselage Arachchilage Jayasena of Koslanda, Kadihare, Bamunakotuwa. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2025-09-08	SC/FR/326/2024	Irruthayanathan Annasingham Manjula Vaasam Kankanitivu, Nanattan, Mannar. Also of: 24 Wilton Road Cockfosters, Barnet, EN4 9DX, United Kingdom. Petitioner Vs. 01. Priyantha Weerasooriya Acting Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 02. K.V.A. Nuwan Tharanga Inspector of Police, Police Station, Mullaitivu. 03. Officer Munasingha Police Station, Mullaitivu. 04. Jenisam Sahayanathan Pallankoddai Nanattan, Mannar. 05. Kosala Nanthakesan Milton Keyness, Berkshire, United Kingdom. 06. Suba Vithuran, AAL, Unnappilawu, Mullaitivu. 07. Hon. The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda PC J	SC/FR 326/2024 – ORDER REFUSING LEAVE TO PROCEED 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Articles 17 & 126 of the Constitution of the Republic. Irruthayanathan Annasingham Manjula Vaasam Kankanitivu, Nanattan, Mannar. Also of: 24 Wilton Road Cockfosters, Barnet, EN4 9DX, United Kingdom. Petitioner SC / FR Application No. 326/2024 Vs. 01. Priyantha Weerasooriya Acting Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 02. K.V.A. Nuwan Tharanga Inspector of Police, Police Station, Mullaitivu. 03. Officer Munasingha Police Station, Mullaitivu. 04. Jenisam Sahayanathan Pallankoddai Nanattan, Mannar. SC/FR 326/2024 – ORDER REFUSING LEAVE TO PROCEED 2 05. Kosala Nanthakesan Milton Keyness, Berkshire, United Kingdom. 06. Suba Vithuran, AAL, Unnappilawu, Mullaitivu. 07. Hon. The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. Respondents BEFORE : YASANTHA KODAGODA, PC, J A.H.M.D. NAWAZ, J & K. PRIYANTHA FERNANDO, J COUNSEL : Chrishmal Warnasuriya with Eranga Gunaratha, Ms. Ovini Abeyweera and Mahada Fernando instructed by Ms. Dimuthi Ginigaddara for the Petitioner. Sanjeewa Dissanayake, DSG instructed by State Attorney for the 1st – 3rd and 7th Respondents. M.A.A.M. Behshad instructed by Maneka Wickramanayaka for the 4th Respondent. Geoffrey Alagaratnam, PC with V. Puvitharan, PC, Mr. Purenthiran and T. Yokaruban instructed by Ms. S. Arulrathy for the 6th Respondent. ARGUED & DECIDED ON : 08th September 2025 YASANTHA KODAGODA, PC, J. We have heard submissions of learned Counsel for the Petitioner in support of his Petition alleging an infringement of the Petitioner’s Fundamental rights arising out of his alleged illegal arrest, illegal police custody and also the alleged unlawful investigation carried out by one or more of the Respondents. We have also heard the submissions made by counsel on behalf of the 4th Respondent. [The 4th Respondent is the person who had lodged the complaint against the Petitioner.] We have also had the benefit of hearing SC/FR 326/2024 – ORDER REFUSING LEAVE TO PROCEED 3 learned President’s Counsel who represents the 6th Respondent who is an Attorney-at-Law. In addition thereto, we have heard the submissions of learned Deputy Solicitor General representing the 7th Respondent – The Honourable Attorney General, who has assisted Court by tendering on the direction by Court the corresponding notes of investigations. On a considering of the available material, it is the view of this Court that the Petitioner has failed to satisfy this Court on a prima facie basis that his arrest was contrary to the threshold requirement contained in Section 32(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, and that his arrest amounted to an infringement of his Fundamental Rights under Article 13(1) of the Constitution. That is on the footing that, as at the time the Petitioner was arrested, it is clear that the police had sufficient reliable material to objectively infer that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioner had cheated the 4th Respondent and misappropriated the latter’s money. In the circumstances, it is not possible to grant Leave to Proceed in this matter and accordingly the Petition is dismissed. In the course of considering the material placed before this Court, it transpired that the Mullativu Special Crimes Investigations Unit of the Sri Lanka Police had recorded the complaint against the Petitioner and another person, in the Sinhala language, notwithstanding the fact that the said complainant (4th Respondent) and the other such person are persons of Tamil ethnicity and speak the Tamil language. Further, perusal of the Information Book extracts reveals that the Petitioner as well as the other person suspected of having committed the offences jointly with the Petitioner are also Tamil gentlemen, who are not conversant in the Sinhala language. They had also been interviewed by the Police in Sinhala and their statements had also been recorded in the Sinhala language. It also transpired that the first ‘B Report’ tendered to the Magistrate’s Court of Mullativu bearing No. B/444/2023 had been prepared in the Sinhala language, signed and presented to Court, notwithstanding the fact that the learned Magistrate is a Tamil speaking gentleman, the suspects produced before that Court are Tamil speaking, and the Attorneys-at-Law who represented them are also Tamil speaking. This Court notes that this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. In the circumstances, the Attorney-General is directed to bring this unsatisfactory state of affairs and the observations of this Court to the attention of the Inspector General of Police and advise him to comply with the relevant provisions of the Constitution (Chapter IV) and with the official languages policy of the Government of Sri Lanka. The IGP is required to ensure that Tamil speaking suspects as well as victims of crime and other witnesses who speak the Tamil language are necessarily interviewed in their vernacular language and their SC/FR 326/2024 – ORDER REFUSING LEAVE TO PROCEED 4 statements also recorded in the vernacular language. Furthermore, vide Article 24 of the Constitution read with Article 22, Court documentation (such as ‘B Reports’) in areas where the language of administration is the Tamil language, should also be in the Tamil language. Should there be a need, an additional copy in the Sinhala and English languages may be submitted. The Inspector General of Police is directed to take necessary remedial action in this regard at the earliest available opportunity by providing necessary interpretation and translation services to Police Stations in the Northern and Eastern Provinces of this country. Further, such remedial action shall be implemented and fully enforced within a period of not more than 06 months from today. The learned Deputy Solicitor General undertakes to convey this direction to the Inspector General of Police in writing. The Registrar of this Court is directed to convey this Order to the Attorney-General, Secretary, Ministry of Public Security, and to the Inspector General of Police addressed to their names with a copy being dispatched to the Director (Legal) of the Police Headquarters. Application is dismissed. Proceedings are terminated. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT		Download
2025-09-04	SC/APPEAL/175/2011	In the matter of an application for substitution in terms of rule 38 of the Supreme Court Rules Z. A. A. Hussain, No.46/2, Main Street, Kahawatta. 5th Respondent – Appellant (Now deceased) Noor Jahan Ameen Hussain, No.291/1, Colombo Road, Weralupe, Rathnapura. Substituted 5th Respondent-Appellant Vs Bank of Ceylon, No.4, Bank of Ceylon Mawatha, Colombo-01. Petitioner-Respondent 1. Commissioner of Labour, Department of Labour, Narahenpita, Colombo-5. 2. W. D. John Seneviratne, Former Minister of Labour, Ministry of Labour, Narahenpita, Colombo-5. 3. Athauda Seneviratne, Minister of Labour, Ministry of Labour, Narahenpita, Colombo-5. 4. P. J. S. A. Perera, No.30, Jubilee Mawatha, Lakshapathiya, Moratuwa. 1st to 4th Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Menaka Wijesundera J			Download
2025-09-04	SC/FR/276/2018	Lokugamhewage Deepika Damayanthi, \"Hasini\", Bandaramulla, Mirissa. Petitioner Vs. 1. W.S. Vasantha Kumara, Officer In Charge, Police Station, Thihagoda. 2. G.M.Premasiri, Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Thihagoda. 3. Kankamge Krishan Jeewaka Jayaruk, \\\\\\\"ThangalleGedara\\\\\\\" Uda Aparakka, Aparakka. 4. P.M. Thilaka Kalyani, Southern Provincial Director of National Police Commission, 1st Floor, District Secretariat, Galle. 5. S.P.H.Marapana, Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Matara. 6. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Matara Hambantota Division, Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Matara. 7. Dumidhu Senanayake, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Officer of the Asst: Superintendent of Police, Akuressa. 8. Mr. P.H. Manathunga, The Chairman National Police Commission, Bandaranayake Memorial International Conference Hall Premises, Block No.9, Baudhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 9. Mr.D.M.Saman Dissanayake, The Secretary, National Police Commission, Bandaranayake Memorial International Conference Hall Premises, Block No.9, Baudhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 10. Prof. S.T. Hettige 11. Mrs. Savithree Wijesekara 12. Mr. Y.L.M.Sawahir 13. Mr. B. A. Jeyanathan 14. Mr. Tilak Collure 15. Mr. Frank De Silva, All of the 10th -14th Respondents are Members of National Police Commission BMICH, Block No.9, Baudhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 16. K.K. Janaka Thushara, Officer In Charge Police Station, Kotawila. 17. Inspector General of Police Sri Lanka Police Headquarters, Colombo 05. 18. Honourable Attorney General, Attorney General Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Menaka Wijesundera J			Download
2025-09-04	SC/CHC APPEAL/52/2019	Lanka Orix Leasing Company PLC (For merly known and named as Lanka Orix Leasing Company Limited) Presently of No. 100/1, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha, Rajagiriya (New number of Comapany PQ70) Plaintiff Vs. Ravindra Lanka Auto Service (PV T) Limited No. 134, Hill Street, Dehiwela. (New number of company PV 5712) Defendant AND Lanka Orix Leasing Company PLC (For merly known and named as Lanka Orix Leasing Company Limited) Presently of No. 100/1, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha, Rajagiriya (New number of Comapany PQ70) Plaintiff Appellant Vs. Ravindra Lanka Auto Service (PVT) Limited No. 134, Hill Street, Dehiwela. (New number of company PV 5712) Defendant Respondent View More	Hon. Menaka Wijesundera J			Download
2025-09-04	SC/APPEAL/54/2022	Ignatius Brito Kaithan Pulle No.140/B/1, Bambukuliya, Kochchikade. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – APPELLANT v. Malcom Susantha Fernando Anandapulle of No. 19, Fathima Road, Welihena, Kochchikade. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT View More	Hon. M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J			Download
2025-09-04	SC/APPEAL/85/2023	Mallawa Waduge Jayaratne No. 167/22, Thataka Road, Kegalle. DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT - APPELLANT v. Wickramaarachchige Senani, No. E 10, Medagodella Mawatha, Kooriyanpola. Rambukkana. PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT - RESPONDENT View More	Hon. M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J			Download
2025-09-04	SC/APPEAL/126/2015	Ahangama Vithanage Mala Mangalika Abayagunasekera, 221/A, Saranapala Mawatha, Akaravita, Gampaha. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-APPELLANT Vs. 1A. Hewa Pedige Sumithra Malkanthi 1B. Wanni Arachchige Amila Madushan Perera 1C. Wanni Arachchige Ashan Shehan Perera 1D. Wanni Arachchige Eranda Wimukthi Perera All of No. 48/F, Samagi Mawatha, Dombawala, Udugampola. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANTS- RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J			Download
2025-09-04	SC/APPEAL/38/2022	1. International Center for Ethnic Studies, No. 2, Kinsey Terrace, Colombo 8. 2. Mario Gomez, Executive Director, International Center for Ethnic Studies, No. 2, Kinsey Terrace, Colombo 8. 3. Danishan Cassie Chetty, Chairman, International Center for Ethnic Studies, No. 2, Kinsey Terrace, Colombo 8. DEFENDANTS- PETITIONERS- APPELLANTS Vs. Dr. Muthukrishna Sarvanadan, No. 3, Somasundaram Road, Off Station Road, Wellawatta, Colombo 6. PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Sobhitha Rajakaruna J			Download
2025-09-04	SC/APPEAL/67/2025	Lillie Rupasinghe No. 25, Hill Street, Nuwara Eliya. Substituted Defendant- Appellant- Appellant Vs. Natchan Chandraras alias Kaththan Natchchan Chandroo No. 187, Mahinda Mawatha, Nuwara Eliya. Plaintiff- Respondent- Respondent View More	Hon. Sobhitha Rajakaruna J			Download
2025-09-04	SC/APPEAL/98/2014	1. Jayasuriya Arachchige Leelawathie, No. 200 B, Horape Thuduwa, Ragama. 1st Plaintiff – Petitioner – Appellant 2. Nanayakkara Mahanama Gamage Somapala, No. 200 B, Horape Thuduwa, Ragama. (Deceased) 2nd Plaintiff – Petitioner – Appellant 2A. Mahanama Gamage Athula Nanayakkara, 2B. Mahanama Gamage Rohitha Nanayakkara, 2C. Mahanama Gamage Shyamali Nanayakkara, All of, No. 200 B, Horape Thudawa, Ragama. Substituted 2A, 2B, 2C, Plaintiff – Petitioner – Appellants Vs. 1. Jayasinghe Arachchige Nimal Athula 2. Jayasinghe Arachchige Sunil Jayalath 3. Jayasinghe Arachchige Nihal Udaya 4. Jayasinghe Arachchige Kamal Nanda All of, No.202 A, Horape Thuduwa, Ragama. 5. Pandithagedara Rangaethana Jayawardena, 6. Shantha Sisira Kumara Jayawardena, 7. Chandrani Mangalika Jayawardena, 8. Nuwan Sudesh Kumara Jayawardena, All of, No. 200, Horape Thuduwa, Ragama. 9. Anoma Jayawardena, No. 202 B, Horape Thuduwa, Ragama. Defendant – Respondent – Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2025-09-01	SC/APPEAL/10/2022 AND SC/APPEAL/11/2022	Sri Lankan Airlines Limited, Level 22, East Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 01 RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT- APPELLANT Vs. Ranil Chinthana Wagiswara, 825/10, Ethul Kotte, Kotte. Presently residing at; No. 25, School Road, Hounslow, Middlesex TW3 1QU, United Kingdom. By his Attorney Wahaltantrige Srijanaka Roshan Wagiswara of No. 825/10, Ethul Kotte, Kotte. APPLICANT-APPELLANT- RESPONDENT AND Ranil Chinthana Wagiswara, 825/10, Ethul Kotte, Kotte. Presently residing at; No. 25, School Road, Hounslow, Middlesex TW3 1QU, United Kingdom. By his Attorney Wahaltantrige Srijanaka Roshan Wagiswara of No. 825/10, Ethul Kotte, Kotte. APPLICANT-APPELLANT- APPELLANT Vs. Sri Lankan Airlines Limited, Level 22, East Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 01 RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J	Page 1 of 18 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal in terms of Articles 154P of The Constitution read with Section 31DD of the Industrial Disputes Act (as amended), and Section 9 of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990. SC/Appeal No: Ranil Chinthana Wagiswara, 10/2022 825/10, Ethul Kotte, Kotte. SC/HC/LA 029/2019 APPLICANT Vs. High Court Case No: HC(ALT) No. 36/2016 Sri Lankan Airlines Limited, LT Colombo Case No: Level 22, East Tower, LT/Col/01/05/2009 World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 01 RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN Ranil Chinthana Wagiswara, 825/10, Ethul Kotte, Kotte. APPLICANT-APPELLANT Vs. Page 2 of 18 Sri Lankan Airlines Limited, Level 22, East Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 01 RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Sri Lankan Airlines Limited, Level 22, East Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 01 RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT- APPELLANT Vs. Ranil Chinthana Wagiswara, 825/10, Ethul Kotte, Kotte. Presently residing at; No. 25, School Road, Hounslow, Middlesex TW3 1QU, United Kingdom. By his Attorney Wahaltantrige Srijanaka Roshan Wagiswara of No. 825/10, Ethul Kotte, Kotte. APPLICANT-APPELLANT- RESPONDENT Page 3 of 18 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SC/Appeal No: Ranil Chinthana Wagiswara, 11/2022 825/10, Ethul Kotte, Kotte. High Court Case No: APPLICANT HC(ALT) No. 36/2016 Vs. LT Colombo Case No: LT/Col/01/05/2009 Sri Lankan Airlines Limited, Level 22, East Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 01 RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN Ranil Chinthana Wagiswara, 825/10, Ethul Kotte, Kotte. APPLICANT-APPELLANT Vs. Sri Lankan Airlines Limited, Level 22, East Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 01 RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Page 4 of 18 Ranil Chinthana Wagiswara, 825/10, Ethul Kotte, Kotte. Presently residing at; No. 25, School Road, Hounslow, Middlesex TW3 1QU, United Kingdom. By his Attorney Wahaltantrige Srijanaka Roshan Wagiswara of No. 825/10, Ethul Kotte, Kotte. APPLICANT-APPELLANT- APPELLANT Vs. Sri Lankan Airlines Limited, Level 22, East Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 01 RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT Before : Janak De Silva, J. : Menaka Wijesundera, J. : Sampath B. Abayakoon, J. Counsel : Manoli Jinadasa with Dilini Reeves instructed by Rasika Wellappili for the Respondent-Respondent- Appellant in SC Appeal No. 10/2022, and for the Respondent-Respondent-Respondent in SC Appeal Page 5 of 18 No. 11/2022. : Uditha Egalahewa, P.C. with Thilini Payagala Bandara instructed by H. Chandrakumar de Silva For the Applicant-Appellant-Respondent in SC Appeal No. 10/2022, and for the Applicant- Appellant-Appellant in SC Appeal No. 11/2022. Argued on : 19-05-2025 Written Submissions : 25-08-2022 (By the Applicant-Appellant- Respondent in Case No. SC/Appeal 10/2022) : 25-08-2022 (By the Applicant-Appellant-Appellant in Case No. SC/Appeal 11/2022) : 04-03-2022 (By the Respondent-Respondent- Respondent in Case No. SC/Appeal 11/2022) : 04-03-2022 (By the Respondent-Respondent- Appellant in Case No. SC/Appeal 10/2022) Decided on : 01-09-2025 Sampath B. Abayakoon, J. When this Court considered the Special Leave to Appeal applications in relation to the above two appeals on 26-01-2022, the parties agreed for the consideration of both the applications together. Accordingly, after having considered the submissions in relation to the respective cases, this Court granted Leave to Appeal on the following common questions of law applicable to both appeals. I. Whether the Provincial High Court had erred in law in the analysis of the evidence and reached findings, which are perverse. Page 6 of 18 II. Whether the Provincial High Court has erred in law in the granting of relief. III. Whether the learned High Court Judges of the High Court erred in law by failing to consider the burden of proof. At the hearing of the appeal before this Court, parties agreed that both the appeals can be considered together and one judgment can be pronounced by the Court. The Court heard the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-respondent-appellant in case No. SC/Appeal 10/2022 and the respondent-respondent-respondent in SC/Appeal No. 11/2022 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent). This Court also heard the submissions of the learned President’s Counsel who represented the applicant-appellant-respondent in SC/Appeal No.10/2022 and the applicant-appellant-appellant in the SC/Appeal No. 11/2022 (hereinafter referred to as the applicant). This Court also had the benefit of considering the written submissions tendered by the parties in respect of their respective appeals. The applicant was employed as the Manager (Marketing Services) at the time his services were terminated by the respondent Sri Lankan Airlines Ltd, after finding him guilty of all the charges preferred against him by the show cause letter dated 03-10-2008 issued in that regard. As a result of the said termination, the applicant has preferred the application relevant to this appeal before the relevant Labour Tribunal, challenging his dismissal. At the inquiry held in that regard, the respondent has admitted the termination, and had led evidence to justify its action. The position taken up had been that the respondent company lost the trust and confidence it placed on the applicant due to the misconduct of sending an abusive email containing derogatory and abusive language to a superior female officer, using the company-provided computer and resources. Page 7 of 18 The respondent had led evidence of several witnesses to establish that the said email was sent by the applicant using his official computer, and has marked documents from R-1 to R-38(a) in support of the said contention. When it was the turn of the applicant to present his evidence, he has given evidence on his own behalf and has marked documents from A-1 to A-25. At the conclusion of the inquiry, after having considered the evidence placed before the Labour Tribunal, and also the respective submissions, the learned President of the Labour Tribunal of the order dated 30-06-2016, has proceeded to dismiss the application of the applicant on the basis that the dismissal was justified. Being aggrieved of the said order the applicant has preferred an appeal before the Provincial High Court of the Western Province holden in Colombo. The learned High Court Judge of Colombo in his brief order dated 26-04-2019 in relation to the appeal, has ordered that the Labour Tribunal should hold a de novo inquiry, although there is nothing in the said order to suggest that the order of the learned President of the Labour Tribunal has been set aside. However, I am of the view that since a de novo inquiry has been ordered, a presumption can be reached that the order has been set aside. The respondent, being the appellant in case No. SC/Appeal/10/2022 has preferred the appeal on the basis of being aggrieved by the decision of the learned High Court Judge to order a de novo inquiry. It has been the position of the respondent that there was no basis for the learned High Court Judge to make such an order, as the learned President of the Labour Tribunal has pronounced her order after having well considered the evidence placed before the Labour Tribunal and in accordance with the law. In SC/Appeal/11/2022, the applicant who was the appellant before the High Court has preferred the appeal challenging the decision by the learned High Court Judge to order a de novo inquiry, on the basis that the appeal should have been decided in favour of him rather than ordering a de novo inquiry. Page 8 of 18 Interestingly, when scrutinizing the order of the learned High Court Judge, it appears that the only reason given for the ordering of a de novo inquiry has been that the learned President of the Labour Tribunal has failed to draw her attention to the document that has been marked as R-10 at the inquiry by the respondent. It has been determined that the said document marked R-10 suggests that, apart from the time where the recipient the senior official of the respondent company is said to have received the email, the same has been sent on several occasions previously to that given time, and a question arises as to who has sent those earlier emails. With the above factual matrix in mind, and also the questions of law upon which the two leave to appeal applications were allowed, I will now proceed to consider the two appeals preferred. The applicant having joined the respondent company on 20-04-1992 had been functioning as its Manager (Marketing Services) during the time relevant to the incident which led to disciplinary proceedings against him. On 01-09-2008, the Acting Head of the Commercial Division of the respondent Sri Lankan Airlines Limited has received an email which contains the following, “………….. is the Dumb, Stupid Bitch of the Commercial Division who thinks she is God’s gift to the Aviation Industry. The so-called Harvard graduate (who has only followed a 6-week course at Harvard) is responsible for all the losses at Sri Lankan Airlines Commercial division with her dumb decisions. Do something you can do, you dumb, barren bitch without ruining so many young lives by closing this airline with your folly. You are now trying to ruin another entire department by trying to head that division. Shame on you, you bloody Arrogant, Ambitious, Barren Bitch.” (the identity of the receiver was withheld by me to protect her privacy). Page 9 of 18 The evidence led before the Labour Tribunal establishes the fact that as a result of the investigations conducted by the respondent company with the assistance of two information technology experts, it has been revealed that the said email originated from the company-provided computer belonging to the applicant. It is clear that based on the said findings, the respondent has been issued with the relevant show cause letter to the applicant. The evidence also reveals that the applicant having left the country without obtaining prior approval of the respondent, has found overseas employment and has resigned from the company soon thereafter. The relevant inquiry has been held allowing him to appear via electronic means from overseas in order to give a fair hearing as to the allegation of misconduct. The evidence also establishes that when the computer of the applicant was checked by the investigators, it has been found that all the sent messages have been deleted, which was highly unusual for a computer given to an employee to use for official purposes. However, having examined the user history of the computer, the investigators have been able to ascertain that in fact, the said derogatory email has originated from the computer assigned to the applicant, and it has been mailed at 9.05 a.m. to the recipient with copies to several other officials of the office. I find that the respondent company has well established the timeline of receiving the said email to the Sri Lankan Airline portal through which the mail entered the Sri Lankan server, and the Yahoo website through which the mail was sent. The explanation given by the applicant during the domestic inquiry as well as before the Labour Tribunal, that he had no opportunity to access his computer during the relevant time period because he was at a meeting, has been well explained before the Labour Tribunal by the respondent to show that it was possible for the applicant to access his computer and send the message within a short span of time since it has been previously prepared and stored. Page 10 of 18 I do not find any basis for the applicant’s claim that somebody else may have accessed his computer and sent this message, due to the fact that this was a computer with a password maintained only by the holder of the computer, and it was the duty of the applicant as the holder of the computer to prevent unauthorized access to the computer. It is clear from the order, that the learned President of the Labour Tribunal has well considered all these aspects in order to find out whether it was the applicant who has sent this email after having analysed the evidence placed before the Tribunal in its correct perspective. The learned President has well considered the evidence of the applicant before the Tribunal to come to a firm finding that such evidence cannot be accepted in view of the overwhelming evidence, both factual and scientific, produced on behalf of the respondent. There cannot be any doubt that a derogatory, abusive, and malicious email of this nature sent to a higher female official of an institution with copies to others is a clear misconduct on the part of the sender, while he himself being a senior official of the same institution. Such behaviour would invariably result in the institution losing the trust and the confidence placed on such a person. I am of the view that the termination of services of such a person is justifiable under any circumstances. In the case of Baur & Co. Ltd Vs. Ceylon Manure Industries Workers’ Union, SC/43/62 decided on 24-05-1962, the Supreme Court observed, “The applicant had abused the Overseer and the place of work in the presence of other employees in indecent language. This is a serious breach of discipline on her part… in these circumstances the company was justified in dismissing her.” In the Indian case of Cooper vs. Central Bank of India (1949) Bombay Industrial Court Reports, 115 at 21.3 the Court stated: “…the reason for discharge, viz that he had imputed to the Board of Directors a senile mentality in the circular which he had published… Such an imputation by a subordinate of the Bank, besides undermining the reputation of the Bank, was bound to breed a sense of disrespect, Page 11 of 18 indiscipline and insubordination among the employees of the Bank… but the moment he indulged in a malignant and to some extend a libelous invective of the kind appearing in his circular, he laid himself open to the charge of misconduct and entailed upon himself the penalty of either a dismissal or discharge.” It was the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the learned High Court Judge has failed to consider the evidence placed before the Tribunal, and the order of the learned President of the Labour Tribunal in its correct perspective. It was submitted that it was a finding based on a single document (R-10), rather than considering the evidence in its totality in deciding to refer the matter for a de novo inquiry, which she termed as a perverse decision. It was her contention that the appeal should have been dismissed in view of the overwhelming evidence the respondent produced before the Labour Tribunal, which established the conduct of the applicant, rather than ordering a de novo inquiry. It was contended further, the document marked R-10 was never a disputed document and the document has been well explained by the expert witnesses called on behalf of the respondent. The learned President’s Counsel who represented the applicant agreed that any sender of the derogatory email sent to a higher official of the respondent, deserves punishment. However, it was his position that although the email address which has sent the email to the receiver was the applicant’s, there was no proof that it was he who logged into the email during the timeline provided. It was his submission that it was not the applicant who logged into the computer at 9.05 am, and that aspect has not been properly investigated. It was his position that if properly investigated, it would have been revealed that the applicant had no opportunity to send such an email. It was submitted further that the evidence of Rohini Srimali Ethel De Silva who was in charge of the legal division of the respondent company, establishes the real reason why the applicant’s services were terminated (Page 368 of the appeal brief). It was pointed out that the said witness has stated that she made a recommendation to terminate the services of the applicant because of Page 12 of 18 the misuse of the company computer, which is a matter considered as a grave misconduct, where she has referred to several previous cases of terminating the services of employees on such misconduct. The learned President’s Counsel argued that his appeal was on the basis that the learned High Court Judge should have considered these matters, and if considered in its correct perspective, there were ample grounds for the learned High Court Judge to set aside the order of the Labour Tribunal and to grant relief to the applicant. Under the circumstances, he urged the Court to set aside both orders pronounced by the learned High Court Judge, as well as the learned President of the Labour Tribunal, and grant relief to the applicant as sought in his application. Since the primary argument in both the appeals preferred before the Court was that the learned High Court Judge was wrong when he decided to order a de novo inquiry, I will now consider under what circumstances an Appellate Court can interfere with a decision of a Labour Tribunal. This aspect was well considered in the judgement pronounced in Jayasuriya Vs, Sri Lanka State Plantation Corporation (1995) 2 SLR 379, which held, 2. In the context of the principle that the Court of Appeal will not interfere with a decision of a Labour Tribunal unless it is \"perverse\" it means no more that the court may intervene if it is of the view that, having regard to the weight of evidence in relation to the matters in issue, the Tribunal has turned away arbitrarily or capriciously from what is true and right and fair in dealing even-handedly with the rights and interests of the workman, employer and, in certain circumstances, the public. The Tribunal must make an order in equity and good conscience, acting judicially, based on legal evidence rather than on beliefs that are fanciful or irrationally imagined notions or whims. Due account must be taken of the evidence in relation to the issues in the matter before the Tribunal. Page 13 of 18 Otherwise, the order of the Tribunal must be set aside as being perverse. 3. The Industrial Disputes Act No. 43 of 1950 Section 31D states that the order of a Labour Tribunal shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court except on a question of law. While appellate courts will not intervene with pure findings of fact, they will review the findings treating them as a question of law: if it appears that the Tribunal has made a finding wholly unsupported by evidence, or which is inconsistent with the evidence and contradictory of it; or where the Tribunal has failed to consider material and relevant evidence; or where it has failed to decide a material question or misconstrued the question at issue and had directed its attention to the wrong matters; or where there was an erroneous misconception amounting to a misdirection; or where it failed to consider material documents or misconstrued them or where the Tribunal has failed to consider the version of one party or his evidence; or erroneously supposed there was no evidence. In Ceylon Cinema and Film Studios Employees Union Vs. Liberty Cinema Ltd (1994) 3 SLR 121 the Court held, “The question of assessment of the evidence is within the province of the Labour Tribunal and if there is evidence on record to support its findings the appellate court cannot review those findings even though on its own perception to the evidence it may be inclined to come to a different conclusion. If the case contains anything ex facie which is bad in law and which bears upon the determination it is obviously on a point of law; but without any misconception appearing ex facie, it may be that the facts found are such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have come to the determination under appeal. In these circumstances, the appellate court must intervene. Thus, in order to set aside a determination of facts by the Tribunal limited as this court is, only to setting aside a determination which is erroneous in law, the appellant must satisfy this court that there is no legal evidence Page 14 of 18 to support the conclusion of facts reached by the Tribunal or that the finding is not rationally possible and is perverse having regard to the evidence on record.” As I have considered previously, the learned President of the Labour Tribunal has considered the evidence in its totality and has come to her findings with clear reasoning. The document marked R-10 has never been taken up by the applicant to substantiate his position that he did not send the derogatory email. I find that the learned High Court Judge has failed to consider the manner in which the evidence placed before a Tribunal must be considered and the standard of proof that should be applied. In his brief order, it appears that the learned High Court Judge has taken the document marked R-10 at its isolation and on the face value. It appears that the learned High Court Judge has raised a question by himself to the effect that, “based on R-10 a question arises as to who sent the email”. However, it is my considered view that if the learned High Court Judge took care to consider the evidence placed before the Tribunal in its totality, and the order of the learned President of the Labour Tribunal as he should have, no such question or doubt would have arisen to justify ordering a de novo inquiry. The two witnesses called by the respondent as expert witnesses on information technology in order to establish the investigations done to identify the sender of the email are clearly experts on the subject with wide experience and qualifications. Witness Hewalunuwilage Chandika had obtained a 2nd Class Upper Division Degree on Electronic and Telecommunications Engineering from the University of Moratuwa, and has begun his career as a Research Engineer at Arthur C. Clarke Centre before joining Sri Lankan Airlines as a Network Engineer attached to its computer division. He was functioning as the Senior Messaging Engineer when he gave evidence before the Tribunal. Page 15 of 18 The other expert witness, namely, Thusitha Sampath was also a graduate of the University of Moratuwa in Electronic and Telecommunications Engineering. After graduation, he has joined the private sector as a Computer Engineer and has joined the Sri Lankan Airlines as a Messaging Engineer and he had been functioning as a Computer Network Engineer during the time relevant to this incident. Their evidence has clearly established the fact that the same email being sent previously cannot be considered as a factor to doubt the sender of the email during the time relevant to this incident. The evidence has revealed that the email has been received by the receiver at 9.06 am. It has been established that it entered the Sri Lankan Airlines server at 9.05 am and was received by the receiver at 9.06 am. It has also been revealed that the email has been processed via Yahoo website and entered the Sri Lankan Airlines server through Sri Lankan portal using the sender’s computer, which was the computer assigned to the applicant. It has been proved that the said computer, which had a specific username and a password known only to the applicant has been used to log into the Yahoo website at 9.03 am. There cannot be any other person other than the applicant who could have accessed his own computer in such a manner. I find that the evidence before the Tribunal has well explained the contents of R-10 as well. Since it becomes necessary to consider a series of events to come to a finding as to the author of the email, which has been established before the Labour Tribunal and well considered by the President of the Labour Tribunal, I am unable to find any justification in considering the document marked R-10 in its isolation, which in my view is a decision that can be considered perverse. On behalf of the applicant, who is the appellant in case No. SC/Appeal/11/2022, the question of law number III has been raised when this matter was supported for Special Leave, on the basis that the learned High Court Judge erred in law by failing to consider the burden of proof. Page 16 of 18 It is well settled law that a Labour Tribunal must take into consideration the interests of all parties in a matter before it and pronounce a just and equitable order. The case of Associated Battery Manufacturers (Ceylon Ltd) Vs. United Engineering Worker Union 77 NLR 451 was a case, where in an inquiry before a Labour Tribunal, it was alleged that the reason for the termination of employment was that the workman was guilty of a criminal act involving in moral turpitude. It was held that such an allegation need not be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal case, such an allegation has to be decided on a balance of probabilities, the very elements of the gravity of the charge becoming a part of the whole range of circumstances which are weighed in a balance, as in every other civil proceeding. Per Vythialingam, J., “The whole object of labour adjudication is that of balancing the several interests involved, that of the worker in job security, since loss of his job may mean loss of his and his family’s livelihood; that of the employer in retaining authority over matters affecting the efficient operations of the undertaking; that of the community in maintaining peaceful labour relations and avoiding unnecessary dislocations due either to unemployment or unproductive economic units. Each is equally important. None of these objectives can be achieved by the adoption of the standard of proof required in criminal cases in the determination of the facts which have to be established before a Labour Tribunal before it can exercise its jurisdiction to make an order which in all the circumstances of the case is just and equitable. This difficulty was realised in the University of Ceylon case for the learned Judge while ordering the reinstatement of the nurse nevertheless; gave the University the option to terminate her services and to pay back wages and compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Page 17 of 18 I am therefore unable to agree, with great respect, that where the reason for the termination of the employment is an allegation that the employee was guilty of a criminal act involving moral turpitude, that allegation should be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal case in order to establish the validity of the reason for the termination of the employment. It has to be decided on a balance of probability, the very elements of gravity of the charge becoming a part of the whole range of circumstances which are weighed in the balance, as in every other civil proceeding.” (The Ceylon University Clerical and Technical Association, Peradeniya Vs. University of Ceylon Peradeniya 72 NLR 84 not followed.) Having considered the judgment of the learned High Court Judge, it is my view that there had been no consideration of the evidence placed before the Labour Tribunal with a view of finding out whether the order of the learned President of the Labour Tribunal has been reached after considering the available evidence in its correct perspective. It doesn’t appear to me that the learned High Court Judge had drawn his attention to the necessity of considering the evidence in its totality, and to consider whether the respondent has established that the termination of services of the applicant was justified by applying the necessary standard of proof, which is on balance of probabilities. For the reasons as considered above, I find no reason to agree with the decision of the learned High Court Judge to send the matter for a de novo inquiry. I find that if the evidence placed before the Tribunal was correctly considered, as it should have been, there were ample evidence to justify the order of the learned President of the Labour Tribunal. Accordingly, the three questions of law formulated at the hearing of the appeal are answered in the affirmative. Thus, I set aside the order dated 26-04-2019 pronounced by the learned High Court Judge of Colombo while exercising appellate jurisdiction, as it cannot Page 18 of 18 be allowed to stand, and allow the appeal preferred by the respondent in SC/Appeal/10/2022. I affirm the order dated 30-06-2016 pronounced by the learned President of the Labour Tribunal, where the applicant’s application was dismissed. Hence, the appeal preferred by the applicant in SC/Appeal/11/2022 is dismissed for the reasons considered, as I find no merit in the appeal. There will be no costs. Judge of the Supreme Court Janak De Silva, J. I agree. Judge of the Supreme Court Menaka Wijesundera, J. I agree. Judge of the Supreme Court		Download
2025-09-01	SC/FR/87/2023	1. Kamaldeen Ilham Ahmed (Minor) 2. Hameem Siththi Nihara The 1st and 2nd Petitioners of; 128/3, Lechchami Janapadaya, Hatharaliyadda. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. IP Weerakoon, Acting Officer – in – Charge, 2. SI Wedagedara, 3. Officer-in-Charge, The 1st to 3rd respondents of; Police Station, Hatharaliyadda. 4. Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 5. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2025-08-26	SC/FR/275/2015	1. Anil Prasanna Balalle, Attorney-at-Law, No. 162/7, Negombo Road, Kurunegala. 2. Ms. Kalpana Sujeewani Rajapakse, Attorney-at-Law, of No. 362, Pasala Para, Mahananneriya. 3. Ms. S.R.M. Kanchana M. Samradivakara, Attorney-at-Law, No. 47, Anamaduwa Road, Galgamuwa. 4. Uraj Dilshan Herath, Attorney-at-Law, No. 288/45A, Mahasen Mawatha, Negombo Road, Kurunegala. Petitioners Vs. 1. Galgamuwa Pradeshiya Sabha, Office of the Pradeshiya Sabha, Galgamuwa. 2. Hewa Katuwalage Wimalaratne, Former Chairman, Galgamuwa Pradeshiya Sabha, “Jayabima”, Galgamuwa 3. Aloka Bandaralage Nimal Ratnayake, Secretary of the Galgamuwa Pradeshiya Sabha, Office of the Pradeshiya Sabha, Galgamuwa. 4. Mrs. Sandya L. Edirimuni, Attorney-at- Law, Opposite Magistrate’s Court, Anuradhapura Road, Galgamuwa. 5. Mrs. Shashika Akuranage, Attorney-at- Law, Opposite Magistrate’s Court, Anuradhapura Road, Galgamuwa. 6. Mrs. Tyroni Lakmali Premasiri, Attorneyat- Law, Opposite Magistrate’s Court, Anuradhapura Road, Galgamuwa. 7. Mrs. Kanchana Hathurusinghe, Attorneyat- Law, Opposite Magistrate’s Court, Anuradhapura Road, Galgamuwa. 8. Nihal Gamini Saman Kumara, Attorneyat- Law, Welilanda, Warawewa. 9. Himal Chandana Kahandawela, Attorneyat- Law, Sellamwatte, Galgamuwa. 10. Ms. Devika Subhasini, Attorney-at- Law, Opposite Magistrate’s Court, Anuradhapura Road, Galgamuwa. 11. Jayatilake Tennekoon, Attorney-at- Law, Opposite Magistrate’s Court, Anuradhapura Road, Polgahawela. 12. Udaya Rajapakse, Attorney-at-Law, Opposite Magistrate’s Court, Anuradhapura Road, Maho. 13. Ms. Ridma Jayawickrema, Attorneyat- Law, Opposite Magistrate’s Court, Anuradhapura Road, Ambanpola. 14. Ms. H.M. Sagarika Herath, Attorneyat- Law, Opposite Magistrate’s Court, Anuradhapura Road, Galgamuwa. 15. Minister of Local Government of the Northern Western Province, Provincial Council Office Complex, Kurunegala. 16. Chief Secretary of the North-western Province, Provincial Council Office Complex, Kurunegala. 17. Chief Minister of the North-western Province, Provincial Council Office Complex, Kurunegala. 18. Commissioner of Local Government of the North-western Province, Provincial Council Office Complex, Kurunegala. 19. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12 Respondents View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2025-08-07	SC/APPEAL/115/2023	Wijesundera Ralalage Nalaka Sanjaya Wijesundera, 128, Yaya 11, Maha Ambagaswewa, Medirigiriya. APPLICANT – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT Vs. Yunnan Construc􀆟on and Investment Holdings Group Company Limited, 43/3, Rosmead Place, Colombo 7. RESPONDENT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2025-08-07	SC/APPEAL/138/2009	Premalal Leelananda Thilakaratne, “Sinha Sevana”, Batahira Kalatuwawa, Thummodara. Plaintiff - Respondent - Appellant (deceased) Weerajissara Anuruddha Thilakaratne, No. 09, Unagaswewa, Suchirathagama Road, Anuradhapura. Substituted Plaintiff - Respondent - Appellant Vs. Hewa Hakuruge Wijaya Nandasiri Kumara, Batahira Kalatuwawa, Thummodara. Defendant - Appellant - Respondent (deceased) 1A. Wanarajage Sunethra Pushpakumari Munasinghe, 1B. Sirikumarage Mahesh Kumara Sirikumara, 1C. Sirikumarage Savindu Suresh Sirikumara, All of No. 15A, Batahira Kalatuwawa, Thummodara. Substituted Defendants - Appellants - Respondents View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2025-08-06	SC/RULE/16/2023	W. S. B. S. Fernando Registrar of the Court of Appeal, Superior Courts Complex, Colombo 12 COMPLAINANT -Vs- Wickramage Don Dharmasiri Karunaratne No. 57, Baseline Road, Colombo 08 No. 1, M.D.H. Jayawardenapura, Pelawatte, Battarumulla. RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2025-08-05	SC/FR/327/2015	1. W. Sunil Abeysiri, 2. M.M. Chandrika Jayakanthi, 3. I.M.T. Ihalagama, 4. T.P.G. Sudharmika Alwis Wijeratne, 5. Sujatha Karunaratne, 6. A. Gamage Priyanthini Yahampath, 7. Nishanthi Kariyapperuma, 8. J. Chandralal Dissanayake, 1st to 8th Petitioners of Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. 9. Sri Lanka Nidahas Sevaka Sangamaya, No. 493/1, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. 10. P.P.S. Pathmasiri, The Secretary, Sri Lanka Nidahas Sevaka Sangamaya, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. 11. Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation Engineers\' Association, P.O. Box 574, Torrington Square, Colombo 7. 12. Mudith Siriwardena, The Secretary, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation Engineers\' Association, P.O. Box 574, Torrington Square, Colombo 7. 13. Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation Technical Officers\' Union, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. 14. A.H.J.D. Aluthwatta, Assistant Secretary, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation Technical Officers\' Union, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. AND OTHERS View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2025-08-01	SC/CHC APPEAL/54/2017	Don Lalith Indralal Rajapaksha, 203/3, Tharumalyaya, Veyangoda, Wegowwa. 1st DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Vs. Kim Hyum Wook, Ranmutugalawatte, Kadawatha. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT Daisy Rajapaksha, 203/3, Tharumalyaya, Veyangoda, Wegowwa. 2nd DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J	Page 1 of 10 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA SC/CHC/Appeal No: Kim Hyum Wook, 54/2017 Ranmutugalawatte, Kadawatha. CHC Case No: PLAINTIFF HC (CIVIL) 470/2011/MR Vs. 1. Don Lalith Indralal Rajapaksha, 203/3, Tharumalyaya, Veyangoda, Wegowwa. 2. Daisy Rajapaksha, 203/3, Tharumalyaya, Veyangoda, Wegowwa. DEFENDANTS AND NOW BETWEEN Page 2 of 10 Don Lalith Indralal Rajapaksha, 203/3, Tharumalyaya, Veyangoda, Wegowwa. 1st DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Vs. Kim Hyum Wook, Ranmutugalawatte, Kadawatha. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT Daisy Rajapaksha, 203/3, Tharumalyaya, Veyangoda, Wegowwa. 2nd DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT Before : Kumudini Wickremasinghe, J. : Arjuna Obeyesekere, J. : Sampath B. Abayakoon, J. Counsel : Primal Ratwatte with Avinda Silva instructed by Shanika Kariyawasam for the 1st Defendant- Appellant. Page 3 of 10 : Avindra Rodrigo, P.C. with Nishika Fonseka instructed by Danukshika Priyadarshani for the Plaintiff-Respondent Argued on : 09-05-2025 Written Submissions : 02-05-2025 (By the 1st Defendant-Appellant) : 14-07-2023 (By the Plaintiff-Respondent) Decided on : 01-08-2025 Sampath B. Abayakoon, J. This is an appeal preferred by the 1st defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 1st defendant) on the basis of being aggrieved of the judgment dated 30-06-2017 pronounced by the learned Judge of the Commercial High Court of Colombo in Case No. HCC/470/2011/MR, which was determined in favour of the plaintiff of the said action. This is a matter where the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) instituted proceedings before the Commercial High Court of Colombo to recover a sum equivalent to United States Dollars 96,000 (Rs. 11,000,000/=) and for other related reliefs as sought for in the plaint dated 27-10-2011. At the hearing of the appeal, this Court had the benefit of listening to the oral submissions of the learned Counsel who represented the parties, as well as the privilege of considering the written submissions tendered to Court by the parties in order to determine the appeal. The case of the plaintiff urged before the trial Court can be summarized in the following manner. He is a Korean national who came to Sri Lanka in the year 2010 to establish a business venture and to enter into a transaction for the export of copper to South Korea. Page 4 of 10 He has been informed by one Ranasinghe, whom he came to know while in South Korea, that the 1st defendant is engaged in exporting copper, which has resulted in the plaintiff, together with the said Ranasinghe, meeting the 1st defendant at his house. After having shown about three tonnes of copper stored in his house, the plaintiff has been made to believe that the 1st defendant is capable of supplying copper, which in turn has resulted in the plaintiff entering into an agreement with the 1st defendant for him to export 15 tonnes of copper to the port of Busan in South Korea. Accordingly, having signed the agreement (marked P-01 at the trial) for the said purpose, the plaintiff has gotten in touch with his father’s company in South Korea and has transferred USD 96,000 to the personal bank account of the 1st defendant. It had been the position of the plaintiff that although P-01 appears to be a transaction entered between two companies, it was he who entered into the agreement with the 1st defendant on behalf of his father’s company and arranged for the payment. The plaintiff has also established at the trial that although the 1st defendant had signed the agreement on behalf of a company called Vilasa Oseas PLC, it had been a company that had been struck off from the Register of Companies on 12-01-2010, which was more than 10 months before the said agreement was entered into on 03-11-2010. The fact that the personal account number 094010003431 belonging to the 1st defendant at the Minuwangoda branch of the Hatton National Bank was credited with a sum equivalent to USD 96,000 from a bank in Korea as stated by the plaintiff in his evidence was not a disputed fact at the trial, although the only admission recorded in that relation has been as to the existence of the bank account in the 1st defendant’s name. However, the 1st defendant has failed to supply the agreed 15 tonnes of copper or has failed to return the money, which has resulted in the plaintiff instituting this action. Page 5 of 10 The position taken up by the plaintiff in his evidence has been that the 2nd defendant named in the action was the wife of the 1st defendant, and part of the money credited to the bank account of the 1st defendant has been used by the 2nd defendant of the High Court action for her own use with the connivance of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff has called the earlier mentioned Ranasinghe as a witness on his behalf, where he has substantiated the evidence of the plaintiff as to the matters that led to the deposit of money into the account of the 1st defendant and his failure to supply copper as agreed. The position taken up by both the defendants at the trial had been that the agreement marked P-01 has been a one entered between a Korean company and a local company where the 1st defendant was not a party, and the signature in that agreement was not the 1st defendant’s signature, and that it was a fraudulent document. It has been contended further that there was nothing to show that it was the plaintiff who deposited the money since he was not a party to the agreement, and there was no authorization from the company that deposited the money authorizing the plaintiff to sue on behalf of the company, and hence, the plaintiff has no locus standi to proceed with this action. Apart from the above positions, the 1st defendant has also taken up the stand that the plaintiff has failed to show that the local company had a special permit required to export copper to South Korea. In his evidence, the 1st defendant has claimed that he entered into an agreement, which he has marked and produced as V-01, between himself and the plaintiff, who only acted as the agent of a Korean company named DAE-HEUNG-TRADE, and has denied that he signed the document marked P-01. Explaining the reason as to why he signed the document he produced as V-01, it has been claimed that it was signed in order to facilitate a Korean company to remit money to Sri Lanka, and since the plaintiff or the earlier mentioned Ranasinghe had no company in Sri Lanka, and as he was promised Rs. 150,000/- as a commission, he signed the same in order to facilitate the Page 6 of 10 plaintiff to run a business in Sri Lanka. He has also claimed that he did not know what the business was, but has stated that after he signed the document, he came to know that the business was a one related to copper. In the impugned judgment, it is manifestly clear that the learned Judge of the Commercial High Court has considered the evidence placed before the Court by both the parties in its totality in order to come to a finding whether the plaintiff has established his case, or whether the defendant’s stand should succeed. With that in mind, the learned trial Judge has considered the evidence in the balance of probabilities, which is the standard of proof required in a civil suit. In view of the undisputed fact that the 1st defendant received a sum equivalent to USD 96,000 to his account, and also the undisputed fact that no export of copper has taken place, the learned High Court Judge has proceeded to consider the evidence in that context, being mindful of the issues raised by the parties, while reaching his conclusions. In this process, the learned High Court Judge has considered the evidence of the 1st defendant where he has claimed that he had no knowledge of exporting copper to South Korea when the money was remitted to his account, but went on the belief that it was only to facilitate the plaintiff to have money in Sri Lanka to conduct his business. However, as correctly observed by the learned High Court Judge, the answer of the 1st defendant filed in Court was in complete contrast to the stand taken by him in his evidence. In his answer, he has taken up the position that he agreed to act as an intermediary on behalf of the Sri Lankan company Vilasa Oseas PLC, where he was a director, and the plaintiff, who acted as an agent of the Korean company in order to supply 15 tonnes of copper locally. It has been claimed that he reached an agreement only in that regard with the Korean company. Page 7 of 10 Having considered and analysed the evidence placed before the Court, the learned High Court Judge has come to a finding that the evidence of the 1st defendant cannot be relied upon as to the manner the transaction occurred, for which I have no reason to disagree. The learned High Court Judge has also considered the stand of the 1st defendant where he has claimed that he never signed the agreement marked P-01, but only signed the contract he marked as V-01. The learned High Court Judge has drawn his attention to the fact that the 1st defendant, who claims that the document marked P-01 was a fraudulent document, has failed to take any steps to establish that fact before the Court. Having considered the contents of P-01 and V-01, it has been determined that both the documents have been signed for the same purpose of supplying copper as stated by the plaintiff, and the document marked P-01 was the soft offer letter, and V-01 was the sales agency agreement entered between the plaintiff as the agent of his father’s company in Korea and the 1st defendant. It has been determined that since at the time of signing the said document, the company which the 1st defendant claims that he represented was not in existence, the 1st defendant has entered into the agreement in his personal capacity. The learned High Court Judge has also made a note of the fact that when the 1st defendant was arrested and produced before the Magistrate Court in relation to a complaint lodged by the plaintiff to the police of this transaction on the basis that a fraud has been committed, at no point the 1st defendant has claimed that the documents produced by the plaintiff to the police are fraudulent documents. The argument that the plaintiff has no locus standi to institute an action against the defendants as argued before this Court has also been a matter considered by the learned High Court Judge in his judgment. Page 8 of 10 It has been determined that at all times relevant to this transaction, it was the plaintiff who had acted on behalf of his father’s company, and it was on his behalf that USD 96,000 has been remitted to the 1st defendant’s personal bank account. Having considered and analysed the facts and the circumstances specific to the matter, the learned trial Judge has come to a firm finding that the plaintiff is entitled to sue the 1st defendant based on the agreement reached between the parties. The learned President’s Counsel who represented the plaintiff-respondent made extensive submissions both oral and written, regarding an agent’s right to sue upon contracts. At this juncture, I would like to cite the judgment made available to this Court by the learned President’s Counsel in that regard, which I find relevant. In the case of Jack Hunt Vs. R. C. Wright, Supreme Court of Iowa, United States - dated 17 November 1964, it was held; 1. Right of an agent to sue on a contract for disclosed principal – if an agent has a beneficial interest in a contract executed for a disclosed principal he may sue in his own name. 2. Nominal and real party interest – the law looks beyond the nominal parties to the real parties in interest, and determined the case according to the rights of the latter. 3. Real party in interest – a party is to be regarded as the real party in interest whenever a payment to him would protect the defendant from the claims of third persons. I am of the view that the principles discussed in the above-mentioned case is directly applicable to the facts and the circumstances of the case under appeal. It is abundantly clear that although the money had been transferred by a Korean company owned by the father of the plaintiff to the account of the 1st defendant for him to supply copper, the actual party in interest had been the Page 9 of 10 plaintiff, and the actual transaction had been between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. Under the circumstances, it is my considered view that there exists no basis to argue that the plaintiff has no locus standi to sue the defendants in order to recover the money paid to the 1st defendant on the basis that he failed to abide by the agreement to export 15 tonnes of copper to Korea. I find that the learned High Court Judge has well considered all the relevant legal aspects in that regard and has come to a correct finding with sound reasoning that the plaintiff has locus standi to maintain this action, for which I again find no reason to disagree. In the impugned judgment, the learned High Court Judge has given extra attention to the claim of the 1st defendant that it was a 3rd party called Millapitiya that agreed to supply copper, and that he paid Rs. 7,000,000/- to him, to conclude that such a claim has no basis, and it was only a claim to justify the 1st defendant’s failure to supply copper as agreed. Since this is a determination that has been reached after having considered the evidence with utmost care, I find that the learned High Court Judge was correct when he reached the said determination. When it comes to the argument that the money was never demanded by the Korean company from the 1st defendant, I find no merit under any circumstances to sustain such an argument. The plaintiff’s evidence is clear and unambiguous that he, on numerous occasions, demanded from the 1st defendant to abide by the agreement to send 15 tonnes of copper to Korea or else to return the money. I am of the view that the demand has been well established before the trial Court. For the reasons as considered above, I find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Commercial High Court Judge, which is a judgment pronounced after having considered the evidence placed before the Court by both sides in its correct perspective, and after having given sound reasons as to his conclusions. Page 10 of 10 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment pronounced on 30-06-2017 is hereby affirmed. The 1st defendant shall pay a sum of Rs. 100,000/- as costs of this appeal to the plaintiff. I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover his costs in relation to the High Court suit as well. Judge of the Supreme Court Kumudini Wickremasinghe, J. I agree. Judge of the Supreme Court Arjuna Obeyesekere, J. I agree. Judge of the Supreme Court		Download
2025-07-31	SC/APPEAL/97/2018	1. Priyantha Serasundara 111/B8, Lakshapathiya Road, Lakshapathiya, Moratuwa. 2. N.H.S. Gamini 118/21, Mola Road, Katubedda, Moratuwa. 3. Wijesiri Peiris 25, Wanduramulla Watte, Wanduramulla, Panadura. 10. L.K.S. Malkanthi 70/A, Chakkindarama Road, Ratmalana. 12. D.K. Liyanage Nawa Janapadaya, Gamagoda, Kaluthara. 14. S.K. Vehella 85/15A, Polhengoda Road, Colombo 05. 21. M.B.S.P. Fernando 438, Station Road, Angulana, Moratuwa. AND OTHER PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS Vs. 1. Commissioner General of Labour Labour Secretariat, Colombo 05. 2. Gamini Lokuge Minister of Labour and Labour Relations, Labour Secretariat, Colombo 05. 3. Maliban Biscuit Manufactories Limited, No.389, Galle Road, Ratmalana. 4. Dr. Irvin Jayasuriya (Now Deceased) Arbitrator, Labour Secretariat, Colombo 05. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS 4. Saman Suranjith 119/28, Sri Gunendra Road, Ratmalana. 5. B. Susiripala Mendis 105/27, Sri Gunendra Road, Ratmalana. AND OTHERS View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J			Download
2025-07-31	SC/APPEAL/9/2017	Dewatage Chandrawathie, No. 54, Unique view road, Nuwara Eliya. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Venerable Banagala Upatissa Nayaka Thero, Yoshida Educational and Social Services, Foundation, Takiko Yoshida Mawatha, Sapugaskanda. Plaintiff - Appellant - Respondent View More	Hon. Menaka Wijesundera J			Download
2025-07-31	SC/FR/168/2020	1. R.M.S. Jayatissa No.1, S.T.F. Headquarters, Gonahena, Kadawatha. 2. P.J.S. Wijesinghe No. 132/15, Hiripitiya, Pannipitiya. 3. D.G.S. De Silva No. 82, George R.D. Silva Mawatha, Kotahena, Colombo 13. 4. T.F. Hadgie No. 85/2/B, Pamunuwa Road, Maharagama. 5. A.G.D.P. Amarasinghe No. 38, Mahasen Mawatha, Pallewela, Udubaddawa. 6. V.G.D.S. Samaranayake No. 05/A, Vihara Mawatha, Devala Road, Pamunuwa, Maharagama 7. H.M.D. Herath No. 824/2/1/A, 4th Lane, Jayamala Pura, Gampola. 8. H.K.R.A. Henepola No. A/3, S.T.F. Headquarters, Biyanwala, Kadawatha. 9. W.M.I.D.B. Wijekoon No. C/D, 9/20, Ranpokunugama, Nittambuwa. 10. R.A. Sisira Kumara No. A/04, S.T.F. Nagoda, Kalutara. AND OTHER PETITIONERS Vs. 1. C. D. Wickramaratne, Inspector General of Police (Actg), Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 1A. Deshabandu Tennakoon, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 1B. W. L. A. S. Priyantha, Inspector General of Police (Actg), Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. AND OTHERS View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J	IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of The Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. SC (FR) Application No: 1. R.M.S. Jayatissa 168/2020 No.1, S.T.F. Headquarters, Gonahena, Kadawatha. 2. P.J.S. Wijesinghe No. 132/15, Hiripitiya, Pannipitiya. 3. D.G.S. De Silva No. 82, George R.D. Silva Mawatha, Kotahena, Colombo 13. 4. T.F. Hadgie No. 85/2/B, Pamunuwa Road, Maharagama. 5. A.G.D.P. Amarasinghe No. 38, Mahasen Mawatha, Pallewela, Udubaddawa. 6. V.G.D.S. Samaranayake No. 05/A, Vihara Mawatha, Devala Road, Pamunuwa, Maharagama. 7. H.M.D. Herath No. 824/2/1/A, 4th Lane, Jayamala Pura, Gampola. 8. H.K.R.A. Henepola No. A/3, S.T.F. Headquarters, Biyanwala, Kadawatha. 9. W.M.I.D.B. Wijekoon No. C/D, 9/20, Ranpokunugama, Nittambuwa. 10. R.A. Sisira Kumara No. A/04, S.T.F. Nagoda, Kalutara. 11. E.S.R.S. Wickramasinghe No. 90/2, Bodhirukkarama Road, Nalluruwa, Panadura. 12. M. Rupasinghe Diyakolayaya, Badulla Gammana, Bibile. 13. R.M. Karunaratne Kongolla, Nannapurawa, Bibile. 14. N.A.K.K. Perera No.1, Police Quarters, Wadduwa. Page 2 of 27 15. N.W.A. Nihal Nanayakkara No. 48, Station Road, Balapitiya. 16. W.D.R. Priyantha, No. 32/A, Karunapaya Neraluwa, Diyalape, Akuressa. 17. D.D.D.K. Hettiarachchi No. 292/6/A, Makola North, Makola. 18. K.A.S. Karunarathne No. 503/6, Koswatta, Radhawana. 19. H.M.K. Wijesinghe No. 60, Lenadora. 20. K.W.G. Thusharasena No. 271/15/D3, Jaya Mawatha, Meegahawatta. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. C. D. Wickramaratne, Inspector General of Police (Actg), Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. Page 3 of 27 1A. Deshabandu Tennakoon, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 1B. W. L. A. S. Priyantha, Inspector General of Police (Actg), Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 2. K.W.E. Karalliyadda, Chairman, 2A. S.C.S. Fernando, Chairman, 2B. E.W.M. Lalith Ekanayake, Chairman, 3. Savithri D. Wijesekera, Member, 3A. S. Liyanagama, Member, 3B. D.K. Renuka Ekanayake, Member, 4. Y. L. M. Zawahir, Member, 4A. A.S.P.S.P. Sanjeewa, Member, 4B. K. Karunaharan, Member, 5. Tilak Collure, Member, 5A. N.S.M. Samsudeen, Member, 5B. P.G.S. Gamini De Silva, Member, 6. Gamini Nawarathne, Member, 6A. M.P.P. Perera, Member, 6B. D. Kapila Jayasuriya, Member, 7. Ashoka Wijethilaka, Member, 7A. G. Wickramage, Member, Page 4 of 27 8. G. Jeyakumar, Member, 8A. T.P. Paramaswaran, Member, 9. Nishantha A. Weerasinghe, Secretary, 9A. Samanthi Mihindukula, Secretary, 9B. Thamara D. Perera, Secretary, 2nd to 9th all of National Police Commission, Block No. 3, BMICH Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 10. R. L. Kodithuwakku, Deputy Inspector General of Police (Welfare), Mukthar Plaza, Grandpass Road, Colombo 14. 10A. Bimshani Jasinarachchi, Deputy Inspector General of Police (Welfare), Mukthar Plaza, Grandpass road, Colombo 14. 10B. Rohan Fernando, Senior Inspector General, Mukthar Plaza, Grandpass road, Colombo 14. 10C. Padmini Weerasooriya, W/Deputy Inspector General of Police (Welfare), Mukthar Plaza, Grandpass road, Colombo 14. Page 5 of 27 11. C.D. Wickramaratne, Senior Deputy Inspector General (Administration), Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 11A. Jagath Abeysiri Jayawardena, Senior Deputy Inspector General (Administration), Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 11B. D.G.N. Jayawardena, Senior Deputy Inspector General (Administration), Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 11C. L. S. Pathinayake, Senior Deputy Inspector General (Administration), Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 12. W.S.P. Jayasundara, Deputy Inspector General, Commandant of the Special Task Force, S.T.F. Headquarters, No. 223, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 13. Kamal Gunaratne WWV RWP RSP USP ndcpsc, Major General (Retd), Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Defence, No. 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 03. Page 6 of 27 13A. Kamal Gunaratne WWV RWP RSP USP ndcpsc, Major General (Retd), Secretary to State Ministry of Internal Security, Home Affairs and Disaster Management, State Ministry of Internal Security, Home Affairs and Disaster Management, “NilaMedura”, Elvitigala Mawatha, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 13B. Major General Jagath Alwis (Retd), Secretary, Ministry of Public Security, 14th Floor, “Suhurupaya”, Battaramulla. 13C. Mr. P. Viyani Gunathilaka, Secretary, Ministry of Public Security, 14th Floor, “Suhurupaya”, Battaramulla. 13D.Mr. Ravi Seneviratne, Secretary, Ministry of Public Security, 14th Floor, “Suhurupaya”, Battaramulla. 14. Malika Suriyapperuma, Senior Assistant Secretary to the Ministry of Law and Order, Ministry of Law and Order, “Suhurupaya”, Battaramulla. 15. S. Ranugge, Chairman, National Salaries and Cadre Commission, Room No. 2-116, B.M.I.C.H, Colombo 07. Page 7 of 27 15A. Upali Wijayaweera, Chairman, National Pay Commission, Room No. 2-116, B.M.I.C.H, Colombo 07. 15B.W.J.L.U. Jayaweera, Chairman, National Pay Commission, Room No. 2-116, B.M.I.C.H, Colombo 07. 16. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. 17. Hon. Justice Jagath Balapatabendi, Chairman, 17A. Sanath J. Ediriweera, Chairman, 18. Indrani Sugathadasa, Member, 18A. S. M. Mohamed, Member, 19. V. Shivagnanasothy, Member, 19A. N. H. M. Chithrananda, Member, 20. T.R.C. Ruberu, Member, 20A. Prof. N. Selvakkumaran, Member, 21. Ahamod Lebbe Mohamed Saleem, Member, 21A. M. B. R. Pushpakumara, Member, Page 8 of 27 22. Leelasena Liyanagama, Member, 22A. Dr. A. D. N. De Zoysa, Member, 23. Dian Gomes, Member, 23A. R. Nadarajapillai, Member, 24. Dilith Jayaweera, Member, 24A. C. Pallegama, Member, 25. W.H. Piyadasa, Member, 25A. G.S.A. De Silva P.C., Member, The 17th to 25th Added-Respondents all of: Public Service Commission, No.1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. RESPONDENTS Before Counsel : Janak De Silva, J. : K. Priyantha Fernando, J. : Sampath B. Abayakoon, J. : Viran Corea P.C. with Thilini Vidanagamage instructed by Sanjeewa Kaluarachchi for the Petitioners. Page 9 of 27 : Ganga Wakishta Arachchi, D.S.G., instructed by Rizni Firdous, S.S.A., only for the 2B, 3B, 4B, 7A, 8A, 9A, 10C, 11B, 14th, 15B and 16th Respondents. Argued on : 20-03-2025 Written Submissions : 11-07-2023 (By the Petitioners) : 04-04-2025 (By the Respondents) Decided on : 31-07-2025 Sampath B. Abayakoon, J. This is an application filed by the petitioners on 16-06-2020, alleging that the fundamental rights guaranteed to them in terms of Article 12(1) and/or Article 14(1)(g) of the Constitution have been infringed and/or continued to be infringed by the actions or inactions of any one or more of the respondents named, and seeking redress as sought for in the petition. When this matter was supported for Leave to Proceed on 23-02-2022, this Court, having considered the relevant facts and the circumstances, as well as the relevant law, decided to grant Leave to Proceed on the alleged infringement of Article 12(1) of the Constitution. The said Article of the Constitution which defines the right to equality reads as follows; 12(1). All persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law. At the hearing of this application, this Court heard the submissions of the learned President’s Counsel for the petitioners, and that of the learned Deputy Solicitor General (DSG) for the respondents. This Court also had the benefit of considering the written submissions tendered in determining this application. Page 10 of 27 The facts that led to this application can be summarized in the following manner. At the time this application was filed before this Court, all the petitioners were serving police officers of the Sri Lanka police who held different ranks, although some may have retired from the service by now. The petitioners belong to a group of police officers who had been injured resulting from terrorist activities on different occasions, while being engaged in their official duties, and continued to be in police service after their recovery. These are police officers who had earned at least one promotion after they sustained the said injuries. Having considered the necessity to grant special relief to those police officers who had received injuries due to terrorist activities, the then relevant Cabinet Minister has presented the Cabinet Memorandum No. 10/2015 dated 26-032015 to the Cabinet of Ministers proposing granting of relief. While classifying them under three categories, [document marked P5(a)] the Minister had sought Cabinet approval for the implementation of the said proposal. For the better understanding of the scheme of relief, I will now reproduce the said recommendations in its full, which reads as follows. න ිර්දේශය 1. එල්.ටී.ටී.ඊ. ත්‍රස්තවාදී ක්‍රියා ද ්තුදවන් වවද්‍ය ද ්තුන් මත 2014.05.18 දිනට දෙර විශ්‍රාම ගන්වනලද්‍ ස අනතුරටෙත්වූ දින සිට 2014.05.18 දින ද්‍ක්වා උසස්ීම් දනාලද්‍ න ිලධාරීන්/නිලධාරිනියන් සඳ ා ඊළඟ තනතුරට උසස් කිරීමටත්ව, 2. දමම කාලය තුළ අනතුරට ෙසු උසස්ීමක් ලබා ඇති නිලධාරීන්/නිලධාරිනියන් සඳ ා එම උසස්ීම අනතුරට ෙත්වූ දිනට දෙරද්‍ාතම කිරීමටත්ව, 3. වවද්‍ය නිර්දේශ මත සැ ැල්ු රාජකාරිවල දයාද්‍වා ඇති අනතුරට ෙත්වූ දින සිට දම් ද්‍ක්වා ක ිසිඳු උසස්ීමක් ලැබී දනාමැති නිලධාරීන් ා නිලධාරිනියන්ට විදශ්ෂ වැටුප් වර්ධක දද්‍කක් ලබාදීමටත්ව ඉ ත (1,2,3) කරුණුවලට අද්‍ාලව උසස්ීම් ා වැටුප් වර්ධක ලබාදීදම්දී එම නිලධාරීන් ා න ිලධාරිනියන්ට වැටුප්/විශ්‍රාම වැටුප් දගීමට ෙ ත ෙරිදි වාර්ිකව (ද්‍ළ ඇස්තදම්න්තුව) ර ුපියල් මිලියන 348 ක් වැය දේ. (...) Page 11 of 27 4. දමම උසස්ීම්වලට අද්‍ාල හිඟ වැටුප් 2009.05.18 දින සිට ෙමණක් දගීමටත්ව, 5. වැටුප් වර්ධක ලබාදීදම්දී 2009.05.18 දින සිට ඇති හිඟවැටුප් වර්ධක මුද්‍ල් ෙමණක් දගීමටත්ව, අමාතය මණ්ඩල අනුමැතිය අදප්ක්ෂා කරමි. The petitioners’ position is that they fall into to the 2nd group of police officers as detailed in the petition. The document marked P5(b), which is the relevant Cabinet Decision in relation to the above-mentioned Cabinet Memorandum, shows that the Cabinet of Ministers have decided on 23-05-2017 to approve the said Cabinet Memorandum, and the Secretary to the Cabinet has written to the relevant authorities who are vested with the responsibility of implementing the said Cabinet Decision, requiring them to implement the same. The relevant part of the said directive reads as follows; (i) එවකට ම ජන සාමය ස ක්‍රිස්තියානි ආගමික කටයුතු ඇමති තුමා ඉදිරිෙත්ව කල 2015-0326 දිනැති සංදේශදේ සඳ න් නිර්දේශ (1), (2), (3), (4), ස (5) සඳ ා අනුමැතිය ලබා දීම; ස (ii) ජාතික දොලිස් දකාම්ෂන් සභාව විමසමින් ඉ ත (i) හි සඳ න් තීරණය ක්‍රියාත්වමක කිරීම ප ිණිස අවශය පියවර ගන්න දලස නීතිය ා සාමය ස ද්‍ක්ිණ සංවර්ධන අමාතයංශදේ දල්කම් ට උෙදද්‍ස් දීම. The petitioners have marked and produced as P6, P6(a), P7, P8, P9, several communications that took place between the respondents named in the petition in relation to the implementation of the said Cabinet Decision. According to the averments of paragraph 15 of the petition, the petitioners have come to know that, at least one senior police officer who belong to the same category of officers as the petitioners, and who was also entitled to relief, had been granted relief in accordance with the Cabinet Decision, and the promotion he earned subsequent to his injuries had been backdated to the date of his Page 12 of 27 injury, namely to 27-05-2000. A copy of the letter written by the Secretary of National Police Commission to the Secretary of the Public Administration, Management, and Law and Order Ministry in that regard has been submitted marked as P10(b) to establish that fact. The petitioners have also written several letters and have made several representations to the relevant authorities requesting them to grant the reliefs approved by the Cabinet. It has been submitted further that, by Common Order No. 42/2019 dated 2201-2019, 340 police officers have also been granted relief in accordance with the said Cabinet Decision (document marked P18). By RTM 561 dated 18-03-2019, further 106 police officers have been granted relief (document marked P19), and by RTM 562 dated 18-03-2019, 438 police officers have been granted relief (document marked P20). Despite reliefs being granted to number of other police officers who fall within the other categories of officers referred in the Cabinet Decision, as well as to at least one senior police officer who was eligible under the same category of police officers as the petitioners, it has been their contention that they have not been granted their entitlement as to the said Cabinet Decision thus far, which amounts to a violation of their fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. When this matter was considered for granting of leave, the 1st respondent originally mentioned in the petition, namely, the then Inspector General of Police, filing limited objections to the granting of leave, has not disputed the fact that the petitioners were police officers who received injuries during the separatist conflict while being engaged in their official duties, and were serving police officers at the time of filing this application. The fact that they have earned and received promotions as mentioned in their petition had also not been disputed. The 1st respondent has not disputed the Cabinet Memorandum marked P5(a), and the Cabinet Decision in that regard marked P5(b). However, he had taken Page 13 of 27 up the position that the police officers qualified under the said Cabinet Decision have already been granted benefits thereon. Apart from the other documents marked along with these objections, the 1st respondent has marked another Cabinet Decision apparently taken on 26-012021, which was after the institution of this action, and has stated that steps have been taken to grant relief as per the said new Cabinet Decision, and if the petitioners are qualified under the same, they will receive their benefits as claimed. On the basis that the petitioners’ application is misconceived in law, vexatious and futile, and the petitioners have failed to establish that their fundamental rights have been violated, it has been prayed that the application should stand dismissed. It has also been claimed that the petitioners’ application is of out of time, and that the petitioners have failed to name the relevant parties as respondents of the application. At the hearing of this application, the learned President’s Counsel, for the petitioners was of the view that the legal objections taken up by the learned DSG as to the maintainability of the application before the Court cannot be sustained. He pointed out that the petitioners have come before the Court not to challenge the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers, but to challenge the continuing failure by the relevant authorities to grant relief as per the said Cabinet Decision, which amounts to clear discrimination, denying them the right to equality and equal protection of the law. Hence, it was his position that making the Cabinet of Ministers a party to this application would not arise. It was submitted that the petitioners have come before the Court well within the time limit permitted by law on the basis of continuing violation of their fundamental rights. Submitting as to the facts, it was the position of the learned President’s Counsel, that the petitioners have clearly demonstrated before the Court that they are entitled to receive benefits in terms of the 2nd recommendation in the relevant Cabinet Decision, and at least one senior officer of the police department who Page 14 of 27 fell within the same category has been given relief, which amounts to treating the petitioners differently. He also pointed out that the other officers who became entitled to relief under the other categories mentioned in the said Cabinet Paper have also been granted relief as admitted by the respondents, and leaving the petitioners out from granting relief amounts to a clear discrimination. The learned DSG who represented the Hon. Attorney General and the other respondents, submitted two legal arguments on the basis that the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain this application. It was submitted that the petition has been filed beyond the one-month period of the alleged infringement, and the Cabinet of Ministers should have been made parties to the action as it was the decision of the Cabinet that had been challenged. Making submissions as to the facts, it was her stand that the recommendation 1 and 2 of the contentious Cabinet Decision could only be applicable to those officers who retired prior to 18-05-2014 and not to the petitioners who were serving police officers. It was contended that the petitioners, if at all, stand entitle to receive benefits only in terms of the 3rd category of officers mentioned in the Cabinet Decision, which makes them entitled to two special salary increments only. It was stated that all the petitioners have already been granted two salary increments pursuant to P5(a) and P5(b), and therefore, they are attempting to misinterpret the said Cabinet Decision though they have already received their entitlement. Having scrutinized the petition before the Court, the relevant supporting documents filed, the objections raised as to the maintainability of this application, and the oral and written submissions, I will now proceed to consider whether petitioners are entitled to the reliefs as sought, or whether the fundamental rights application should stand dismissed as contented on behalf of the respondents. Page 15 of 27 I find that what the learned DSG had submitted in her written submissions, that the contention of the petitioners in relation to this petition had been that they also qualify to receive a further promotion, and to have it backdated as stipulated under the 2nd recommendation of the Cabinet Decision, was not correct, whereas, their contention had been to the effect that they are entitled to have the promotions they have already earned after sustaining respective injuries and while being in service backdated to the date of the injury they sustained while being engaged in their official duty. Having observed as such, I will now consider the legal objections raised to the effect that the relevant parties have not been named in the petition and that the application was out of time, before moving on to the facts of the matter, if necessary. It is abundantly clear that the petitioners have come before the Court not to challenge the Cabinet Memorandum dated 26-03-2015 or the Cabinet Decision taken in that regard on 23-05-2017. They have come before this Court on the basis that the subsequent actions of the respondents, where they have been deprived of their entitlements, amounts to violation of their fundamental rights. Therefore, it is my view that it was not necessary for the petitioners to name the Cabinet of Ministers as a party to this action. A person who alleges that his fundamental rights or language rights have been infringed or is about to be infringed by executive or administrative action needs to come before the Supreme Court within one month thereof in terms of Article 126(2) of the Constitution. As I have considered earlier, the petitioners have not come before the Court in order to challenge the Cabinet Decision taken on 23-05-2017. It is very much clear that with the directive by the Secretary to the Cabinet, to the relevant authorities to implement the Cabinet Decision, in fact, the relevant authorities which include the respondents mentioned have taken steps to implement the same, and had partly implemented the said decision in a phased-out manner. Page 16 of 27 This goes on to establish that the petitioners had clear legitimate expectations that they will also be granted relief in the similar manner. It was only after it became clear to the petitioners that they will not be granted the reliefs as approved by the Cabinet, but they will be considered on a different basis to that of the Cabinet Decision, they have come before the Court seeking relief. Hence, I am of the view that there exists no basis to consider that their application to Court was time barred in terms of the Article 126(2) of the Constitution. It is my considered view that the alleged infringement amounts to continuing violation of fundamental rights under that context. In the case of SC(FR) Application No. 542/2009 decided on 20-01-2021: Per Priyantha Jayawardena, PC, J., “Article 126(2) of the Constitution states that an application for infringement or imminent infringement of Fundamental Rights can be filed “within one month thereof” in the Supreme Court. The word “within” used in the said Article requires the period of one month to be calculated from the date of the alleged infringement, imminent infringement, or from the date on which the petitioner became aware of the alleged infringement, if knowledge on the part of the petitioner is required to establish the alleged infringement.” This question was also discussed in the case of Gamaethige Vs. Siriwardena (1988] 1 Sri L.R. 385. Per Fernando, J., “Three principles are discernible in regard to the operation of the time limit prescribed by Article 126(2). Time begins to run when the infringement takes place; if knowledge on the part of the petitioner is required (e.g of other instances by comparison with which the treatment meted out to him becomes discriminatory), time begins to run only when both infringement and knowledge exist.” Page 17 of 27 For the reasons as considered above, I am of the view that the two legal objections taken up by the learned DSG as to the maintainability of this application lacks merit. Moving on to the facts, since the Leave to Proceed was granted only on the alleged violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed in terms of Article 12(1) of the Constitution, I will limit my consideration to ascertain whether equality and the equal protection entitled to all persons before the law have been infringed. In Wijerathna Vs. Sri Lanka Ports Authority, SC/FR/256/17 SCM 11.12.2020, Kodagoda, J. held: “The concept of ‘equality’ was originally aimed at preventing discrimination based on or due to such immutable and acquired characteristics, which do not on their own make human being unequal. It is now well accepted that, the ‘right to equality’ covers a much wider area, aimed at preventing other ‘injustices’ too, that are recognized by law. Equality is now a right as opposed to a mere privileged or entitlement, and in the context of Sri Lanka a ‘Fundamental Right’, conferred on the people by the Constitution, for the purpose of curing not only injustices taking the manifestation of discrimination, but a host of maladies recognized by law. While all Fundamental Rights are of equal importance and value, the ‘right to equality’. The ability of human beings to live in contemporary societies (as opposed to merely existing), and develop and reap the fruits of social, scientific, economic and political developments, is based on their ability to exercise fully the ‘right to equality’. Similarly, for human civilizations may they be national or international to reap the full benefits of knowledge, skills, experience, talents and wisdom that people possess, people of such societies must enjoy the ‘right to equality’”. Page 18 of 27 In the case of M. Ashroff Rumy and Another Vs. Hon. Thalatha Athukorale, Minister of Justice & Prison Reforms, Ministry of Justice, SC/FR/ 230/2018, Jayantha Jayasuriya, P.C., C.J. held: “All persons should be treated equally. Therefore, setting out different criteria based on the area of service per se could lead to unequal treatment unless such differentia is based on justifiable objective criteria on valid reasons and one such criteria could be the competency in a particular language depending on the area of service. The Supreme Court in fact had accepted that classifications are allowed if they are not arbitrary and founded upon intelligible differentia. Ananda Dharmadasa and Others v Ariyaratne Hewage and Others ([2008] 2 SLR 19, Tuan Ishan Raban and Others v Members of the Police Commission ([2007] 2 SLR 351. The objective of this requirement is to treat equals equally and not unequally”. When it comes to the facts that led to this application, the respondents have not disputed at any time, the existence of the Cabinet Memorandum marked P5(a) and the subsequent Cabinet Decision dated 23-05-2017 marked P5(b). When reading the Cabinet Memorandum and the Cabinet Decision, it is clear that the Cabinet of Ministers have approved the Memorandum submitted by the Minister, to consider the police officers who come within the purview of the said recommendations under three categories. The letter issued by the Secretary to the Cabinet informing the relevant officials to implement the decision, which I have reproduced earlier, amply demonstrates that fact. I find that the said Cabinet Decision had never been rescinded by the Cabinet of Ministers at any time and very much in force. I find that all other Cabinet Decisions taken subsequently on the same subject have also been made based on the said original Cabinet Decision. Page 19 of 27 Under the circumstances, I find it necessary to consider whether the petitioners can be considered as police officers who fall within the 2nd group as determined by the Cabinet of Ministers, which has recommended that the police officers who received injuries due to L.T.T.E terrorist activities until 18-05-2014 and had received promotion of service thereafter, should have their promotions backdated to the date of injury they sustained. The document marked P-1 produced by the petitioners establishes the fact that the petitioners hold different ranks in Sri Lanka police service and were serving police officers at the time they filed this petition before the Court and were attached to different police stations in the country. The documents marked and produced along with the petition marked P2A to P2T sets out their letters of appointment as police officers and the ranks they held before they received their injuries in the line of duty. The documents marked P3A to P3T shows the medical assessments in relation to the petitioners after they sustained their respective injuries. The documents marked P4A to P4T establish the fact that subsequent to their injuries, that they have earned promotions within the service. I find that the 1st respondent being the Inspector General of Police had admitted the above in the limited objections he filed before the Court. The specific averment in the petition that a senior police officer who sustained injuries under similar circumstances earned a promotion thereafter, and had his promotion backdated to his date of injury had not been disputed either. It is my considered view that the Cabinet of Ministers, when deciding to act under the Cabinet Memorandum of the Subject Minister dated 26-03-2015, have not intended to create a distinction between the officers who received a promotion while in service and retired before 18-05-2014, and those who were still in service at that time after receiving a promotion, when recommending the relief under the 2nd head of the Cabinet Memorandum. Page 20 of 27 It appears that the learned DSG had heavily relied on the Cabinet Memorandum dated 05-08-2019 and the subsequent Cabinet Decision dated 10-09-2019 (documents marked 1R4 and 1R5) to argue that the petitioners, since they are serving police officers, are only entitled to receive two salary increments according to the Cabinet Decision, and the said relief has been granted to them, and also that since there is a new Cabinet Decision in this regard, the said decision, namely, 1R5, should be the decision that would be now applicable to the petitioners. It needs to be emphasized that what is considered here would be whether the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution have been infringed due to the continuing non-implementation of the Cabinet decision dated 23-05-2017 and not the cabinet decisions reached thereafter. It is very much clear to me even from the Cabinet Decision relied on by the learned DSG, that the Cabinet has never intended to rescind the previous Cabinet Decision under which the petitioners have sought relief from this Court. In fact, the intention and the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers had been to extend the reliefs granted by the Cabinet of Ministers on 23-05-2017 to a further group of police officers who have attained the retirement age or gone on retirement from 18-05-2014 up until 31-07-2019. It appears that the subsequent Cabinet Memorandum has been presented in a manner to show that the previous Cabinet Decision relates to two groups of police officers only by including the 2nd group of police officers mentioned in the previous Cabinet Decision under the 1st group, to make it look like the previous Cabinet Decision relates to only two groups of police officers, although it has specifically referred to the previous Cabinet Decision. Page 21 of 27 The relevant part of the said subsequent Cabinet Memorandum reads as follows. 2017.05.23 දිනැති අංක අමෙ/15/0391/606/017 ද්‍රණ අමාතය මණ්ඩල තීරණය අනුව අනුමත කරන ලද්‍ නිර්දේශයන් :- 2015.03.26 දිනැති අංක 10/2015 අමාතය මණ්ඩල සංදේශය අනුව දගන ඇති 2017.05.23 දිනැති අංක අමෙ/15/0391/606/017 අමාතය මණ්ඩල තීරණය මගින් එල්.ටී.ටී.ඊ. ත්‍රස්තවාදී ක්‍රියා ද ්තුදවන් තුවාල ලබා වවද්‍ය ද ්තූන් මත විශ්‍රාම ගන්වා ඇති න ිලධරයන් ස වවද්‍ය නිර්දේශ මත සැ ැල්ු රාජකාරිදේ දයාද්‍වා ඇති නිලධරයන් සඳ ා ෙ ත ෙරිදි කටයුතු කිරීමට සුදුසු බවට අනුමත කර ඇත. I. ත්‍රස්තවාදී ක්‍රියා ද ්තුදවන් ආබාධිතව වවද්‍ය ද ්තූන් මත 2014.05.18 දිනට දෙර ව ිශ්‍රාම ගන්වා ඇති නිලධරයන් දවනුදවන්, අනතුරට ෙත්වූ දින සිට වවද්‍ය ද ්තූන් මත විශ්‍රාම ගැන්ූ දින ද්‍ක්වා උසස්ීම් ලබාදී දනාමැති නිලධරයන් සඳ ා අනතුරට ලක්ූ දින සිට ඊළඟ තනතුරට උසස්ීම් ලබාදීම. අනතුරට ෙත්වූ දින සිට වවද්‍ය ද ්තූන් මත විශ්‍රාම ගැන්ූ දින ද්‍ක්වා කාලය තුල උසස්ීමක් ලබා ඇත්වනම්, එම ෙළමු උසස්ීම අනතුරට ෙත්වූ දිනට දෙර දෙරද්‍ාතම කිරීම. II. ත්‍රස්තවාදී ක්‍රියා ද ්තුදවන් ආබාධිතව වවද්‍ය නිර්දේශය මත සැ ැල්ු රාජකාරි වල දයාද්‍වා ඇති නිලධරයන් දවනුදවන්, අනතුරට ෙත්වූ දින සිට දම් ද්‍ක්වා කිසිදු උසස්ීමක් ලබා දනාමැති නිලධරයන් සඳ ා අනතුරට ෙත්වූ දිනට විදශ්ෂ වැටුප් වර්ධක දද්‍කක් ලබාදීමට. (එම අමාතය මණ්ඩල ෙත්‍රිකාදේ පිටෙත්ව ඇමුණුම 01 දලස අමුණා ඇත) However, the proposal submitted in the said Memorandum too clearly shows that the police officers who falls under the 2nd category of officers in terms of the original Cabinet Decision applicable to the petitioners, would get the benefits similar to the earlier Cabinet Decision if they had retired on or before 31-072019, by getting their promotions earned while in service backdated to the date where they sustained their injuries. Page 22 of 27 The said proposal which has later been approved by the Cabinet reads as follows. දයෝජනාව 2017.05.23 දිනැති අංක අමෙ/15/0391/606/017 ද්‍රණ අමාතය මණ්ඩල තීරණය මගින් අනුමත කරන ලද්‍ නිර්දේශයන් ප්‍රකාරව වරප්‍රසාද්‍ හිමි දනාූ නිලධරයන්දේ වර්ීකරණය ා ඒ අනුව ඔවුන් දවත ලබා දීමට දයෝජිත ස න ෙ ත ෙරිදි දේ. I. එල්.ටී.ටී.ඊ. ත්‍රස්තවාදී ක්‍රියා ද ්තුදවන් අබාධිතව වවද්‍ය ද ්තූන් මත 2014.05.18 දින සිට 2019.07.31 දින ද්‍ක්වා කාල සීමාව ඇතුලත විශ්‍රාම ගන්වන ලද්‍ ස අනතුරට ෙත්වූ දින සිට ව ිශ්‍රාම ගන්වන දිනය ද්‍ක්වා උසස්ීම් දනාලද්‍ නිලධරයන් සද්‍ ා අනතුර සිදුූ දිනට බලෙැවැත්වදවන ෙරිදි ඊළඟ තනතුරට උසස්කිරීමටත්ව, (this is very much similar to the 1st proposal in the Cabinet Decision dated 23-05-2017, the only difference being that the said relief has been extended to a period up to 31-07-2019) II. එල්.ටී.ටී.ඊ. ත්‍රස්තවාදී ක්‍රියා ද ්තුදවන් අබාධිතව වවද්‍ය ද ්තූන් මත 2014.05.18 දින සිට 2019.07.31 දින ද්‍ක්වා කාල සීමාව තුල විශ්‍රාම ගන්වන ලද්‍ ස අනතුරට ෙත්වූ දිදනන් ෙසු දජයෂ්ඨත්වවය ස කුසලතාවය ෙද්‍නම් කරදගන සාමානය ෙරිදි උසස්ීම් ලබා ඇති නිලධරයන් අනතුරට ෙත්වූ දිදනන් ෙසු ලබා ඇති ෙළමු උසස්ීම අනතුරට ෙත්වූ දිනට දෙරද්‍ාතම කිරීමටත්ව, In my view, this Cabinet Decision will again leave out some of the petitioners, some of them who may have retired by now, which amounts to treating them differently to those who benefitted by the Cabinet Decision dated 25-03-2017. I do not find an acceptable basis for the argument advanced by the learned DSG that the petitioners should fall under the 3rd category of police officers mentioned in the Cabinet Decision dated 26-05-2015. In my view, the 3rd category of police officers are the police officers who have not received any promotion up until the date of the said Cabinet Decision and who have been assigned to perform light duties due to the level of injuries they have sustained, and not the petitioners who had received promotions but still in the active service. I am of the view that the respondents cannot move away from their obligations by granting the petitioners only two salary increments, as that was not the Page 23 of 27 intention of the Cabinet of Ministers when they reached the relevant Cabinet Decision on 23-05-2017. I find that the relevant Cabinet Decision applicable to the petitioners has been reached clearly on the consideration of the police officers under three categories, namely; (a) who were retired by that time without having earned a promotion; (b) the police officers who have earned a promotion after their injury irrespective of the fact whether they are still serving police officers or not; (c) and those police officers who were still serving at the time of the original Cabinet Decision but performing light duties, and have not earned any promotion since their date of the injury; It needs to be noted further, in the correspondence the respondents have had within the Police Department and with other relevant authorities, copies of which had been marked along with the petition, it had never been suggested that the relevant Cabinet Decision has grouped the relevant police officers under two categories as argued during the hearing of this matter on behalf of the respondents, but under three categories as in the said Cabinet Decision. It seems to me that arguing this matter based on a Cabinet Decision taken on 10-09-2019 would not have arisen if the relevant authorities had acted promptly by giving effect to the Cabinet Decision reached on 23-05-2017. If that had happened as it should have, the petitioners ought to have been granted the reliefs long before the Cabinet Decision relied on by the learned DSG, which makes considering the issue based on a subsequent decision irrelevant. The fundamental rights jurisdiction has been well evolved in a manner that even if a single person belonging to one category of persons who falls within that category has been treated differently, such a treatment amounts to the violation of the fundamental rights of the other members of the same category of persons. Page 24 of 27 In the case of Perera Vs. Jayawickrema (1985) 1 Sri L.R. 285, Sharvananda, C.J. (with Ranasinghe J., Abdul Carder J., Atukorale J., Tambiah J, and De Alwis J. agreeing) delivered the majority opinion of the Court. The Chief Justice stated that a person claiming to be discriminated against must show that there was at least one other person similarly situated or equally circumstanced; that he had been treated differently from others and that there was no reasonable basis for such differential treatment, ‘Discrimination can exist only where two persons or two subjects are treated in different ways. It arises only from two dissimilar treatments and not from similar treatments.’ As per C.W. Mackie and Co. Ltd Vs. Hugh Molagoda, Commissioner General of Inland Revenue and Others (1986) 1 Sri L.R. 301; “In order to sustain the plea of discrimination based upon Article 12(1) a party will have to satisfy the Court about two things, (1) that he has been treated differently from others, (2) that he has been differently treated from persons similarly circumstanced without any reasonable basis.” In the case of Rienzie Perera and Another Vs. University Grants Commission (1978-79-80) 1 SLR 128; Per Sharvananda, J., “A person relying on a plea of unlawful discrimination must set out with sufficient particulars his plea showing how, between persons similarly circumstanced, discrimination has been made, which discrimination is founded on no intelligible differentia. If the petitioner establishes similarity between persons who are subjected to differential treatment, it is for the State to establish that the differentia is based on a rational object sought to be achieved by it. But where similarity is not shown, the plea as to infringement of Article 12 must fail.” “To make out a case of denial of the equal protection, a plea of differential treatment is by itself not sufficient. The petitioner, pleading that Article 14 Page 25 of 27 has been violated, must make out that not only had he been treated differently from others, but that he has been so treated from persons similarly circumstanced without any reasonable basis and such differential treatment is unjustifiable.”- Probhudas Morarjee Vs. Union of India (1966) S.C. 1044. (The Article 14 considered here is the corresponding Article to Article 12 of our Constitution) As mentioned previously, it is clear that one senior police officer, who belonged to the same category of police officers as the petitioners and was entitled to relief, had been granted the said relief, and his subsequent promotion has been backdated to the date of his injury, thereby treating the petitioners differently, although all of them were similarly circumstanced. For the above reasons as considered, I am of the view that the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed in terms of Article 12(1) had been infringed by treating them differently and in contrary to the relevant Cabinet Decision, which has resulted in their fundamental rights continued to be infringed. Therefore, I hold that the petitioners are entitled for relief for the infringement of their fundamental rights. Accordingly, I direct the 1B respondent or whoever the person holding the post of the Inspector General of Police, The National Police Commission, namely 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7A, and 8A respondents, and also 13D respondent, the Secretary of Ministry of Public Security, to take immediate meaningful steps to backdate the 1st promotion earned by the petitioners while serving in the Police Department as police officers of various ranks after they received injuries due to the L.T.T.E. terrorist activities, to the date of them sustaining their respective injuries. The respondents shall liaise with other relevant authorities and take necessary steps to grant the said relief within a period of four months from the date of this judgment. Page 26 of 27 Having considered the relevant facts, circumstances and the facts relating to the nature of the infringement of the petitioners’ fundamental rights, I do not think that this is a proper instance where compensation should be ordered. However, I direct the State shall pay a cost of Rs. 100,000/- to the petitioners as the costs of this application. Janak De Silva, J. I agree. K. Priyantha Fernando, J. I agree. Judge of the Supreme Court Judge of the Supreme Court Judge of the Supreme Court Page 27 of 27		Download
2025-07-31	SC/APPEAL/73/2013	1. Nawagamage Ishani Udeshika Perera, No.289/1/1, Dean’s Road, Colombo 10. and presently at 955/5B3, Royal Gardens, Rajagiriya. 2. Pemseeli Aloma Perera 3. Nawagamage Richard Perera, Both of No. 289 1/1, Dean’s Perera, Colombo 10. 3A. Nawagamuwa Ishari Udeshika Perera, No. 289 1/1, Dean’s Road, Colombo 10. and presently at 955/5B3, Royal Gardens, Rajagiriya. PLAINTIFFS– APPELLANTS - APPELLANTS v. Asithanjan Panduka Sena Amarasinghe. No.79/1, Jambugasmulla Road, Nugegoda. DEFENDANT - RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT View More	Hon. M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J			Download
2025-07-30	SC/APPEAL/59/2011	Siyambalapiti Mudalige Ariyalatha Athukorala No. 15, “Kethumathi”, 4th Lane, Polhena, Kelaniya. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Upul Kumara Jayaratne No. 580/L, Kanatta Road, Kiribathgoda, Kelaniya. And/or No. 121, Kandy Road, Kiribathgoda, Kelaniya. 3. People’s Bank People’s Bank Head Office, Sri Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 1st and 3rd Defendant-Respondents AND Siyambalapiti Mudalige Ariyalatha Athukorala (Deceased) No. 15, “Kethumathi”, 4th Lane, Polhena, Kelaniya. Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellants 1. Kariyapperuma Athokoralage Janaka Harendra Athukoralla No. 300G, St. Mary’s Road, Welivita, Kaduwela. 2. Shamini Indika Athokoralage No. 300/G, St. Mary’s Road, Welivita, Kaduwela. Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioners Vs. 1. Upul Kumara Jayaratne (Deceased) No. 580/L, Kanatta Road, Kiribathgoda, Kelaniya. And/or No. 121, Kandy Road, Kiribathgoda, Kelaniya. 1st Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 1a. Kalubowila Pattiyage Rajindra Kushani Peiris 1b. Gammada Dadayakkara Koralage Akila Shehan Jayaratna 1c. Gammada Dadayakkara Koralage Ishan Thiwanka Jayaratna 1d. Gammada Dadayakkara Koralage Thakshina Pansilu Jayaratna All of: No. 580/L, Kanatta Road, Kiribathgoda, Kelaniya. And/or No. 121, Kandy Road, Kiribathgoda, Kelaniya. Substituted 1st Defendant-Respondent-Respondents 3. People’s Bank People’s Bank Head Office, Sri Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 3rd Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda PC J			Download
2025-07-30	SC/FR/245/2019	Abdul Raheem Masaheena No. 1167, Pudalugasyaya, Kolongoda. Petitioner Vs. 1. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 2. J.P. Chandana Nishantha Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Hasalaka. 3. Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. Respondents View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda PC J	SC/FR 245/2019 - Abdul Raheem Masaheena vs. Hon. Attorney-General and 2 Others - Judgment 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Articles 17 & 126 of the Constitution. Abdul Raheem Masaheena No. 1167, Pudalugasyaya, Kolongoda. Petitioner Vs. SC. FR. NO. 245/2019 1. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 2. J.P. Chandana Nishantha Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Hasalaka. 3. Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. Respondents BEFORE : YASANTHA KODAGODA, PC, J. KUMUDINI WICKREMASINGHE, J. & A.L. SHIRAN GOONERATNE, J. SC/FR 245/2019 - Abdul Raheem Masaheena vs. Hon. Attorney-General and 2 Others - Judgment 2 COUNSEL : Pulasthi Hewamanna with Ms. Irfana Imran, Ms. Harini Jayawardhana, Ms. Fadhila Fairoze and Ms. Linuri Munasinghe instructed by Fathima Nushra Zarook for the Petitioner. Ms. V. Hettige, ASG, instructed by Ms. Rizni Firdous, SSA, for the Respondents. ARGUED & DECIDED ON : 30th July 2025 JUDGMENT YASANTHA KODAGODA, PC., J. Nature of the action 1. By filing this Application, the Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 126 read with Article 17 of the Constitution. Following the Application being supported, this Court had granted Leave to Proceed under Articles 12(1) and 13(1) of the Constitution. Case of the Petitioner 2. The Petitioner is a 47-year-old female citizen of Sri Lanka of Islamic faith and, at the time of the incident, domiciled in Hasalaka in the Kandy District. She does not appear to have received a good education. Throughout her adult life, has worked as a housemaid, pri-marily in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Her husband is a labourer. She had returned to Sri Lanka in November 2017 and has since been employed as a tailor. 3. On 17th May 2019, having left home in the morning to attend to certain personal affairs, she returned home around noon. Shortly thereafter, a police officer [later identified as the Officer-in-Charge (Traffic) of the Hasalaka Police Station] had arrived at her resi-dence and questioned her daughter about a female who had worn a dress with an image of the Dharmachakra printed on it. (I shall provide a description of the Dharmachakra and comment on its significance at a subsequent point in this Judgment.) The Petitioner, who had been dressed in the same maxi gown she had worn earlier that day, came forward and presented herself to the police officer. On seeing the Petitioner wearing the dress, he had taken a phone call and spoken to the 2nd Respondent [Officer-in-Charge of the Hasa-laka Police Station] and informed him that the dress the Petitioner was wearing did not, in fact, depict the Dharmachakra. However, using his mobile phone, the police officer had SC/FR 245/2019 - Abdul Raheem Masaheena vs. Hon. Attorney-General and 2 Others - Judgment 3 taken a photograph of the Petitioner wearing the dress and had presumably transmitted it to the 2nd Respondent. Thereafter, he left the Petitioner’s residence. 4. Shortly afterwards, a group of police officers had arrived at the residence of the Peti-tioner, explained to her that they were acting on the instructions of the 2nd Respondent, and had asked her to take a change of clothes and accompany them to the police station. After she had changed her clothes, the officers had taken custody of the maxi gown she was previously wearing. When being arrested, she was informed that the allegation against her was that she had, with full knowledge, worn a dress containing an image of the Dharmachakra. She was also told that the police had received several complaints re-garding the Petitioner having worn the particular dress. Consequent thereto, the Peti-tioner had been taken in the police jeep to the Hasalaka Police Station. 5. At the police station, the Petitioner had been instructed by the 2nd Respondent to once again wear the maxi gown over the dress she was wearing, and had been questioned as to the circumstances under which she acquired the dress. In response, the Petitioner had explained that she received it as a gift from her employer when she was employed in Kuwait as a housemaid. She had also said that she had been wearing the dress in public for approximately a year, without any objection from the public. Later, the Petitioner’s statement had been recorded in the Sinhala language (which she claims she does not understand properly), and she was detained overnight in police custody. 6. The following day, the Petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate of the Mahiyanganaya Magistrate’s Court, and criminal proceedings were initiated against her. The Petitioner had been represented before the learned Magistrate by an Attorney-at-Law retained on her behalf by her daughter. He had moved the learned Magistrate to enlarge the Petitioner on bail. However, the learned Magistrate declined the application on the premise that the police had framed an allegation against the Petitioner under sec-tion 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Act (ICCPR Act) and since the police were objecting to the grant of bail. The Petitioner had subsequently come to know that the police had framed an additional allegation as well, stating that she had also committed an offence under section 291B of the Penal Code. Having been denied bail, the Petitioner had been placed in remand custody. On 27th May 2019, when the matter was called in open Court, another application for bail had been made on her be-half by her Attorney-at-Law, to which the police had once again objected. Accordingly, she was denied bail, and her remand was extended. On 3rd June 2019, when the Peti-tioner’s case was taken up, the police had informed Court that they had sought the ad-vice of the Attorney-General and had been advised to notify the learned Magistrate that the police were dropping the allegation against the Petitioner under section 3 of the IC-CPR Act. Consequently, the learned Magistrate had granted bail to the Petitioner. 7. After several days of the Petitioner’s case being called in the Magistrate’s Court, and following the Attorney-General by his letter dated 12th December 2019 notifying the learned Magistrate that criminal proceedings would not be instituted against the SC/FR 245/2019 - Abdul Raheem Masaheena vs. Hon. Attorney-General and 2 Others - Judgment 4 Petitioner, she had been discharged from proceedings before the Mahiyanganaya Mag-istrate’s Court. This brought about an end to her ordeal. Case of the Respondents 8. The position of the 2nd Respondent, contained in his affidavit to this Court, is that in the aftermath of the terrorist bombings of 21st April 2019 (Easter Sunday), on 17th May 2019 (the day of the Petitioner’s arrest), the villagers of the Kolongoda area had been making preparations to celebrate Vesak Poya which was to dawn on the following day. The Pe-titioner had been “wondering several times in a suspicious manner”, which had attracted the attention of the villagers, resulting in a commotion. He had received a telephone call regarding what had happened, and therefore, he had dispatched a team of police officers to the location where the commotion had arisen. At the scene, the team of police officers had observed a large number of persons gathered around the Petitioner as the Petitioner was conducting herself in a suspicious manner. The 2nd Respondent has also alleged that “reasonable suspicion had arisen among the villagers that the Petitioner belonged to an extremist group” and thus, the villagers had requested that the Petitioner be investigated. 9. Elsewhere in the affidavit, the 2nd Respondent has stated that the police had received complaints from villagers that the Petitioner had been “parading about in a suspicious man-ner wearing an item of clothing which allegedly had the impression of a Dharmachakra, a vener-ated symbol and thus bringing disrepute to Buddhism and therefore it was necessary to investi-gate into the matter”. According to the 2nd Respondent, due to these reasons, the Petitioner was arrested and taken to the Hasalaka Police Station. Analysis of the evidence and conclusions reached 10. It appears from the affidavit of the 2nd Respondent that there are two narratives as to the circumstances under which the Petitioner was arrested. Additionally, according to “2R1”, which contains an extract of the notes of investigation entered by the 2nd Re-spondent in the Minor Crimes Information Book of the Hasalaka Police Station (pro-duced before this Court as an attachment to the affidavit of the 2nd Respondent), on 17th May 2019, based on an ‘information’ received from a private informant stating that “a Muslim person wearing apparel containing an image of the Dharmachakra was moving about in the area of Kolongoda”, he (the 2nd Respondent) had set off from the Police Station to in-vestigate into the matter. He had also instructed Sub-Inspector Herath, who was on mo-bile duty, to investigate the matter. On the way, he had been informed by Police Sergeant Anura that he had met the person in issue, and that she was not wearing apparel con-taining an image of the Dharmachakra. Nevertheless, the 2nd Respondent had proceeded further and had met the Petitioner at Dahemigama. On that occasion, the Petitioner was wearing apparel containing an image of the Dharmachakra. A group of young persons, agitated by the dress the Petitioner was wearing at the time, were following the Peti-tioner. Due to these circumstances, the 2nd Respondent had arrested the Petitioner on the basis that she was conducting herself in a manner that was arousing hatred of members of other religious communities and causing religious disharmony. SC/FR 245/2019 - Abdul Raheem Masaheena vs. Hon. Attorney-General and 2 Others - Judgment 5 11. In the Report under section 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act (commonly re-ferred to as the ‘B Report’) filed in the Magistrates Court of Mahiyanganaya on the occa-sion of producing the Petitioner before the learned Magistrate (marked “2R5” and at-tached to the affidavit of the 2nd Respondent), the 2nd Respondent has reported that on 17th May 2019, while patrolling the areas of Udawela, Dehemigama and Kolongoda, he observed a female wearing a yellow coloured dress with an image resembling the Dhar-machakra printed on the dress. He had stopped her and questioned her. When he started to question her, people in the surrounding area had gathered around her and shouted “certain things” about the dress she was wearing. Accordingly, he had arrested the Peti-tioner for having committed an offence under section 291B of the Penal Code and section 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Act. 12. Thus, it can be seen in these four narratives (two versions in the affidavit submitted to this Court, another version in the Report submitted to the Magistrate’s Court and a fourth version in the Notes of Investigation) relating to the circumstances pertaining to the arrest of the Petitioner, the 2nd Respondent has provided contradictory versions of events pertaining to (a) the manner in which he got to know of the incident relating to the Petitioner wearing the dress in issue, (b) how he set in motion the process that re-sulted in the arrest of the Petitioner, (c) his own conduct in the field culminating in the arrest of the Petitioner, (d) who arrested the Petitioner and under what circumstances, and (e) the stage at which the crowd reacted to the dress worn by the Petitioner. These discrepancies appear ex-facie in the version of events presented to this Court by the 2nd Respondent. Furthermore, no attempt has been made by the 2nd Respondent to discredit the version of the Petitioner by presenting to this Court an affidavit from the Officer-in-Charge of the Traffic Division of the Hasalaka Police Station, who, according to the Pe-titioner, had gone over to her residence after the Petitioner returned home and inter-viewed her and took a photograph of her wearing the dress in issue. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the version of events presented by the 2nd Respondent, due to a lack of consistency and the absence of reliable evidence which could have been used to refute the Petitioner’s version of events. In the given circumstances, I accept the version of events presented to this Court by the Petitioner, which the 2nd Respondent has failed to effectively assail. 13. Be that as it may, it remains undisputed that during the morning hours of 17th May 2019, while walking about in the Hasalaka area, the Petitioner was wearing a yellow-coloured dress, which contained an image purportedly resembling the Dharmachakra. It is also publicly known that, on 21st April 2019 (Easter Sunday), a group of Islamic extremist terrorists carried out a series of suicide bombings, which resulted in the killing of 250 innocent civilians and caused serious bodily injuries to over 500 others who had peace-fully and faithfully congregated for prayers at several churches on that holy day. This attack also caused extensive damage to several churches and hotels. These terrorist at-tacks left the entire nation petrified in shock and disbelief, and in utter fear of the possi-bility of further attacks being launched. Thus, a key issue to be considered is whether, in the immediate aftermath of those horrific terrorist attacks, and given the collective and SC/FR 245/2019 - Abdul Raheem Masaheena vs. Hon. Attorney-General and 2 Others - Judgment 6 individual state of mind of the public, marked by heightened emotions, irrational reactions, and hyper-sensitivity, the Petitioner, by wearing the aforementioned attire and moving about in public places, committed an offence, particularly under section 291B of the Penal Code and section 3 of the ICCPR Act. 14. The Dharmachakra or the ‘Wheel of Dharma’ [ ], containing a hub, eight radial spokes, and a rim, is a sacred symbol primarily associated with Buddhism. It represents Lord Buddha’s teachings and the path proclaimed by him to be necessary to reach the cessation of the recurrence of life. Buddhists believe that it signifies the turning of the wheel of truth and the continuous cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, which Lord Buddha had preached, should be breached in order to end suffering and the recurrence of life. He had preached that it can be achieved by following the noble eightfold path, which is founded upon ethical and spiritual principles contained in the Dhamma (Lord Buddha’s teachings). The Dharmachakra is a symbolic visual representation of that noble eightfold path. It is said to represent Lord Buddha’s first sermon to his first set of disciples, titled the Dharma Chakra Pavathvana Suthra. The Dharmachakra is recognized as the symbol of Buddhism across all major Buddhist traditions, namely Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana. The Dharmachakra is prominently featured in the national emblem of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. It appears at the crest of the emblem, symbolizing the country’s deep-rooted Buddhist heritage and the requirement for governance according to Buddhist principles. It is also found at the apex of the emblem of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka and is prominently displayed in the body of the emblem of the Sri Lanka Police together with its motto “Dhammo Havei Rakkhathi Dhamachari” (“The one who lives by the Dhamma is protected by the Dhamma.”). In India, the Dharmachakra is a profound symbol of spiritual law, moral governance, and national identity, associated with the mythical universal benevolent king Chakravarthi. It is also prominently featured as the Ashoka Chakra of Emperor Ashoka (3rd century BCE) and is embedded in the centre of India’s national flag. Thus, quite understandably, the Dharmachakra is held sacred in the Indian sub-continent and is deeply respected by Buddhists world over. 15. In a plural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and multi-cultural society such as that of Sri Lanka, the recognition, status, the symbolic importance and the veneration of the Dharmachakra [ ] is similar to that of the Holy Cross [ ] to Christians, Om (Aum) [ ] to the Hindus, and the crescent moon and the five-pointed star [ ] to the Muslims of Islamic faith. Indeed, these four religious symbols are much respected and venerated by those of the respective faiths and held in high esteem by others as well. Some wear their respective religious symbols in the form of a pendant as a means of identification, expression of faith, and in expectation of spiritual protection. However, it is certainly not accepted by Sri Lankans that a religious symbol such as the Dharmachakra, or for that matter, the Holy Cross, Om, or the crescent moon and the five-pointed star, be printed on a dress such and for such dress to be worn in public. Doing so would be treated as a display of disrespect and thus would understandably not be tolerated by a vast majority of People. Therefore, any disrespect to the Dharmachakra or to any of the SC/FR 245/2019 - Abdul Raheem Masaheena vs. Hon. Attorney-General and 2 Others - Judgment 7 other religious symbols is unlikely to be taken lightly by those of the respective faith, and is likely to arouse resentment, hurt, and even public disquiet. 16. We have been shown a coloured photograph of the Petitioner wearing the apparel in issue (a yellow-coloured maxi dress) containing the image or diagrammatic representa-tion in issue, and it is my view that from the perspective of a reasonably prudent human being considering the matter objectively, the image in issue cannot necessarily and une-quivocally be identified as the Dharmackakra. It is more similar to a brown-coloured helm (ship’s wheel), particularly because the radiating spokes extend quite a distance beyond the outer rim. Be that as it may, I am ready to accept the view that, given the state of mind of the general public that prevailed in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist at-tacks of Easter Sunday 2019 and their difficulty in distinguishing the difference between the Dharmachakra and the image printed on the dress worn by the Petitioner, certain members of the public who may have seen the Petitioner wearing the dress in issue, may have formed the view that she was wearing a maxi dress which had the Dharmachakra printed on it. Therefore, if certain individuals who saw the Petitioner wearing that dress felt offended or hurt and took objection to the Petitioner wearing that dress, this Court can very well understand that public reaction. 17. However, according to the Petitioner, when she was walking about in public places, no member of the public had raised any objection to her dress in a manner that attracted her own attention. Even if this Court were to consider one out of the four narratives of the 2nd Respondent (which I have rejected for good reason), there had been no outward reaction by the public or a breach of the peace as a result of the Petitioner wearing the dress in issue and walking about in public. All that the public had wanted was to have the Petitioner investigated. 18. The core allegation of the 2nd Respondent is that the Petitioner, by wearing the afore-stated apparel, had caused an outrage of the religious feelings of the Buddhist commu-nity and had thereby committed offences under sections 291B of the Penal Code and section 3 of the ICCPR Act. 19. Section 291B provides as follows: Whoever, with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of persons, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 20. It is seen from section 291B that the offence contained therein recognizes both a mens rea and an actus reus as constituent ingredients of the offence. The mens rea is that the im-pugned conduct of the alleged offender must have been committed ‘with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of persons’. The actus reus of the offence is that the offender used ‘words, either spoken or written’ or with the aid SC/FR 245/2019 - Abdul Raheem Masaheena vs. Hon. Attorney-General and 2 Others - Judgment 8 of ‘visible representations’ engaged in ‘insulting’ or ‘attempting to insult’ the ‘religion’ or the ‘religious beliefs’ of a ‘class of persons’. From the material placed before this Court, it is apparent that, though it can be argued that the Petitioner, by wearing in public an ap-parel which contained diagrammatic images of an object similar to the Dharmachakra, used a visible representation, it is not possible to reasonably allege that when she did so, the Petitioner bore an intention to insult or attempt to insult Buddhism or the religious beliefs of persons of Buddhist faith. Thus, it is not possible to conclude that the Petitioner was accountable for having committed an offence under section 291B of the Penal Code. 21. This Court recalls that in the case of Naomi Mischelle Coleman vs. The Hon. Attorney General and others [SC/FR 136/2014, SC Minutes of 15th November 2017], the Supreme Court, having considered the case of a female of foreign nationality who had soon after arriving in Sri Lanka been arrested for having sported a tattoo on her hand of the face of Lord Buddha upon a lotus, had arrived at the finding that such conduct did not consti-tute an offence and therefore, her arrest and subsequent deportation was held to consti-tute an infringement of her Fundamental rights. 22. Section 3(1) of the ICCPR Act provides as follows: No person shall propagate war or advocate national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. 23. Unlike section 291B of the Penal Code, section 3(1) of the ICCPR Act does not explicitly contain a mens rea. To constitute the offence (contained in section 3(1)), the purported offender must engage in the propagation of war or engage in advocacy which takes the manifestation of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement of dis-crimination, hostility or violence. Even if this Court were to accept as being true one out of the several narratives of the 2nd Respondent regarding the events that led to the arrest of the Petitioner, it would be seen that the Petitioner had in no way engaged in the prop-agation of war or engaged in advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred. While not-ing that wearing a particular apparel can be a form of expression and therefore can be a form of communication aimed at advocating a particular point of view, it is abundantly clear that in the instance which led to the arrest of the Petitioner, she had not engaged in any such expression for the purpose of advocacy aimed at discrimination, hostility, or violence. Therefore, it is not possible to hold the Petitioner accountable for having com-mitted an offence under section 3(1) of the ICCPR Act. 24. In these circumstances, it is well understood as to why the Attorney-General, having examined the investigational material, decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the Petitioner and advised the police to cause her discharge from proceedings before the Magistrate’s Court. 25. When questioned by Court, learned State Counsel submitted that the Petitioner had been arrested by the 2nd Respondent in terms of section 32(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Pro-cedure Act. In Mohamed Razik Mohamed Ramzy vs. B.M.A.S.K. Senaratne, Chief SC/FR 245/2019 - Abdul Raheem Masaheena vs. Hon. Attorney-General and 2 Others - Judgment 9 Inspector of Police and Others [SC/FR 135/2020, SC Minutes of 14th November 2023], this Court observed the following: “When separated into its constituent ingredients, section 32(1)(b) can be depicted in the following manner: Any peace officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant arrest any person (a) who has been concerned in any cognizable offence or (b) against whom (i) a reasonable complaint has been made or (ii) credible information has been received or (iii) a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so concerned. Therefore, for a peace officer to be authorized by law to arrest a person (suspect) for having committed a cognizable offence, one of the following should have occurred - (i) the peace officer should have by himself formed an objective opinion that the sus-pect has been concerned in the commission of a cognizable offence; (ii) the peace officer should have either directly received a complaint or must be aware that a complaint has been made against the suspect, and he should have formed the objective opinion that such complaint against the suspect (that he has been concerned in committing a cognizable offence) is reasonable; (iii) the peace officer should have either directly received information or should be aware that information has been received against the suspect, and he should have formed the objective opinion that such information is credible and gives rise to the allegation that the suspect has been concerned in the commission of a cognizable of-fice; or (iv) the peace officer should have developed reasonable suspicion that the suspect has been concerned in the commission of a cognizable offence. It would be seen that a condition precedent for the arrest of a person under any one of the four situations referred to above, is the (a) commission of an offence, and (b) a factual and situa-tional connection between the commission of that offence and the person being arrested. In other words, before causing the arrest of a person, the peace officer who seeks to arrest that person must be satisfied founded upon reasonable grounds that the impugned conduct consti-tutes an offence and that one of the four situational and factual connections between the commission of that offence and the person being arrested, exists. This should not be under-stood as insistence that the arresting officer should possess strict proof that the suspect had committed an offence. Thus, unless, it can be established that an offence recognized by the laws of Sri Lanka has been committed, the law would not permit the arrest of a person for the conduct attributed to him. In fact, a criminal justice measure in the nature of the arrest of the suspected offender can be taken, only if the impugned conduct constitutes an offence. In this regard, it is necessary to SC/FR 245/2019 - Abdul Raheem Masaheena vs. Hon. Attorney-General and 2 Others - Judgment 10 note that the entire spectrum of criminal justice measures is those that have a bearing on the liberty of the person against whom such measures are taken. Thus, both procedurally and substantively, it is necessary to take such measures strictly in accordance with the law. It is the commission of an offence that triggers the commencement of the range of criminal justice responses against the person responsible for the commission of such offence, including the arrest of the perpetrator of the offence.” 26. It would thus be seen that, since the Petitioner had not committed an offence, there was no justification in fact or in law for the 2nd Respondent to have either personally arrested the Petitioner or caused her arrest through another police officer. Furthermore, had the 2nd Respondent arrived at an objective decision following a correct appreciation of the applicable facts, there was no basis for him to have concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioner had committed such referred to above or been concerned in the committing of either of those offences. Thus, the arrest of the Petitioner does not satisfy the condition precedent or the threshold requirement of facts contained in section 32(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act. Therefore, I hold that the 2nd Petitioner had acted contrary to law when arresting the Petitioner. Thus, it is necessary for this Court to conclude that by carrying out the arrest of the Petitioner, the 2nd Re-spondent infringed the Fundamental right of the Petitioner guaranteed by Article 13(1) of the Constitution. 27. The arrest of the Petitioner had been followed by a period of police custody. Ostensibly, such police custody would be purportedly under section 37 of the Code of Criminal Pro-cedure Act. A period of police custody would be lawful only if the related arrest preced-ing such custody was lawful. Since the arrest of the Petitioner has been found by this Court to have been unlawful, it necessarily follows that the period of police custody was also unlawful. Therefore, I conclude that by holding the Petitioner in police custody, the 2nd Respondent has infringed the Fundamental right of the Petitioner guaranteed under Article 13(2) of the Constitution. 28. Following the Petitioner being produced before the learned Magistrate, he had placed the Petitioner in remand custody. Consequently, the Petitioner remained in remand cus-tody for a period of 16 days. At the end of that period, the Police, on their own Motion, had dropped the allegation under section 3(1) of the ICCPR Act and pursued only the allegation under section 291B of the Penal Code. The Police, left to themselves, appear to have sought the advice of the Honourable Attorney General, who had rightfully con-cluded that the impugned conduct of the Petitioner does not constitute an offence either under section 3(1) of the ICCPR Act or section 291B of the Penal Code. Under these cir-cumstances, on 17th August 2020, the learned Magistrate had discharged the Petitioner. 29. It is thus seen that the unlawful arrest of the Petitioner, followed by a period of unlawful police custody, coupled with her having been produced before the learned Magistrate with a report (under section 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act), containing two unsubstantiated allegations that she had committed offences under section 3(1) of the SC/FR 245/2019 - Abdul Raheem Masaheena vs. Hon. Attorney-General and 2 Others - Judgment 11 ICCPR Act and under section 291B of the Penal Code, is what led to her being placed in remand custody for 16 days. In terms of section 3(4) of the ICCPR Act, once a person suspected of having committed an offence under section 3(1) of the Act is produced before a Magistrate and placed in remand custody, it is the High Court that has jurisdiction to grant bail, and that too on the footing that there are exceptional circumstances which warrant the grant of bail. Thus, it appears that levelling an allegation before a Magistrate that a person has committed an offence under section 3(1) of the ICCPR Act is a way in which the suspect can be denied bail from the Magistrate’s Court resulting in the suspect being placed in remand custody either till the High Court grants bail or the allegation under section 3(1) of the ICCPR Act being dropped by the police. In this case, the latter of these two situations occurred, after which the learned Magistrate enlarged the Petitioner on bail. 30. Thus, it would be noted that a situation such as this (where the police level an allegation that the suspect has committed and offence in respect of which a Magistrate does not possess jurisdiction to grant bail) gives rise to an enhanced duty on Magistrates to consider whether there is a sufficient basis in law and fact to accept the allegation that the suspect has committed such an offence (in this instance an offence under section 3(1) of the ICCPR Act), instead of perfunctorily acceding to the application of the police to place the suspect in remand custody. That judicial duty can be performed by a Magistrate by paying attention to and considering the ‘report on the case’ and the ‘summary of statements recorded during the investigation’ mandatorily required by law to be included in the Report (‘B Report’) filed in terms of either section 115 or 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act. Unless the allegation contained in the Report is substantiated by the material contained in the afore-stated two components of the B Report, Magistrates must refrain from acting on the allegation and placing the suspect in remand custody on the basis that he does not possess jurisdiction to grant bail to a person who is alleged to have committed the particular offence. This duty would be particularly applicable in all situations where a Magistrate’s Court has not been vested with the jurisdiction to consider the grant of bail. If the allegation contained in the B Report is not well-founded upon the contents of the afore-stated two components of the B Report, an option available to a Magistrate would be to refrain from placing the suspect in remand custody. 31. As observed previously, in this matter, it would be seen that the period of 16 days of remand custody had been preceded by overnight detention in police custody at the Hasalaka Police Station. Thus, for 17 days, the Petitioner was deprived of liberty arising out of Executive action taken by the 2nd Respondent. Therefore, I hold that the Petitioner’s Fundamental right guaranteed under Article 13(2) of the Constitution has been infringed by the 2nd Respondent. SC/FR 245/2019 - Abdul Raheem Masaheena vs. Hon. Attorney-General and 2 Others - Judgment 12 32. In these circumstances, I conclude that the overall criminal justice response enforced against the Petitioner had been blatantly unlawful. Therefore, in addition to the above-mentioned findings, this Court concludes that the Petitioner had been deprived of the equal protection of the law and the right of equality. Thus, this Court concludes that the entire criminal justice response carried out by the 2nd Respondent in respect of the Petitioner violated her Fundamental right guaranteed by Article 12(1) of the Constitution. 33. In view of the foregoing, this Court issues a Declaration that the 2nd Respondent has infringed the Fundamental rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Articles 12(1), 13(1), and 13(2) of the Constitution. 34. A consideration of the Petitioner’s and the 2nd Respondent’s narratives points to two important matters. Firstly, the Petitioner has acted most imprudently by wearing in public apparel depicting an image similar (though not identical) to that of the Dharmachakra. Members, particularly of a multi-religious society, must act respectfully towards the religious principles, beliefs, rituals, symbols, and institutions of other religious beliefs. This duty stems from Article 12, which confers equality to all persons, from which the principle of parity of status can be derived. Thus, no person or community can claim superiority or a privileged status over another. Possibly due to sheer ignorance stemming from a lack of education, the Petitioner had engaged in conduct that ultimately brought her considerable inconvenience, distress, and infringement of her Fundamental rights. Secondly, the 2nd Respondent had reacted to what he had come to know of, as opposed to responding to the information he is said to have received in terms of the law. Though the 2nd Respondent had acted contrary to law, there is no basis to conclude that the 2nd Respondent acted in the manner he did due to any pre-existing animosity towards the Petitioner, acted with malice, or had bowed to political or other pressure or influence. Particularly when exercising authority and statutorily vested power, police officers must act with restraint and with responsibility, and strictly in accordance with the law. As a prudential principle it must be borne in mind by all law enforcement officers that this type of reaction or the abuse of power against any person who entertains radical religious ideology and maniacal faith can easily drive such a person into religious extremism and violence. Law enforcement over-reach as manifested in this case can also affect religious harmony and peaceful co-existence among communities. 35. In these circumstances, it is necessary to issue a direction to the Inspector General of Police to issue a Police Order under the Police Ordinance setting out guidance as to the exact nature and the ambit of the offences contained in section 3(1) of the ICCPR Act and section 291B of the Penal Code and the manner in which a police officer should enforce the law in a situation where there is a complaint or information that a person has SC/FR 245/2019 - Abdul Raheem Masaheena vs. Hon. Attorney-General and 2 Others - Judgment 13 committed such offence. The Inspector General of Police should issue that Circular within six (6) months from today and should do so having obtained necessary legal advice from the Honourable Attorney General, who shall advise the Inspector General of Police, founded upon the principles contained in this Judgment and other relevant Judgments of this Court, including the Judgment in SC / FR 135/2020. 36. Even though the 2nd Respondent does not appear to have acted mala-fide towards the Petitioner, it is to be noted that the Petitioner has unnecessarily suffered due to the unlawful actions of the 2nd Respondent amounting to infringement of Fundamental rights. That warrants this Court to impose a punitive measure on the 2nd Respondent, which will also serve as a deterrence to other Police Officers. 37. In these circumstances, the 2nd Respondent is directed to, within six (6) months of this Judgment, make a payment in the sum of Rs. 30,000/= as compensation to the Petitioner using his personal funds. The Inspector General of Police is directed to issue a Certificate to this Court that no funds of the Sri Lanka Police or those of an Association or Fund of Police Officers were used for the purpose of the 2nd Respondent making the afore-stated payment. 38. The Petitioner shall be entitled to recover the cost of this litigation from the State. 39. In view of the foregoing, this Application is allowed. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT KUMUDINI WICKREMASINGHE, J. I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT A.L. SHIRAN GOONERATNE, J. I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT		Download
2025-07-29	SC/APPEAL/231/2017	Hapu Arachchige Ariyadasa, No. 26, Pirivena Road, Mandawala. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Wariyapperuma Appuhamillage Prematileke Wariyapperuma, No. 194/1/3, Wilimbulawatta, Wilimbula, Radawana. 2. Puwakpitiyage Jayantha Pushpamal Mandawala Road, Mahena, Radawana. 3. Kanangama Arachchige Thamarasu Sudharma Priyangani, Pirivena Road Mandawala. Defendant-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-07-25	SC/FR/644/2010	Manjula Balasuriya, Attorney – at – law On behalf of the Detainee. Senarathge Lakshman Cooray, No. 154, Tissa Mawatha, Bangalawatta, Kottawa. (Detained at the Terrorist Investigation Divisiov, Boossa) PETITIONER -Vs- 1. Prasanna Alwis, Officer-in-charge, Terrorist Investigation Division, Colombo 01. 2. Director, Terrorist Investigation Division, Colombo 01. 3. Mr. C.N. Wakishta, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Terrorist Investigation Division, Colombo 01. 4. R.M.N.G.A. Perera, Superintendent of Police, Terrorist Investigation Division, Colombo 01. 5. Senaka Kumarasinghe, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, Colombo 01. 6. Abdeen, Inspector of Police, Officer in Charge-Unit II, Terrorist Investigation Division, Colombo 01. 7. Subhair, Sub Inspector, Terrorist Investigation Division, Colombo 01. 7A. Sandaruwan, Police Constable, Terrorist Investigation Division, Colombo 01. 8. Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 9. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Colombo 01. 10. The Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz			Download
2025-07-25	SC/FR/448/2019	1. Bamunu Arachchige Sadew Nethum Ganganatha, 2. Bamunu Arachchige Sujith Ganganatha Both of 125 / 2 / 1, Galle Road, Colombo 04 PETITIONERS -Vs- 1. Akila Viraj Kariyawasam (M.P) Hon. Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya” Battaramulla. 1A. Dallus Alahapperuma (M.P) Hon. Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya” Battaramulla. 2. M.N. Ranasinghe, Secretary – Ministry of Education “Isurupaya” Battaramulla. 2A. N.H.M. Chitrananda, Secretary – Ministry of Education “Isurupaya” Battaramulla. 3. Ranjith Chandrasekara, Director National Schools, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya” Battaramulla. 3A. G.M. Silva, Director National Schools, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya” Battaramulla. 4. B.A. Abeyrathna, Principal – Royal College, Colombo 07. 5. M.U.S. Gunathilake, Member – Interview Board, (Admissions to Grade 01) Royal College, Colombo 07. 6. Harshana Mataraarachchi, Member – Interview Board, (Admissions to Grade 01) Royal College, Colombo 07. 7. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz			Download
2025-07-25	SC/FR/152/2019	Lalitha Weerasinghe 23/12, Wallauw Watta, Hikkaduwa PETITIONER -Vs- 1. Ranmal Kodithuwakku Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kalutara District, Kalutara 2. Prof. S.T. Hettige Chairman, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, BMICH Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7 3. D.M. Saman Dissanayake Secretary, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, BMICH Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7 4. S.D. Wijesekere Member, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, BMICH Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7 5. Y.L.M. Zawahir Member, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, BMICH Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7 6. Tilak Collure Member, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, BMICH Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7 7. Gamini Nawarathne Member, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, BMICH Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7 8. Ashoka Wijethilaka Member, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, BMICH Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7 9. G. Jeyakumar Member, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, BMICH Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7 10. H.K.S. Shantha Kumara Officer in Charge, Wadduwa Police, Wadduwa 11. Ashoka Weerakkody Assistant Superintendent of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 1 12. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12 RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz			Download
2025-07-25	SC/FR/36/2020 WITH SC/FR/348/2012, SC/FR/530/2012, SC/FR/71/2016 & SC/CONT/5/2020	1. K. T. T. Dewapriya Abeywardena, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Police Engineering Unit, 101/1, Kew Road, Colombo 02. 2. S. B. P. M. P. G. Y. Bandara, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Police Engineering Unit, 101/1, Kew Road, Colombo 02. 3. Tharaka Seneviratne, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Information Technology Division, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 02. 4. P. M. K. P. Gunawardena, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Police Transport Division, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. PETITIONERS -Vs- 1. Mr. K.W.E.Karaliyadda Chairman, National Po-lice Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07 1A) Mr. E. W. M. Lalith Ekanayake Chairman, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, В.М.І.С.Н. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 2. Secretary, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Prem- ises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07 2A) Mrs. Thamara D. Perera Secretary, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07 3. Mr. Gamini NawarathneMember, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, В.М.І.С.Н. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 4. Ms. Savithree D.Wijesekara, Member, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 5. D.Tilak Collure The Member, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 6. Mr. Ashoke Wijethilake, The Member, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 7. Mr. Y. L,M. Zawahir, Member, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 8. Mr. G. Jeyakumar, Member, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 8A) Mrs. D.K.Renuka Ekanayake 8B) Mr. K. Karunaharan 8C) Mr. P.G.S. Gamini De Silva 8D) Mr. Dilshan Kapila Jayasuriya 8A to 8 D of Members, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 9. Inspector-General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 10. Senior Deputy Inspector of Police (Administration). Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 11. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Human Resources management Rang), Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 12. Director Human Resources Management Division, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 13. Secretary Ministry of Defence, No 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 14. Honorable Attorney General Department of the Attorney General, Colombo 12. 15. Hon. Justice Jagath Balapatabendi Chairman, Public Service Commission 16. Mrs. Indrani Sugathadasa Member, Public Service Commission 17. Mr.V.Shivagnanasothy Member, Public Service Commission 18. Dr.T.R.C.Ruberu Member, Public Service Commission 19. Mr. Ahamod Lebbe Mohamed Saleem Member, Public Service Commission 20. Mr. Leelasena Liyanagama Member, Public Service Commission 21. Mr. Dian Gomes Member, Public Service Commission 22. Mr. Dilith Jayaweera Member, Public Service Commission 23. Mr. W.H.Piyadasa Member, Public Service Commission All of 15th to 23rd Public Service Commission No 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla ADDED RESPONDENTS 1. K. T. T. DevapriyaAbeywardene, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Police Engineering Unit, 101/1, Kew Road, Colombo 02 2. S. B. P. M. P. G. Y. Bandara, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Police Engineering Unit, 101/1, Kew Road, Colombo 02. 3. Tharaka Senaviratne, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Information Technology Division, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 4. Ρ. Μ. K. P. Gunawardena, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Police Transport Division, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. PETITIONERS -Vs- 1. Vidyajothi Dr. Dayasiri Fernando, Chairman, Public Service Commission, 1A. Sathya Hettige, Substituted Chairman, Public Service Commission SUBSTITUTED CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 2. The Secretary, Public Service Commission, 3. Mr. PalithaKumarasingha P.C. Member, 4. Mrs. Sirimavo A. Wijerathne, Member, 5. Mr. S. C. Mannapperuma, Member, 6. Mr. AnandaSenevirtatne, Member, 7. Dr. N. H. Pathirana, Member, 8. Mr. S. Thillandarajah, Member, 9. Mr. M.D.W. Ariyawansa, Member, 10. Mr. A. Mohomed Nahiya, Member, 3A. S. C. Mannapperuma, Member, Public Service Commission, No: 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo-05. 4A. Ananda Senevirathne, Member, Public Service Commission, No: 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo-05. 5A. N. H. Pathirana, Member, Public Service Commission, No: 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo-05. 6A. S. Thillanadarajah, Member, Public Service Commission, No: 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo-05. 7A. A. Mohomed Nahiya, Member, Public Service Commission, No: 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo-05. 8A. Kanthi Wijethunga, Member, Public Service Commission, No: 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo-05. 9A. Sunil. S. Sirisena, Member, Public Service Commission, No: 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo-05 10A. I.N. Soysa, Member, Public Service Commission, No: 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo-05. SUBSTITUTED MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 11. Mr. N. K. Illangakoon, Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 11A. Mr. C. D. Wickramaratne, Act. Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 12. Mr. Gamini Nawaratna, Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police, Administration, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 12A. Mr. C. D. Wickramaratne, Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police, Administration, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 13. Mr. P.B. Nikahatiya, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Transport and Communication Range, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 13A.Mr. Ranmal Kodituwakku, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Transport and Communication Colombo 05 Range, Narahenpita, Colombo 05 14. Mr. Ajith Wickramasekara, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Personal Range, Police Headquarters, Colombo-01 14A. Mr.G.A.U.R. Galgamuwa, Senior Superintendent of Police, Personnel Division, Police head Quarters, Colombo 01. 14B. Mr. A.L.U.N.P. Liyanage Senior Superintendent of Director Human Resources Management Division, Police head Quarters, Colombo 01. 15. 15. H.D.K.S Jayasekara, Senior Superintendent of Police, Director, Police Transport Division, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 15A. Mr. G S. Walgama, Senior Superintendent of Police, Director, Police Transport Division, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 15B. Mr. Kelum C. Thilakaratne, Senior Superintendent of Police, Director, Police Transport Division, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 16. Mr. W.K Jayalath, Senior Superintendent of Police, Director of Recruitment, Recruiting Division, No. 375, \"VilasithaNiwasa\", Sri Sambuddha Jayanthi Mawatha, Colombo 06. 16A. Mr. U.P.A.D.K.P. Karunanayake, Senior Superintendent of Police, Director of Recruitment, Recruiting Division, No. 375,\"VilasithaNiwasa\", Sri Sambuddha Jayanthi Mawatha, Colombo 06. 16B. Mr. U.A.L Udahawatta, Senior Superintendent of Police, Director of Recruitment, Recruiting Division, No. 375,\"VilasithaNiwasa\", Sri Sambuddha Jayanthi Mawatha, Colombo 06. 17. Mr. ChampikaSiriwardana, Senior Superintendent of Police, Director of Criminal Record Division, P.O. box 526, Torrinton Square, Colombo 07 17A.Mr. J. A. D. M. P. N. Jayakody, Senior Superintendent of Police, Director of Criminal Record Division, P.O. box 526, Torrinton Square, Colombo 07 17B. Mr. M.T.T. Ruwan Kumara, Senior Superintendent of Police, Director of Criminal Record Division, P.O. box 526, Torrinton Square, Colombo 07 18. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS 19. Secretary, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.L.C.H. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 19A. Secretary, Mrs. Thamara D. Perera National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 20. Prof. Siri Hettige, Chairman, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 20A. Mr. K.W.E. Karalliyadda, Chairman, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 20B.Mr. E. W. M. Lalith Ekanayake, Chairman, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. SUBSTITUTED CHAIRMAN OF THE POLICE COMMISSION 21. Mr. P.H. Manatunga Member, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07 22. Ms. Savithree Wijesekara, Member, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Colombo 07. Bauddhaloka Mawatha, 23. Tilak Collure The Member, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 24. Frank de Silva The Member, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 25. Mr. Y. L,M. Zawahir, Member, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 26. Mr. Anton Jeyanadan, Member, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Colombo 07. Bauddhaloka Mawatha, ADDED RESPONDENTS 27. Mr. Gamini Nawarathne Member, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.L.C.H. Premises, Colombo 07. Bauddhaloka Mawatha, 28. Mr. Asoka Wijetilleka Member, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Colombo 07. Bauddhaloka Mawatha, 29. Mr. G. Jeyakumar Member, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 29A. Mrs. D.K.Renuka Ekanayake 29B. Mr. K. Karunaharan 29C. Mr. P.G.S. Gamini De Silva 29D. Mr. Dilshan Kapila Jayasuriya 29A to 29D of Members, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, Β.Μ.I.C.H. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. SUBSTITUTED MEMBERS OF THE POLICE COMMISSION 1. Mrs. K. B. Senaratne, Woman Superintendent of Police Grade II (SP), Police Engineering Unit, 101/1, Kew Road, Colombo 02. PETITIONER -Vs- 1. Vidyajothi Dr. Dayasiri Fernando, Chairman, Public Service Commission, 1A. SathyaHettige, Substituted Chairman, Public Service Commission SUBSTITUTED CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 2. The Secretary, Public Service Commission, 3. Mr. PalithaKumarasingha P.C. Member, 4. Mrs. Sirimavo A. Wijerathne, Member, 5. Mr. S. C. Mannapperuma, Member, 6. Mr. Ananda Senevirtatne, Member, 7. Dr. N. H. Pathirana, Member, 8. Mr. S. Thillandarajah, Member, 9. Mr. M.D.W. Ariyawansa, Member, 10. Mr. A. MohomedNahiya, Member, All of, Public Service Commission, No. 117, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 3A. S.C Mannapperuma, Member, Public Service Commission, No: 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo-05 4A. AnandaSenevirathne, Member, Public Service Commission, No: 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo-05 5A. N. H. Pathirana, Member, Public Service Commission, No: 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo-05 6A. S. Thillandarajah, Member, Public Service Commission, No: 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo-05 7A. A. MohomedNahiya, Member, Public Service Commission, No: 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo-05. 8A. KanthiWijethunga, Member, Public Service Commission, No: 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo-05 9A. Sunil. S. Sirisena, Member, Public Service Commission, No: 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo-05. 10A. I.N.Soysa, Member, Public Service Commission, No: 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo-05. SUBSTITUTED MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 11. Mr. N. K. Illangakoon, Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 12. Mr. Gamini Nawaratna, Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police, Administration, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 13. 13. Mr. Ajith Wickramasekara, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Personal Range, Police Headquarters, Colombo-01 13A.Mr. G. A. U. R. Galgamuwa, Senior Superintendent of Police, Personnel Division, Colombo 01. Police head Quarters, 14. Mr. W.K Jayalath, Senior Superintendent of Police, Director of Recruitment, Recruiting Division, No. 375, \"Vilasitha Niwasa\", Sri Sambuddha Jayanthi Mawatha, Colombo 06. 14A. Mr. U.P.A.D.K.P. Karunanayake, Senior Superintendent of Police, Director of Recruitment, Recruiting Devision, No. 375, \"Vilasitha Niwasa\", Sri Sambuddha Jayanthi Mawatha, Colombo 06. 15. Mr. Champika Siriwardena, Superintendent of Police Grade I (SSP), SSP Parliament Division Director of Parliament Division, Sri Jayawardhanapura, Parliament Complex, Kotte. 16. Mr. K.A. Rohana, Superintendent of Police Grade 1 (SSP) Director of Police Public Relations Headquarters, Colombo 01. Division, Police 17. Mr. W. N. S. W. Wickramasinghe, Superintendent of Police Grade I (SSP), SSP-Office Vavuniya 18. Mr. L.P.S.P. Sandugahawatta, Superintendent of Police Grade 1 (SSP), SSP-Office, Puttlam 19. Mr. J.A.P.P. Jayakody, Superintendent of Police Grade I (SSP), Police Public Relations Division, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 20. Mr.J.A.D.M.P.N.Jayakody, Superintendent of Police Grade I (SSP) Director of Criminal Record Division, P.O. box 526, Torrington Square, Colombo 07. 21. Mr. R.M.N.G.O. Perera, Superintendent of Police Grade 1 (SSP)President\'s Security Division, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Temple trees\', Colombo 03. 22. Mr. W.M.M. Wickramasinghe, Superintendent of Police Grade I (SSP), SSP-Office Nugegoda 23. Mr. H.K.D.W. M.P.B.Rathnathilake, Superintendent of Police, Grade I (SSP) 24. Mr. B.D. Chandrasiri, Superintendent of Police Grade I (SSP), Special Task Force, Gonahena, Kadawatha. 25. Mr. W.M.R.M. Welikanna, Superintendent of Police Grade I (SSP) State Intelligence Service, No.10, Cambridge Place, Colombo 07. 26. Mr. D.R.L. Ranaweera, Superintendent of Police Grade I (SSP) Criminal Investigation Department Criminal Investigation Department, New Secretariat Building, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 27. Mr. S. W. Y. B. S. B. Baddewela, Superintendent of Police Grade I (SSP) Retd 28. Mr. A.K. Samarasekara, Superintendent of Police Grade I (SSP) Retd. 29. Mr. Μ.Η.Κ.Β. Mahagedara, Superintendent of Police, Grade I (SSP) Director of National Police Academy, Thimbirigaskatuwa, Katana 30. Mr. D.R.G.M.B. Ellepola, Superintendent of Police Grade I (SSP), SSP Office, Kandy. 31. Mr. D. Gajasinghe, Superintendent of Police Grade I (SSP) PA to Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters, Colombo-01 32. Mr. K.P.P. Fernando, Superintendent of Police Grade I (SSP), SSP - Office Ratnapura 33. Mr. L.K.J.G.S. Peiris, Superintendent of Police Grade 1 (SSP) State Intelligence Service, No. 10, Cambridge Place, Colombo 07. 34. Mr. K.P.M. Gunaratne, Superintendent of Police Grade 1 (SSP) President\'s Security Division, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Temple trees\' Colombo 03. 35. Mr. L.H.K.W.K. Silva, Superintendent of Police Grade 1 (SSP) Director of Police Narcotics Bureau, 3rd Floor, New Secretariat Building, Colombo 01. 36. Mr. A. H. M. W. C. K. Alahokoon, Superintendent of Police Grade I (SSP), SP Office, Nikaweratiya, 37. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS 38. Secretary, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H.Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 38A. Secretary Mrs. Thamara D. Perera National Police Commission, Block No. 9, В.М.І.С.Н. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 39. Prof. Siri Hettige, Chairman, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 39A Mr.E.W.M. Lalith Ekanayake Chairman, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, В.М.І.С.Н. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 40. Mr. P.H. Manatunga Member, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 41. Ms. Savithree Wijesekara, Member, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 42. Tilak Collure, The Member, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 43. Frank de Silva, The Member, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B. M. I. C. H. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 44. Mr. Y. L, M. Zawahir, Member, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 45. Mr. Anton Jeyanadan, Member, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 45A Mr. P.G.S. Gamini De Silva 45B Mr. Dilshan Kapila Jayasuriya 45C Mr. K. Karunaharan 45D Mrs. D.K.Renuka Ekanayake 45A to 45C Members, National Police Commission, Block No. 9, В.М.І.С.Н. Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. ADDED RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz			Download
2025-07-25	SC/CHC APPEAL/30/2013	THE TRAVEL CLUB (PVT) LTD., Formally of Taj Samudra Office Complex, No.25, Galle Face Centre Road, Colombo 3. And presently of 4th Floor, Forbes and Walker Building, No.46/38, Nawam Mawatha, Colombo 2 . Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. STERLING MERCHANT INVESTMENT LIMITED, Formally of No. 54, Walukarama Road, Colombo 3. And presently of No. 85/1, Jambugasmulla Road, Nugegoda. Defendant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2025-07-25	SC/APPEAL/211/2015	2. Udage Arachchige Sirimal Kanthi Wickramasinghe Wanaluwawa, Gampaha. 3. Udage Arachchige Lavinis Singho (Deceased) 3A. Udage Arachchige Sirimal Kanthi Wickramasinghe No. 6/1, Wanaluwawa, Gampaha. 4. Udage Arachchige Jayanthi Chandani Siriyalatha No. 6/1 Wanaluwawa, Gampaha. 5. Udage Arachchige Christi Terrance Rupasinghe No. 6/1, Wanaluwawa, Gampaha. 6. Udage Arachchige Karunaratne Tony Rupasinghe No.6/1, Wanaluwawa, Gampaha. Defendant-Respondent- Appellants Vs. 1A. Malawi Pathirennehelage Vajira Malkanthi No.67, Iddamaldeniya, Dompe. 1A Defendant-Appellant-Respondent Udage Arachchige Wijayadasa, Kudagammana, Giriulla. Plaintiff-Respondent-Repondent View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2025-07-25	SC/APPEAL/157/2014	Sinnalebbei Maraikar Mohamed Kaasim, (Dead) Muthaliar Road, Aakkaraipattu-3 Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Mohammathismail Maraikkar Avvakuddy, No.235, Mudaliyar Road, Aakkaraipattu-03 Substituted-Defendant-Respondent- Appellant Vs. Athamlebbe Seiynutheen, No.149, New Mosque Road, Aakkaraipattu-6 Plaintif-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2025-07-25	SC/APPEAL/168/2018	Punchi Hewage Samantha alias Mahathun. 4th Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2025-07-25	SC/APPEAL/35/2021	1. J.M. Premawathie, 2. D.M. Nandawathie Both of 18th Mile Post, Balagalla, Megahakiwla. DEFENDANT – APPELLANTAPPELLANT -Vs- Tuan Mansoor, Bonzo, nee Minna Samsudeen, alias Nona Zuhaira Samsudeen Casim PLAINTIFF Tuan Bashier Bonzo, No. 14/12, Shalawa Road, Ambuldeniya, Nugegoda. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz			Download
2025-07-25	SC/APPEAL/68/2013	Pallewela Gamaralalage Nalika Jeewanthi, 516/2, Sausiripaya Road, Uudumulla, Battaramulla. PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT– PETITIONER-APPELLANT -Vs- 1. Noor Mohamed Riza Jumaa, No. 31/3, Bullers Lane, Colombo 07. DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT– RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT 2. Herath Dheeraratnalage Saman Bandara, 304, Udumulla Road, Battaramulla. ADDED 2ND DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz			Download
2025-07-25	SC/APPEAL/20/2018	People’s Bank, No. 75, Chiththampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. PETITIONER-RESPONDENT –APPELLANT -Vs- 1. Witharana Gamage Siriwardane, Mulakanhena, Bingiriya. 2. Meththasinghr Arachchilage Kleshiya Violet Siriwardane, Mulakanhena, Bingiriya. RESPONDENTS-PETITIONERS- RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz			Download
2025-07-25	SC/APPEAL/109/2018	DFCC Bank PLC, No. 73/5, Galle Road, Colombo 03. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – PETITIONER – APPELLANT -Vs- LOLC securities Ltd, Level 18, World Trade Center, Colombo 01. CLAIMANT – PETITIONER – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT 1. Saheedul Hijry Mohamed Risan alias Saheedul Hijry Mohamed Rishan, No. 01, Charles Circus, Colombo 03. 2. Wedaralagedara Mohamed Mubarak Siththi Sermile alias Sithy Sharmila Rishan, No. 01, Charles Circus, Colombo 03. DEFENDANTS - RESPONDENTS – RESPONDENTS – RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz			Download
2025-07-24	SC/RULE/4/2024	Madarasinghage Chandradasa, Mahagalahena, Walakandakanda, Wathukanda, Katuwana. COMPLAINANT -Vs- Dhammika Ambewela, Attorney-at-Law, No. 75, Main Street, Deniyaya. RESPONDENT View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J			Download
2025-07-24	SC/FR/265/2012	Mery Ruwan Kumara, No.148, Kekilla Mandiya, Boosa. Petitioner Vs. 1. Prasan Fernando, Chief Inspector, Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Tissamaharama 2. Dadya Manawaduge Basil Neville de Silva, Sub Inspector, Police Station, Tissamaharama 3. Liyanagamage Premasiri, Sub Inspector, Officer-in-Charge, Crime Branch, Police Station, Tissamaharama 4. S.J.D.Suwaris, Inspector of Police, Acting Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Tissamaharama. 5. M.J.M.Rishard, Senior Superintendent of Police, Zonal Commanding Officer, Special Task Force Camp, Suriyawewa. 6. Inspector General of Police, Police HeadQuarters, Colombo 01 7. Honourable Attorney General, Attorney Generals\' Department, Colombo 12 Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe			Download
2025-07-24	SC/FR/168/2021, SC/FR/176/2021, SC/FR/184/2021, & SC/FR/277/2021	1. Centre for Environmental Justice (Guarantee) Limited No. 20/A, Kuruppu Road, Colombo 08. 2. Withanage Don Hemantha Ranjith Sisira Kumara Executive Director Center for Environmental Justice, No. 20/ A, Kuruppu Road, Colombo 08. 3. Wijethunge Appuhamyge Herman Kumara No. 10, Malwatta 4. Aruna Roshantha Fernando No. 87/D, Pitipana Veediya, Negombo. PETITIONERS v. 1. Marine Environment Protection Authority No. 177, Nawala Road, Colombo 05. 2. Sri Lanka Ports Authority No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 2A. Capt. Nihal Keppetipola Chairman Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 2AA. Dr. Prashantha Jayamanna Chairman Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 2B. Mr. Keith D. Bandara Chairman Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 2BB. Chairman Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 3. A.W. Seneviratne Director General, Merchant Shipping, Merchant Shipping Secretariat, No. 27 Bristol St., Colombo 01. 3A. Mr. P.R. Ajith Wijesinghe Director General, Merchant Shipping, Merchant Shipping Secretariat, No. 27 Bristol St., Colombo 01. 3AA. Director General of Merchant Shipping Merchant Shipping Secretariat, 27 Bristol St., Colombo 01. 4. Capt. K.M. Nirmal Silva Harbour Master, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 4A. Harbour Master Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 5. Central Environmental Authority No. 104, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Battaramulla. 5A. Hemantha Jayasinghe Director General, Central Environmental Authority, No. 104, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Battaramulla. 5AA. Director General Central Environmental Authority, No. 104, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Battaramulla. 6. R.A.S. Ranawake Director General, Coastal Conservation and Coastal Resource Management Department, 4th Floor, Ministry of Fisheries Building, New Secretariat, Maligawatta, Maradana, Colombo 10. 6A. Director General Coastal Conservation and Coastal Resource Management Department, 4th Floor, Ministry of Fisheries Building, New Secretariat, Maligawatta, Maradana, Colombo 10. 7. S.J. Kahawatta Director General, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, 3rd Floor, New Secretariat, Maligawatta, Colombo 10. 7A. Director General Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, 3rd Floor, New Secretariat, Maligawatta, Colombo 10. 8. Rohitha Abeygunawardena Minister of Ports and Shipping, Ministry of Ports and Shipping, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 8A. Nimal Siripala De Silva Minister of Ports and Shipping, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 8AA. Minister of Ports and Shipping Ministry of Ports and Shipping, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 9. Mahinda Amaraweera Minister of Environment, Ministry of Environment, “Sobadam Piyasa”, 416/C/1, Robert Gunawardana Mawatha, Battaramulla. 9A. Minister of Environment Ministry of Environment, “Sobadam Piyasa”, 416/C/1, Robert Gunawardana Mawatha, Battaramulla. 10.Mohan Priyadarshana De Silva State Minister, Urban Development, Coast Conservation, Waste Disposal and Community Cleanliness, Ministry of Urban Development, Coast Conservation, Waste Disposal and Community Cleanliness, 17th and 18th Floors, “SUHURUPAYA”, Subhuthipura Road, Battaramulla. 10A. State Minister Urban Development, Coast Conservation, Waste Disposal and Community Cleanliness Ministry of Urban Development, Coast Conservation, Waste Disposal and Community Cleanliness, 17th and 18th Floors, “SUHURUPAYA”, Subhuthipura Road, Battaramulla. 11.ESO RO PTE. LTD. 18, Robinson Road, #20-02, 18 Robinson, Singapore 048547. 11A. ESO RO PTE. LTD. 18, Robinson Road, #20-02, 18 Robinson, Singapore 048547. Represented by Sea Consortium Lanka (Pvt) Ltd 4th Floor, Setmil Maritime Centre, 256, Srimath Ramanathan Mawatha, Colombo 15. 12. X-Press Freeders 11, Duxton Hill, Singapore, 089595. 12A. X-Press Feeders 11, Duxton Hill, Singapore, 089595. Represented by its local Agent: Sea Consortium Lanka (Pvt.) Ltd. 4th Floor, Setmil Maritime Centre, 256, Srimath Ramanathan Mawatha, Colombo 15. 13. Sea Consortium Lanka (Pvt.) Ltd. 4th Floor, Setmil Maritime Centre, 256, Srimath Ramanathan Mawatha, Colombo 15. 14. Chandana Sooriyabandara Director General of Wildlife Conservation, Department of Wildlife Conservation, No. 811A, Jayanthipura, Battaramulla. 14A. Director General of Wildlife Conservation Department of Wildlife Conservation, No. 811A, Jayanthipura, Battaramulla. 15. His Excellency the President Gotabaya Rajapaksha Appearing by: Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 15A. His Excellency the President Ranil Wickramasinghe Appearing by: Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 15AA. His Excellency the President Appearing by: Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 16. C.D. Wickramaratne Inspector of General Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 16A. Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 17. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS 18. Kaushalya Nawaratne President, Bar Association of Sri Lanka, No. 153, Mihindu Mawatha, Colombo 12. 18A.The President Bar Association of Sri Lanka, No. 153, Mihindu Mawatha, Colombo 12. 19. Isuru Balapatabendi Secretary, Bar Association of Sri Lanka, No. 153, Mihindu Mawatha, Colombo 12. 19A. Chathura A. Galhena Secretary, Bar Association of Sri Lanka, No. 153, Mihindu Mawatha, Colombo 12. 19AA.The Secretary Bar Association of Sri Lanka, No. 153, Mihindu Mawatha, Colombo 12. 20. Transparency International Sri Lanka 21. Ashala Nadishani Perera Both of No. 366, Nawala Road, Nawala, Rajagiriya. ADDED RESPONDENTS 1. Fr. Benedict Tennison Sarath Iddamalgoda ‘Thulana’, Kohalwila Road, Gonawala, Kelaniya. 2. Weeramundage Gamini Fernando No. 278/39, Siriwardhana Pedesa, Munnakkaraya, Negombo. 3. Warnakulasuriya Kristopher Sarath Fernando No. 639, Peragas Junction, Pahala Ulhitiyawa, Wennappuwa. PETITIONERS v. 1. Hon. Mahinda Amaraweera Minister of Environment, Ministry of Environment, 416/C/1, Robert Gunawardhana Mawatha, Battaramulla. 2. Hon. Douglas Devananda Minister of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, Maligawatte Road, Colombo 10. 3. Hon. Rohitha Abeygunawardhana Minister of Ports and Shipping, Ministry of Ports and Shipping, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 4. Capt. Nihal Keppetipola Chairman, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 5. R.M.I. Rathnayake Secretary to the Ministry of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, Maligawatte Road, Colombo 10. 6. Dr. Anil Jasinghe Secretary to the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Environment, 416/C/1, Robert Gunawardhana Mawatha, Battaramulla. 7. Dr. Palitha Kithsiri Director General, National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency, Crow Island, Colombo 15. 8. R.A.S. Ranawaka Director General, Coastal Conservation and Coastal Resource Management Department, 4th Floor, Maligawatte, Colombo 10. 9. Hemantha Jayasinghe Director General, Central Environmental Authority, No. 104, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Battaramulla. 10. Dharshani Lahandapura Chairperson Marine Environment Protection Authority, No. 177, Nawala Road, Colombo 05. 10A. Asela B. Rekawa Chairperson, Marine Environment Protection Authority, No. 177, Nawala Road, Colombo 05. 11(A). X-Press Feeders Represented by its Local Agent; Sea Consortium Lanka (Pvt) Ltd. 4th Floor, Setmill Maritime Center, No. 256, Srimath Ramanathan Mawatha, Colombo 15. 11(B). Killiney Shipping Pte. Ltd. 11, Duxton Hill, Singapore 089595. 12. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS 1. Dr. Ajantha Perera 16, Temple Road, Rattanapitiya, Boralesgamuwa. 2. Jeran Jegatheesan 155/8, 4th Lane, Dolalanda Gardens, Thalawathugoda (Deceased) PETITIONERS v. 1. Marine Environment Protection Authority (MEPA) 2. Dharshani Lahandapura Chairperson Marine Environment Protection Authority, 1st & 2nd above, both of: No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 2A. Asela B. Rekawa Chairperson, Marine Environment Protection Authority (MEPA), No. 177, Nawala Road, Colombo 05. 2B. KVR Samantha Gunasekara Chairperson Marine Environment Protection Authority (MEPA) 3. Sri Lanka Ports Authority No. 45, Leyden Bastian Road, Colombo 01. 4. Chandana Suriyabandara Director General – Department of Wildlife Conservation, No. 811/A, Jayanthipura Main Road, Battaramulla. 5. Ajith Seneviratne Director General – Merchant Shipping Secretariat, 1st Floor, Bristol Building, 43-89, York Street, Colombo 01. 6. Dr. Nalaka Godahewa, MP State Minister of Urban Development, Coast Conservation, Waste Disposal, and Community Cleanliness, 17th and 18th Floors, “SUHURUPAYA”, Subhuthipura Road, Battaramulla. 6A. Anura Karunathilaka, Minister of Urban Development, Construction and Housing 7. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS 1. The Archbishop of Colombo, Archbishop’s House, Gnanartha Pradeepa Mawatha, Colombo 08. 2. Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith, Archbishop of Colombo, Archbishop’s House, Gnanartha Pradeepa Mawatha, Colombo 08. PETITIONERS v. 1. Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 2. Nihal Keppetipola, Chairman, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 2A. Dr. Sarath Obesekere, Chairman, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 2B. Keith D. Bernard, Chairman, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 2C. Admiral Sirimewan Ranasinghe, Chairman, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 3. Upul Jayatissa, Managing Director, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 3A. Prabath J. Malavige, Managing Director, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 3B. Ganaka Hemachandra, Managing Director, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 4. Capt. K.M. Nirmal P. Silva, Harbour Master, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 5. Marine Environmental Protection Authority, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 6. Dharshani Lahandapura, Chairperson, Marine Environmental Protection Authority, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 6A. Asela B. Rekawa, Chairperson, Marine Environmental Protection Authority, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 7. A.W. Seneviratne, Director-General of Merchant Shipping, Merchant Shipping Secretariat, Ministry of Ports and Shipping, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 7A. P.R. Ajith Wijesinghe, Director-General of Merchant Shipping, Merchant Shipping Secretariat, Ministry of Ports and Shipping, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 7B. Capt. S.D. Gamini A.K. Wilson, Director-General of Merchant Shipping, Merchant Shipping Secretariat, Ministry of Ports and Shipping, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 8. Hon. Rohitha Abeygunawardena, Minister of Ports and Shipping, Ministry of Ports and Shipping, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 8A. Hon. Nimal Siripala De Silva, Minister of Ports, Shipping and Aviation, Ministry of Ports and Shipping, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 8B. Hon. Vijitha Herath, Minister of Ports, Shipping and Aviation, Ministry of Ports and Shipping, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. ADDED RESPONDENT 9. U.D.C. Jayalal, Secretary, Ministry of Ports and Shipping, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 9A. K.D.S. Ruwanchandra, Secretary, Ministry of Ports and Shipping, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 10. Hon. Douglas Devananda, Minister of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, New Secretariat, Maligawatta, Colombo 10. 11. R.M.I. Rathnayake, Secretary, Ministry of Fisheries, New Secretariat, Maligawatta, Colombo 10. 11A. M.P.N.M. Wickramasinghe, Secretary, Ministry of Fisheries, New Secretariat, Maligawatta, Colombo 10. 12. Hon. Kanchana Wijesekara, State Minister of Ornamental Fish, Inland Fish and Prawn Farming, Fishery Harbour Development, Multi-day Fishing Activities and Fish Exports, Ministry of Fisheries, New Secretariat, Maligawatta, Colombo 10. 12A. Hon. Piyal Nishantha De Silva, State Minister of Fisheries, State Ministry of Fisheries, New Secretariat, Maligawatta, Colombo 10. 13. S.J. Kahawatte, Director-General of Fisheries & Aquatic Resources, Department of Fisheries, New Secretariat, Maligawatta, Colombo 10. 14. Hon. Mahinda Amaraweera, Minister of Environment, Ministry of Environment, “Sobadam Piyasa”, 416/C/1, Robert Gunawardana Mawatha, Battaramulla. 14A. Hon. Ahamed Naseer, Minister of Environment, Ministry of Environment, “Sobadam Piyasa”, 416/C/1, Robert Gunawardana Mawatha, Battaramulla. 14B. Hon. Vijitha Herath, Minister of Environment, Ministry of Environment, “Sobadam Piyasa”, 416/C/1, Robert Gunawardana Mawatha, Battaramulla. 15. Secretary, Ministry of Environment, “Sobadam Piyasa”, 416/C/1, Robert Gunawardana Mawatha, Battaramulla. 16. EOS RO PTE. Limited, #20-02, 18, Robinson Road, Singapore 048547. 17. Sea Consortium Pte. Limited (X-Press Feeders), 11, Duxton Hill, Singapore 089595. 18. Sea Consortium Lanka (Pvt.) Limited, No. 256, Srimath Ramanathan Mawatha, Colombo 13. 19. National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency, Crow Island, Colombo 15. 20. Central Environmental Authority, 104, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Battaramulla. 21. Hon. Dr. Nalaka Godahewa, State Minister of Urban Development, Coast Conservation, Waste Disposal & Community Cleanliness, State Ministry of Urban Development, Coast Conservation, Waste Disposal & Community Cleanliness, 17th Floor, ‘Suhurupaya’, Battaramulla. 21A. Hon. Arundika Fernando, State Minister of Urban Development and Housing, Ministry of Urban Development and Housing, 17th Floor, ‘Suhurupaya’, Battaramulla. 21B. Hon. Thenuka Vidanagamage, State Minister of Urban Development and Housing, Ministry of Urban Development and Housing, 17th Floor, ‘Suhurupaya’, Battaramulla. 22. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney-General’s Department, Hulftsdorp Street, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2025-07-24	SC/APPEAL/85/2013	1. Maheepala D. Alfred Fernando No. 45, Station Road, Mt. Lavinia. 2. Maheepala D. Shanthadeva Ananda No. 43/1, Paliyathuduwa Road, Kelaniya. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT- APPELLANTS Vs. 4c. Ranpatipura Dewage Sirisena, (DECEASED) 4C SUBSTITUTED–ADMINISTRATOR- RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT 4c(i) D.M. Heen Amma 4c(ii) R.D. Sisira Senanayaka 4c(iii) R.D. Pradeep Senanayaka 4c(iv) R.D. Nalika Senanayaka 4c(v) R.D. Shirani Senanayaka All of, No.225, Kandy Road, Nape, Pilassa. 4C(i) to 4C(v) SUBSTITUTED- ADMINISTRATOR-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT 3a. Ranpatipura Dewage Kirinelis 3b. Ranpatipura Dewage Podiamma 3c. Kira Dewayalaage Pinchi 3d. Ranpatipura Dewage Somawathie 3e. Ranpatipura Dewage Gunedasa 3f. Ranpatipura Dewage Karunarathne 3g. Ranpatipura Dewage Gunawathie 4a. Ranpatipura Dewage Gunadasa 4b. Ranpatipura Dewage Piyadasa (DECEASED) 4b(i) Kadirawelanage Appuhamy Guneratnage Anulawathie 4b(ii) Ranasinghe Dissanayakege Thushari Priyangika Edirisuriya 4b(iii) Ranasinghe Dissanayakege Chandana Pradeep Edirisuriya 4b(iv) Ranasinghe Dissanayakege Sanjeewa Pradeep Edirisuriya 4d. Ranpatipura Dewage Rana 4e. Ranpatipura Dewage Kirinelis 4f. Ranpatipura Dewage Punchina 4g. Ranpatipura Dewage Podina 5a. Mahipala Dharmasiriwardenage Alfred Fernando 6a. Rajakaruna Dewage Piyadasa 6b. Rajakaruna Dewage Somaratna 6c. Rajakaruna Dewage Rajapaksa 6d. Rajakaruna Dewage Premaratna 6e. Rajakaruna Dewage Ariyadasa 7. Ranpatipura Dewage Ranasinghe 8. Ranpatipura Dewage Babanis 9. Wijekoon Mudiyanselage Kiribanda All of Pilassa. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2025-07-24	SC/APPEAL/78/2018	2A. Vithana Pathirennehelage Lankmal Husain Sisirakumara, No. 148,C, Jayanthi Road, Meegahawatta, Dompe. 3. Vithana Pathirennehelage Ariyasena, No. 179/2, Giridara, Kapugoda. 4. Vithana Pathirennehelage Chandra Pathirana, No. 179/1, Giridara, Kapugoda. 5. Vithana Pathirennehelage Wilson, No. 179/1, Giridara, Kapugoda. 2A – 5TH DEFENDANTS – RESPONDENTS – APPELLANTS Vs. 1. Vithana Pathirennehelage Premaratne, No. 180, Giridara, Kapugoda. PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT V.P. Jayaratne, No. 11/138, Swarna Kanda Nivasa, Thalahena, Malabe. 1ST DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2025-07-24	SC/APPEAL/43/2024	Softlogic Finance PLC, No. 13, De Fonseka Place, Colombo 5. PETITIONER Vs Kollurage Priyanka Don Kollurage, No. 425 B3, Thalagala, Kiriwaththuduwa. RESPONDENT And now between Softlogic Finance PLC, No. 13, De Fonseka Place, Colombo 5. PETITIONER – APPELLANT Vs Kollurage Priyanka Don Kollurage, No. 425 B3, Thalagala, Kiriwaththuduwa. RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2025-07-23	SC/FR/246/2022, SC/FR/261/2022, SC/FR/262/2022, SC/FR/274/2022, SC/FR/276/2022	Ambika Sathkunanathan No. 27, Rudra Mawatha, Colombo 6. Petitioner Vs. 1. (A) Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 1. (B) Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 2. Gamini Senarath (Former) Secretary to the President, Presidential Secretariat, Colombo 01. 3. Saman Ekanayake Secretary to the President, Presidential Secretariat, Colombo 01. 4. General (Retired) Kamal Gunaratne Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Defence Headquarters Complex, Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte. Respondents 1. Wewala Pandithage Namini Thathprabha Panditha Pabasara, Sarasawi Mawatha, Horonduwa, Yatiyana, Matara. 2. Rusiru Tharinda Egodage 728/E, Kuttampokuna Road, Himbutuwelgoda, Kelaniya. Petitioners Vs. 1. C.D. Wickramaratne Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 10. 2. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents 1. Centre for Policy Alternatives (Guarantee) Limited No. 6/5, Layards Road, Colombo 5. 2. Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu No. 3, Ascot Avenue, Colombo 5. Petitioners Vs. 1. Hon. Attorney General 2. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents 1. Atham Lebbe Aazath No. 75/65, Maligakanda Road, Maradana, Colombo 10. 2. Laxmanan Sanjeev No. 19, 2/5, Asian Courts, Milagiriya Avenue, Colombo 4. Petitioners Vs. 1. Saman Ekanayake Secretary to the President, Presidential Secretariat, Colombo 1. 2. General (Retired) Kamal Gunaratne Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Defence, Defence Headquarters Complex, Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte. 3. S. Hettiarachchi Secretary to the Ministry of Public Security, 15th Floor, Suhurupaya, Battaramulla. 4. C.D. Wickramaratne Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 10. 5. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents Thudugala Mudalige Pubudu Sandun Thudugala No. 50, Ayesha Watta, Yakalla, Ibbagamuwa. Petitioner Vs. 1. Hon. Ranil Wickremasinghe President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and Minister of Defence Hon. Attorney General (In terms of proviso to Article 35(1) of the Constitution.) 2. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 3. Gamini Senarath (Former) Secretary to the President, Presidential Secretariat, Colombo 1. 4. Saman Ekanayake Secretary to the President, Presidential Secretariat, Colombo 1. 5. General (Retired) Kamal Gunaratne Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Defence Headquarters Complex, Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte. Respondents View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda PC J			Download
2025-07-23	SC/APPEAL/43/2025	Pradeep Chaminda Bandara Warellagama, No. 75/33, Heerassagala Road, Kandy. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF- PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Lalith Jayasundera, No. 139, Lady Mc Cullum’s Road, Kandy. 2. Sunil Shantha Kulasuriya, 3. Diyunuge Nandadasa Rajapaksha 4. Diyunuge Kulathunga Rajapaksha 5. Diyunuge Ananda Rajapaksha 6. Diyunuge Samson Rajapaksha 7. Rathnalal Nugaliyadde 8. D. Samson and Sons Limited, No. 64, Dalada Street, Kandy. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J			Download
2025-07-23	SC/APPEAL/28/2015	1. Samarasinghe Piyaseeli, 2. Paramadige Damith (Deceased), 2A. Samarasinghe Piyaseeli Both of No. 240, Kudagammana 04, Beralihela, Tissamaharama. (C/O J.P.P. Bandupala, Karawile Road, Sellakataragama, Kataragama) Defendant-Respondent-Appellants Vs. Andra Hennadige Aladin, No. 47, Ambagahawatte Land, Akkara Wissa, Sellakataragama, Kataragama (Deceased). Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent Andra Hennadige Pathmasiri, No. 196/D 96, 3rd Lane, Maduwanwala Colony, Colambageara. Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-07-23	SC/CHC APPEAL/18/2018	M.B.A. Systems (Pvt) Ltd., No. 41, Kanatta Road, Thalapathpitiya, Nugegoda. 1st Respondent-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Virgina Perera, No. 22/1, Albert Crescent, Colombo 7. Petitioner-Petitioner-Respondent A.P. Bogollagama, No. 441/1, Thimbirigasyaya Road, Longdon Place, Colombo 7. 2nd Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-07-23	SC/CHC APPEAL/15/2012	Seylan Bank Limited No. 69. Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Samdo Macky Sportswear (Private) Limited, No. 241, Layard’s Broadway, Colombo 14 2. Mohamed Uvais Mohamed Rushdi, No. 112, Horton Place, Colombo 07 Defendants And Now Between Mohamed Uvais Mohamed Rushdi, No. 112, Horton Place, Colombo 07. 2nd Defendant – Appellant Vs. Seylan Bank Limited No. 69. Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01. Plaintiff - Respondent Samdo Macky Sportswear (Private) Limited, No. 241, Layard’s Broadway, Colombo 14. 1st Defendant – Respondent View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando PC J			Download
2025-07-23	SC/APPEAL/152/2013	1. The Superintendent Troup Estate, Talawakelle. 2. Maskeliya Plantations Limited No.310, High Level Road, Navinna, Maharagama. Respondents - Appellants - Appellants Vs. Ceylon Estate Staffs’ Union No. 6, Aloe Avenue, Colombo 3. On behalf of S. Mahalingam. Applicant - Respondent - Respondent View More	Hon. Sobhitha Rajakaruna J			Download
2025-07-23	SC/APPEAL/154/2012	Maddage Semapala, School Lane, Labugama, Haltota. (deceased) Maddage Aruna Shantha, School Lane, Labugama, Haltota. Substituted 1A Plaintiff-Appellant -Appellant Vs. 1. Devika Weerakoon, No.42A, Anadarawatta Road, Polhengoda, Kirulapone, Colombo 05. 2A. W.A. Mallika Weerakoon, 3. Ratiyalage Don Aron Perera, 4A. Ratiyalage Anula, 5. Ratiyalage Anula, 6A. P.D. Premawardena, 6A1. P.D. Kusumalatha, 6B. P.D. Kusumalatha, All of Labugama, Halthota. 7A1. Dilani Kalpani Mannapperuma, Labugama, Halthota. 7B. Dilani Kalpani Mannapperuma, Labugama, Halthota. 8A. Thambawitage Upul Indika, Labugama, Halthota. 9. Ratiyalage Gunaseeli Perera, Labugama, Halthota. 10A. Dilani Kalpani Mannapperuma, Labugama, Halthota. 11. Dilani Kalpani Mannapperuma, Labugama, Halthota. 12. Sooriyaarachchige Munasinghe Labugama, Halthota. Defendant – Respondent -Respondents View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando PC J			Download
2025-07-21	SC/APPEAL/157/2018	Balangoda Plantations PLC, 110 Norris Canal Road Colombo 10. Plaintiff-Respondent- Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. Land Reform Commission, C82, Gregory Mawatha, Colombo 7 Defendant-Petitioner -Appellant – Respondent 2. The National Gem and Jewellery Authority, No.25 Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 3. 3. Janatha Estates Development Board, 55/75, Vauxhall Lane, Colombo 2. 2nd and 3rd Defendants-Respondents- Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Menaka Wijesundera J			Download
2025-07-18	SC/APPEAL/43/2015	1. Siyambalagahagedara Mohammed Nuhuman Abdul Cader 2. Siyambalagahagedara Mohammed Nuhuman Mohammed Haleem, Both of 233, Pilitaragama, Bulugohotenna, Akurana PLAINTIFFS – RESPONDENTS – APPELLANTS - Vs - D.L.H.M Sinnan, 236, Matale Road, Bulugohotenna, Akurana. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2025-07-18	SC/CHC/APPEAL/26/2020	Randunu Dewage Kingsley Ananda Wickremasinghe, 66/7, Aluthwa􀆩e Road, Chilaw. 1ST DEFENDANT – APPELLANT LOLC Finance PLC, Formerly known as Lanka Orix Finance Company PLC and Lanka Orix Finance PLC, 100/1, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha, Rajagiriya. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT Omali Nissanka, 66/7, Aluthwa􀆩e Road, Chilaw. 2ND DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2025-07-18	SC/FR/568/2012	1) Ceylon Electricity Board Independent Engineers Associa􀆟on, Ceylon Electricity Board, Kolonnawa. 2) Kalubowilage Kingsley Bernard Perera, 71A, Vikshopa Devamatha Road, Manaweriya. 3) Nihal Thasmantha Atapa􀆩u, “Hemantha”, Koramburuwana, Ransegoda, Matara. 4) S.S.M. Indika Seneviratne, 570, Nedumgamuwa, Gampaha. PETITIONERS - Vs - 1) Ceylon Electricity Board, PO Box 540, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. 2) W.B. Ganegoda 2A) W.D.A.S. Wijayapala 2B) M.M.C Ferdinando 2C) N.S. Illangakoon 2D) Dr. Tilak Siyambalapitiya 2 – 2D Respondents are Chairmen of the Ceylon Electricity Board. 3) T.M. Herath. 3A) W.A. Gamini Wannisekera 3B) N.S. Illangakoon 3C) Abey Ranaweera 3D) D.K.P.U. Gunathilake 3 – 3D Respondents are Chairmen of the Ceylon Electricity Board. and Others View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2025-07-18	SC/APPEAL/37/2018	1. L. J. K. Hettiaratchi, No. 28/3, De Fonseka Place, Colombo 05. 2. H. G. Fonseka, No. 28/2, De Fonseka Place, Colombo 05. Petitioner – Petitioners Vs. 1. Pearl Weerasinghe, The Commissioner General of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Department of Labour, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 1A. Prabath Chandrakeerthi, Attorney – at – Law, The Commissioner General of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Department of Labour, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 2. Mr. L. T. G. D. Darshana, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Labour Secretariat, Department of Labour, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 2A. Mr. H. K. K. A. Jayasundara, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Labour Secretariat, Department of Labour, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. Substituted Respondent – Respondent 3. Mr. M. A. Dhanardane, Labour Officer, Labour Secretariat, Department of Labour, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 4. Walker Son & Company Limited, No. 18, St. Michael’s Road, Colombo 03. Respondent – Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2025-07-17	SC/FR/388/2016	K.H. Lasantha Gooneward 3A.K.M. Mahinda Siriwardana Member of the Monetary Board of Sri Lanka and Secretary to the Ministry of Finance. 4. Sanjeewa Jayawardena, PC Member of the Monetary Board of Sri Lanka. 5. Dr. Ranee Jayamaha Member of the Monetary Board of Sri Lanka. 6. Samantha Kumarasinghe Member of the Monetary Board of Sri Lanka. 6A. Anthony Nihal Fonseka Member of the Monetary Board of Sri Lanka. All at the Office of the Monetary Board of Sri Lanka, Central Bank Building, P.O. Box 590, No. 30, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 1. and Othersena No. 330/08, Saman Mawatha, Lake Road, Boralasgamuwa. Petitioner Vs. 1. Monetary Board of Sri Lanka Central Bank Building, P.O. Box 590, No. 30, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 1. 2. Ajith Nivard Cabraal Chairman of the Monetary Board and Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka. 2A.Dr. P. Nandalal Weerasinghe Governor, Central Bank of Sri Lanka. 3. S.R. Attygalle Member of the Monetary Board of Sri Lanka and Secretary to the Ministry of Finance. View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda PC J			Download
2025-07-17	SC/APPEAL/33/2025	1. The Secretary, Ministry of Health, Suwasiripaya, No. 385, Rev. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. And 2 Others Respondents Appellants Vs. 1. Geethani Hemamala Kotikawatte No. 196, Srimath Bandaranaike Mawatha, Colombo 12. And 2 Others Petitioners Respondents 1. Hon. Dinesh Gunawardena Prime Minister and Minister of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 7. And 20 Others Respondents Respondents View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda PC J			Download
2025-07-16	SC/FR/229/2016	Jalisge Asiri Jayalath Wickramasinghe No.69, Janaudanagama, Morakewa, Horowpothana. Petitioner Vs. 1. Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) J. K. R. A. Perera, Commandant, Special Task Force, No. 223, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 1A. Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) Waruna Jayasundara, Commandant, Special Task Force, No. 223, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 1B. Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) D.G.S. De Silva, Commandant, Special Task Force, No. 223, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 2. Inspector General of Police (IGP) Pujitha Jayasundara, Police Head Quarters, Colombo. 2A. Senior DIG C. D Wickramaratne, Acting IGP, Police Head Quarters, Colombo. 2B. C. D Wickramaratne, Inspector General of Police (IGP) Police Head Quarters, Colombo. 2C. T. M. W. Deshabandu Thennakoon, Inspector General of Police (Acting) Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 2D. Senior DIG Priyantha Weerasooriya, Inspector General of Police (Acting) Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 3. Prof. Siri Hettige, The Chairman 3A. Mr. K. W. E Karalliyadda, Chairman, 3B. Mr. S. C. S.Fernando, Chairman, 3C. Mr. E. W. M Lalith Ekanayake Chairman 4. Mr. P.H. Manatunga, Member 4A. Mr. Gamini Nawaratne, Member, 4B. Mr. M. P. P. Perera. Member, 4C. Mr. D. Kapila Jayasuriya, Member and Others View More	Hon. Menaka Wijesundera J			Download
2025-07-16	SC/FR/66/2024	1. Rajapaksha Mudiyanselage Amarananda Rajapaksha, No.25, Wekunagoda Road, Galle. For and on behalf of; Rajapaksha Mudiyanselage Janula Uthsara Rajapaksha. Petitioners VS. 1. P.S. Pushpakumara (Principal) Chairman of the Appeal Board Richmond College, Galle. 1A. Rusira Maddumahewage, Principal, Richmond College, Galle. 2. K. K. S. Dilshan Secretary of the Interview Panel, Richmond College, Galle. 3. H. P.L. Chandana Kumara, Member No. 01 of the Interview Panel, Richmond College, Galle. 4. Samith Thushara Gallage, Member No. 02 of the Interview Panel, Richmond College, Galle. 5. H. K. Anusha Maduwanthi, Member No. 03 of the Interview Panel, Richmond College, Galle. 6. Channa Upali Weerasekara, Provincial Director of Education, Southern Province. 7. Ranjith Yapa, Secretary, Minister of Education, Southern Province. 8. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Menaka Wijesundera J			Download
2025-07-16	SC/APPEAL/4/2022	W. A. R. Don Dharmawardena of No. 84, Yatiyanthota road, Avissawella. Petitioner-Appellant 1. D. M. Nalinasekara No. 4/4, Galle road, Dehiwela South, Dehiwela. 2. J. A. P. Jagath Kumara, No. 226, Galdora road, Boralugama, Kosgama. 3. Anusha Dewapriya Assistant Commissioner, Agrarian Development, Kegalle. 3a. S. D. K. Mediwaka, Assistant Commissioner, Agrarian Development, Kegalle. Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Menaka Wijesundera J			Download
2025-07-11	SC/SPL LA/24/2024	Mohammed Kamil Kuthubdeen 8TH ACCUSED – APPELLANT – PETITIONER Hon. Attorney General Attorney Gneral’s Department Colombo 12. COMPLAINANT - RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2025-07-09	SC/HCLA/06/2020 with SC/HCLA/07/2020	Ceylon Electricity Board, No. 50, Sir Chithampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2, Sri Lanka. CLAIMANT-RESPONDENT- PETITIONER Vs. Poyry Switzerland Limited, (Formerly Poyry Energy Limited), Herostrasse 12, 8048 Zurich, Switzerland. RESPONDENT-PETITIONER- RESPONDENT, Ceylon Electricity Board, No. 50, Sir Chithampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2, Sri Lanka. CLAIMANT-PETITIONER- PETITIONER Vs. Poyry Switzerland Limited, (Formerly Poyry Energy Limited), Herostrasse 12, 8048 Zurich, Switzerland. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J			Download
2025-07-09	SC/FR/216/2020	1. Jayasingha Arachchige Shermila Priyadarshani Silva, No. 261/B, Kamaragoda, Dewalapola. 2. Jayasingha Arachchige Pasindu Hirushan Silva, No. 261/B, Kamaragoda, Dewalapola. Petitioners 1. University Grants Commission, 20, Ward Place, Colombo 07. 2. Snr. Prof. Sampath Amaratunge, Chairman, University Grants Commission, 20, Ward Place, Colombo 07. 2A. Snr. Prof. Kapila Seneviratne, Chairman, University Grants Commission, 20, Ward Place, Colombo 07. 3. Snr. Prof. Sudantha Liyanage, Vice Chancellor (Acting), University of Sri Jayawardenepura. 4. Prof. P.D. Nimal, Dean - Faculty of Management Studies and Commerce, Gangodawila, Nugegoda. 5. Hon. Attorney General, The Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 6A. Prof. H.D. Karunaratne, Vice Chancellor, University of Colombo, College House 94, Kumaratunga Munidasa Mw, Colombo 03. and Others View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2025-07-09	SC/APPEAL/68/2017	W.G.M.Premadasa Silva, No. 26/4, Station Lane, Nugegoda. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant V. 1. A.K.G. Janis, No. 64, Dutugemenu Road, Monaragala. 2. A.K.G. SeethaRanjani, Kawdawa, Wedikumbura, Moneragala. Defendants-Appellants Respondents View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2025-07-08	SC/APPEAL/139/2015	K.B. Janaranjana, No. 29/A 01, Sandees Lane, Light House Road, Devinuwara. Applicant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. The State Timber Corporation, Sampathpaya, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-07-08	SC/CHC APPEAL/24/2008	1. Gamini Seneviratne 2. Sujith Nishantha Senevirathne Both at Salawa Road, Udahamulla, Nugegoda. DEFENDANTS – APPELLANTS Vs Sampath Bank Limited, No. 110, Sir James Peiris Mawatha, Colombo 2. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2025-07-08	SC/APPEAL/25/2012	Wa􀆩ewa Kankanamge Sirisena, Kekunagoda, Halwinna, Godakawela. 1ST DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – APPELLANT Wa􀆩ewa Kankanamge Dayawansha Kumarasiri, Kekunagoda, Halwinna, Godakawela. SUBSTITUTED 1ST DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – APPELLANT - Vs - Wa􀆩ewa Kankanamge Siripala, No. 242, Pahala Andaluwa, Kolambage Ara. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT (2) J M Ranmenike, Pahala Andaluwa, Kolambage Ara. (3) Wa􀆩ewa Kankanamge Renuka, Pahala Andaluwa, Kolambage Ara. (4) Wa􀆩ewa Kankanamge Ramani, Pahala Andaluwa, Kolambage Ara. (5) Wa􀆩ewa Kankanamge Deepika, Pahala Andaluwa, Kolambage Ara. (6) Wa􀆩ewa Kankanamge Lalith, Pahala Andaluwa, Kolambage Ara. (7) Wa􀆩ewa Kankanamge Chaminda, Pahala Andaluwa, Kolambage Ara. 2ND – 7TH DEFENDANTS – RESPONDENTS – RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2025-07-07	SC/CHC APPEAL/44/2012	1. Dr. P.B. Jayasundara, Secretary to the Ministry of Finance and Planning and the Secretary to the Treasury, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 1A. Dr. Ranepura Hewage Samantha Samarathunga, Secretary to the Ministry of Finance and Planning and the Secretary to the Treasury, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 1B. K.M.Mahinda Siriwardana, Secretary to the Ministry of Finance and Planning and the Secretary to the Treasury, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 2. Public Enterprises Reform Commission, No. 11-01, West Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 01. 3. The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Defendant- Appellants Vs. 1. Acland Insurance Services Limited, No. 65/5, Ward Place, Colombo 07. Plaintiff-Respondent 2. National Insurance Corporation Limited, No.01, Muttaiah Road, Colombo 02. 2A.Janashakthi Insurance Company Limited, No.24, Staples Street, Colombo 02. 3. Jayampathi Charitha Ratwatte, Former Secretary, Ministry of Finance, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. Defendant-Respondents View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando PC J			Download
2025-07-07	SC/APPEAL/35/2024	Uthuwan Pathirannehelage Karunadasa (Correct Name as Uthuwan Pathirannehelage Karunarathna) No. 155, Wataddara, Veyangoda. DEFENDANT-PETITIONERPETITIONER Vs. 1. E. M. Kamalawathi 2. H. Anula De Seram 3. H. Mallika De Seram 4. H. Mangalika De Seram 5. H. Mala De Seram 6. H. Mangala De Seram All of No. 142, Wataddara, Veyangoda. PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTSRESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2025-07-07	SC/APPEAL/120/2021	The Commissioner General of Inland Revenue, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. Stafford Motor Company (Private) Limited, 718/7, Maradana Road, Colombo 10. APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2025-07-07	SC/APPEAL/55/2024	The Commissioner General of Inland Revenue, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. Stafford Motor Company (Private) Limited, 718/7, Maradana Road, Colombo 10. APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2025-07-07	SC/FR/382/2019	1. U.P.E. Wijesuriya, Service No. 1423, 291/8/1, Pragathi Place, Sudarshana Mawatha, Malabe. 2. L.H.M. Premarathne, Service No. 1555, Dunhinda Road, Ethgala, Gampola. 3. R.A.P. Samaraweera, Service No. 1607, 1543/10, Amuattamulla Road, Kottawa – East, Pannipitiya. Petitioners Vs. 1. Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation, 2. Chairman, Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 3. Mr. M.P. Bandara, Member of the Interview Panel, Senior Assistant Secretary (Admin), Ministry of Mass Media & Information, 163, Kirulapona Mawatha, Polhenagoda, Colombo 05. 4. Mr. Rohan Perera, Member of the Interview Panel, Former Deputy Director General (Engineering), Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation, No. 8, Chackendarama Road, Rathmalana. 5. Mr. G.G.S.C. Roshan, Member of the Interview Panel, Director (Administration), Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation Independence Square, Colombo 7. (Now said to be in Japan) 6. Mr. Mahinda Samarakoon, Member of the Committee to Investigate appointments to “Technical Administrator” Post, Assistant Director, 7. Mr. Palitha Gallage, Member of the Committee to Investigate appointments to “Technical Administrator” Post, Deputy Director General (Engineering), 8. Mr. Palitha Wijesinghe, Member of Committee to Investigate appointment to “Technical Administrator” Post, Director General, 9. Mr. Thusira Malawwethantri, Former Director General, 10. Mr. Saranga Wijerathne, Director General (Former), AND OTHERS View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-07-07	SC/FR/536/2012 WITH SC/FR/560/2012	1. V.R.I. Gunawardena No. 81, Araliya Uyana, Mattegoda. 2. L.M.Gurusinghe 20/19, 2nd Lane, Cancer Hospital Road, Maharagama. 3. S.W.R.A. Kulatunga, No. 1144/16, Shanthi Mawatha, Liyanagoda, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. Petitioners Vs. 1. Dr. H.C. Ambawatte, Director General of Technical Education and Training, P.O. Box 557, Olcott Mawatha, Colombo 10. 1A. Mr. J.A. Ranjith, Director General of Technical Education and Training, P.O. Box 557, Olcott Mawatha, Colombo 10. 1C. Mr. S.C. Jagath, Director General of Technical Education and Training, P.O. Box 557, Olcott Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. P.B.C.Kularathne, Director- Administration, Department of Technical Education and Training, P.O. Box 557, Olcott Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2A. Mr. G.D.S.Gunawardena, Director- Administration, Department of Technical Education and Training, P.O. Box 557, Olcott Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2C. Ms. K.A.M.L.C. Kulathilaka, Director- Administration, Department of Technical Education and Training, P.O. Box 557, Olcott Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3. Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Skills Development, “Nipunatha Piyasa”, No. 354/2, Elvitigala Mawatha, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 3B. Dr. Susil Premajayantha, Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, 3rd Floor, Sethsiripaya Stage I, Battaramulla. 4. P.B.Abeykoon, Secretary, Minister of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independence Avenue, Colombo 07. 4A. Mr. J. Dadallge, Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independence Avenue, Colombo 07. AND OTHERS View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando PC CJ			Download
2025-07-03	SC/APPEAL/30/2023	Jinasena (Pvt) Ltd. Factory, No. 09, Gampaha Road, Ekala, Ja-Ela. RESPONDENT- PETITIONER- APPELLANT Vs. L.S.I. Fernando No. 247, Kamaragoda, Devalapola. APPLICANT- RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Sobhitha Rajakaruna J			Download
2025-07-03	SC/FR/241/2019	Hetti Arachchige Thisaru Tharinda, No. 694/1/A, Waduwegama, Malwana. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Captain Gihan Perera General Sir John Kotelawala Defence Academy, Kandawala Road, Rathmalana. 2. Lt. Commander Dissanayake, Squadron Commander, General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University, Kandawala Road, Rathmalana. 3. Brigadier Chandra Jayaweera, Dean, Faculty of Defence and Strategic Studies, General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University, Kandawala Road, Rathmalana. 4. General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University, Kandawala Road, Rathmalana. 5. Air Vice Marshal Sagara Kotakadeniya, Vice Chancellor, General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University, Kandawala Road, Rathmalana. 6. Lt. Colonel P. S. Subath Sanjeewa, Registrar, Kotelawala Defence Academy. 7. Hon. Attorney General, Attornery General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Sobhitha Rajakaruna J			Download
2025-07-03	SC/FR/292/2021	1. Mampitiya Arachchige Harsha Dammika Perera, Chief Inspector of Police, I Block 2/3, Anderson Flats, Colombo 05. 2. Samarsinghelage Krishantha Saman Kumara Samarasinghe, Chief Inspector of Police, H/1/3, Anderson Flats, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 3. Rajasinghage Sanath Rajasinghe, Chief Inspector of Police, Yombuwatta Mirahawatta, Bandarawela. 4. Galauda Kandage Vipul Nanadana Vimalasiri, Chief Inspector of Police No. 103, Police Quarters, Pothgul Vihara Mawatha, Rathnapura. 5. Kakulandala Withanage Percy Lalith Kumara, Chief Inspector of Police, No. 103/1, Police Quarters, Pothgul Vihara Mawatha, Rathnapura. AND OTHER PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Hon. Gamini Lokuge, Chairman, 2. Mahinda Senavirathna, Committee Member, 3. Ariyarathna Arumapperuma Committee Member, 4. Chathurika Wijesingha Committee Member, Committee to grant relief to employees subject to Political Victimization in the Government and Semi-Government sector, Room No. 2-123, Premises No. 02, Bandaranayake Memorial International Conference Hall, Colombo 07. 5. Hon. Mahinda Rajapaksa, M.P. Minister of Economic & Plan Implementation, Former Member, 6. Hon. Nimal Siripala De Silva, M.P. Minister of Labour, Former Member, 7. Hon. G.L. Peiris, M.P. Foreign Minister, Former Member, 8. Hon. Pavithra Devi Vanniarachchi, M.P. Minister of Transport, Former Member, 9. Hon. Dinesh Gunawardena, M.P. Minister of Education, Former Member, 10. Hon. Douglas Devananda, M.P. Minister of Fisheries, Former Member, AND OTHER RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. P. Padman Surasena J			Download
2025-07-03	SC/FR/346/2018	Ranawaka Aarachchige Gamini Jayarathne No. 51, Kalukele, Polonnaruwa. 2. Hettiarachchige Rangika Eranda No. 63, Kalukele, Polonnaruwa. Petitioners Vs. 1. S.M.L.R. Bandara Officer-in-Charge, Aralaganwila Police Station, Aralaganwila. [Presently, attached to the Welikanda Police Station.] 2. L.G.H. Herath Officer-in-Charge (Crimes Division), Aralaganwila Police Station, Aralaganwila. 3. Pujitha Jayasundara Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 1. 4. Honourable Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda PC J			Download
2025-07-01	SC/APPEAL/8/2021	LOLC Finance PLC (Sinhaputhra Finance has amalgamated with Commercial Leasing and Finance PLC and thereafter Commercial Leasing and Finance PLC has amalgamated with LOLC Finance PLC) No. 100/1, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha, Rajagiriya PETITIONERRESPONDENT- APPELLANT Vs. Chandrapatti Mohottilage Mahanthe Gedara Chndrarathna Banda No.17/8, Abagahapalassa. 1ST RESPONDENTAPPELLANT- RESPONDENT 2. Balagolla Gedera Piyadasa No. 17/11, 6th Mile Post, Abagahapalassa. 3. Dissanayake Mudiyanselage Ajith Kumara Dissanayake No. 17/16 A, Abagahapalassa. 4. Konara Mudiyanselage Thushari Dammika Polpitiya No. 17/8, Abagahapalassa. RESPONDENTSRESPONDENTS- RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J			Download
2025-06-25	SC/APPEAL/131/2018	1. Egalle Muhandiramlage Simonhamy Alias Podiappu, 2. Samaya Mantree Gamladdalage Leelawathi Both of Yaalawa, Uhumiya. Defendants-Appellants-Appellants Samaya Mantree Gamladdalage Sumanadasa, Yaalawa, Uhumiya. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 1A. Hangili Gedara Karunawathie, 2A. Samayamantree Gamladdalage Sarath Sisira Kumara, 3A. Samayamantree Gamladdalage Samaratunga, 4A. Samayamantree Gamladdalage Ranjith Dharamasiri, 5A. Samayamantree Gamladdalage Malani Somalatha, 6A. Samayamantree Gamladdalage Sunil Premaratna, 7A. Samayamantree Gamladdalage Danapala Wijesiri, All of Uhumiya Post, Yalawa North. Substituted Defendants- Respondents- Respondents View More	Hon. Samayawardhena, J.	The Ampara Multipurpose Co O perative Society Limited, D S. Senanayake Veediya, Ampara. PETITIONER APPELLANT Vs. 1. H.M. Herath Abeyweera District Secretary, District Secretariat, Ampara		Download
2025-06-25	SC/APPEAL/87/2023	1. S. Selvaratnam 2. M. Ramasubbu 3. K.C. Namasiwayam (deceased) 4. Marimuthu Wadivel Chettiar 5. Sathasivam Darmalingam Sivakumar Chettiar 6. Muthuramalingam Sangaran Chetty All present Trustees of Sri Muthumariamma Kovil, No. 53 and 55, Kotahena Street, Colombo 13. Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants Vs. 1. Arawwala Jothige Nimal Perera No. 22/16, Pickering Road, Colombo 13. 1st Defendant-Appellant-Respondent 2. Veerasinghan Chandrakumaran, No. 22/16, Pickering Road, Colombo 13. 3rd Defendant-Appellant-Respondent 3. Kotte Mudiyanselage Malini Sujatha, No. 22/15, Pickering Road, Colombo 13. 4th Defendant-Appellant-Respondent 4. Saroja Fernando, No. 22/17, Pickering Road, Colombo 13. 5th Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-06-25	SC/CHC APPEAL/21/2021	Bianca (Pvt) Ltd., C10 Creation Limited. Padukka Road, Wataraka, Meegoda. Defendant-Appellant Vs. People’s Bank, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-06-24	SC/APPEAL/89/2017	Herath Muduyanselage Priyanthi Winifreda of No.2,Pallegama, Atabage Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Senarath Abeysiri Yamilawatte Panilatenna. 2. D.G.N. Dhanahitiyawa of No 294,Hunukotugama,Ihalagama,Atabage. View More	Hon. Kumuduni Wickremasinghe J			Download
2025-06-20	SC/APPEAL/143/2017	1. K.A. Gunawathi, Darshana Stores, Serukade, Chilaw 2. Balagage Susantha Kamal Nissanka Stores, Kalukela, Pallama (Anamaduwa Police Area) Defendants- Respondents-Appellants Vs. Pulukkutti Arachchige Niluka Suranji Anuradha “Lakmini”, Karadagolla, Malsiripura Plaintiff- Petitioner- Respondent View More	Hon. Kumuduni Wickremasinghe J			Download
2025-06-16	SC/APPEAL/34/2011	1. Dionisius Arjuna Dias, (Former Chairman Cupid Industries) No.14, Charles Place, Colombo 03. 2. Piero Ramesh Dias, (Former Director, Cupid Industries), No.14, Charles Place, Colombo 03. RESPONDENT – PETITIONERS – PETITIONERS – PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Termination), Department of Labour, Colombo 05. APPLICANT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT 2. Cupid Industries, No. 12. 1st Cross Street Kandawala Road, Rathmalana. 3. G.J. David (Liquidator of Cupid Industries) C/o M/s. Someswaran Jayawickrema and Company, No. 222, Galle Road, Colombo 04. 4. P.E.A. Jayawickrama (Liquidator of Cupid Industries) C/o M/s. Someswaran Jayawickrema and Company, No. 222, Galle Road, Colombo 04. RESPONDENTS – RESPONDENTS – RESPONDENTS – RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. A.H.M.D.Nawaz J			Download
2025-06-16	SC/APPEAL/102/2021	1. Ranasinghe Arachchilage Wilson And 7 others All of, No.19, YMBA Shopping Complex, Kandy Road, Vavuniya. PETITIONERS – APPELLANTS – PETITIONERS – APPELLANTS. -Vs- 1. Welupillei Wasantha Kumar, The Secretary, Urban Council, Vavuniya. SUBSTITUTED PETITIONER – 1ST RESPONDENT– 1ST RESPONDENT – 1ST RESPONDENT 2. V. Jayatilleka, President, Y.M.B.A, Kandy Road, Vavuniya. SUBSTITUTED RESPONDENT – 2ND RESPONDENT 2ND RESPONDENT – 2ND RESPONDENT View More	Hon. A.H.M.D.Nawaz J			Download
2025-06-16	SC/APPEAL/108/2022	2. H.W. Amarasiri, 3. Pushpani Perera, (H.W. Amarasirik’s wife) Both are Medawatta, Udukumbulwela, Ella DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – APPELLANTS - VS – W.M. Bandara Menika, Buthsaranawatte, Kumbalwela, Ella. (Deceased) 1. Edirisinghe Mudiyansalage Sudu Manike Dodanwatta, Diyathalawa. 2. Edirisinghe Mudiyansalage Podi Manike, 288, Gediyaroda, Bandarawela. 3. Edirisinghe Mudiyansalage Sarath Bandara, Darshana Niwasa, Udukumbalwela, Ella 4. Edirisinghe Mudiyanselage Madduma Manike “Rasika Wee Mola”, Weherayaya, Athiliwewa, 5. Edirisinghe Mudiyansalage Wijebandara, Buthsarana Watta, Udukumbalwela, Ella SUBSTITUTED – PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT 1. T.M. Wini Thennakoon, No. 137, Kotiyawatta, Andiambalama, Katunayaka. 1st DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. E.A.G.R Amarasekara J			Download
2025-06-16	SC/APPEAL/162/2014	2. Porage Nandawathie Perera, of No.145/2, High Level Road, Pannipitiya. 2ND DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – PETITIONER-APPELLANT 1. Senadheerage alias Polwattage Samaranayake, 1st PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT E. A. View More	Hon. E.A.G.R Amarasekara J			Download
2025-06-16	SC/APPEAL/242/2014	Mohammed Khan Abdul Kuthoos, Mahathenna, Guruthalawa. 1C SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT - Vs - M.A. Hameed Ibrahim Nachchiya, Mahathenna, Guruthalawa. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT Samsudeen Mohammed Khan, [Deceased] Mahathenna, Guruthalawa. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT (1A) Majeed Jeithoon Bee [Deceased] (1B) Mohammed Khan Washeela Umma (1D) Mohammed Rasheena Bee Bee (1E) Mohammed Khan Muvina Umma (1F) Mohammed Khan Ishak (1G) Mohammed Khan Ameena Umma All of Mahathenna, Guruthalawa. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFFS – RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Arjuna Obeyesekere J			Download
2025-06-16	SC/CHC APPEAL/3/2014	LB, Finance PLC, No. 275/75, Professor Stanley Wijesundara Mawatha, Colombo 07. PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT -Vs- 1. Muhammadu Thaibu Minnathun Naeem, No. 76, Hakmana, Mee Ella. 2. Divithura Gamage Gunadasa, “Samanmali” Urumuththa, Akuressa. 3. Siriwardena Pathiranage Jayawickrama, “Sirisevana” Gallindamulla, Katuwana. DEFENDANT – RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. A.H.M.D.Nawaz J			Download
2025-06-16	SC/CHC APPEAL/49/2012	East Link Engineering Company (Private) No. 241/31, Kirula Road Colombo 5 DEFENDANT – APPELLANT - VS - ESTEEL (Private) Limited Spur Road II Industrial Processing Zone (IPZ) Katunayake PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. E.A.G.R Amarasekara J			Download
2025-06-13	SC/APPEAL/26/2019	Malduwa Ranasinghe Gamage Chandrika, of No.388/B, Nandana Mawatha, Hunupitiya, Wattala. DEFENDANT – PETITIONER – APPELLANT – APPELLANT - VS – Heeralu Arachchige Piyasena, of No.453/4, Podi Wee Kumbura, Ragama. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. E.A.G.R Amarasekara J			Download
2025-06-13	SC/APPEAL/51/2020	Wadumestrige Nimal, No. 43, Modara Patuwatha, Dodandugoda SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT – APPELLANT Vs. 01. Wadumestrige Wilson, 02. Wadumestrige Banet, 02A. Wadumestrige Somarsiri of Dodandugoda, Dodanduwa 03A. Petta Yaddehige Donald of Dodandugoda, Dodanduwa 04. Wadige Dani, (Deceased) 05. Wadige Jasinona, 06. Wadige Sami, 06A. Wadige Dani, 07. Wadige Nelinona, 08. Wadige Piyathunga, 09. Wadige Dayaseeli, 10. Wadige Dayawathi, and Others View More	Hon. E.A.G.R Amarasekara J			Download
2025-06-13	SC/APPEAL/61/2013	Karmini Chandraleka Weerasinghe. 13, Hewahata Road, Kandy PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT APPELLANT - VS - 3. Gawaripihille Gedara Harrey No. 128, Hamanagoda, Katugastota 3a. Kodikara Gedara Wickramasinghe No. 128, Hamangoda Katugastota. 3b. Kodikara Gedara Hemalatha No. 122/6, Ritigahapalana Pallemulla, Halloluwa. 3c. Kodikara Gedara Chaminda No. 128, Hamangoda Katugastota SUBSTITUTED 3RD DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENTS 1. Gayawansa Noel Opananda, No. 123, Hamanagoda, Katugastota 1a. Srikanthi Monika Dayawickrama No. 123, Hamangoda, Katugastota. 1b. Gosindu Sanka Gayawansa No. 123, Hamangoda, Katugastota. 1c. Prathiba Buddhi Upahara Gayawansa No. 123, Hamangoda, Katugastota SUBSTITUTED 1ST DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENTS 2. Donald Rathnakumara Hamanagoda, Katugastota. 2a. Ayesha Samankathi Opananda No. 53, Anagarika Dharmapala Mawatha, Kandy. 2b. Tinalee Charika Rathnakumara No. 53, Anagarika Dharmapala Mawatha, Kandy. SUBSTITUTED 2ND DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. E.A.G.R Amarasekara J			Download
2025-06-13	SC/APPEAL/76/2017	H.K.D.W. De Alwis, No. 7A, Nelum Mawatha, Sirimal Uyana, Mt. Lavinia. 2nd Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Ponsuge Jayantha Chandrakumara Thissera Sandanayake, No. 54/19, Bowila Road, Pahala Bomiriya, Kaduwela. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent Majuwana Gamage Chaminda Dilhan, No. 82/10, Sri Dharmarama Road, Ratmalana. 1st Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-06-13	SC/APPEAL/145/2016	Manel Dissanayake Both of 1/38, Heerasagala Road, Kandy 2nd DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – APPELLANT - VS - Hettiarachchige Manel alias Manel Hettiarachchi, 2/38, Heerasagala Road, Kandy PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT 1. Victor Seneviratne of 1/38, Heerasagala Road, Kandy. 1A. Neeta Magret Seneviratne (nee Amarasinghe) 1/38, Heerasgala Road, Mulgampola, Kandy 3. Seetha Chandrasekara 32, Devi Road, Watapulawa, Kandy 3A. Indrani Dissanayake No. 32, Heerassagala Road, Kandy 1st AND 3A DEFENDANTS – RESPONDENTS – RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. E.A.G.R Amarasekara J			Download
2025-06-13	SC/APPEAL/159/2023	Attorney – General Attorney-General’s Department, Hultsdorp, Colombo 12 COMPLAINANT – APPELLANT – PETITIONER – APPELLANT - VS - Wickramathilake Don Susantha Kumara No.45, Kala Wewa, Wijithapura, Anuradhapura ACCUSED – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. E.A.G.R Amarasekara J			Download
2025-06-12	SC/FR/12/2015	Owitigalage Maithreepala Owitigala No. 280, Hinguruwewa, Talawa, Anuradhapura. PETITIONER Vs. 1. N. K. Ilangakoon Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 2. Gamini Dissanayake Deputy Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 3. Jagath Abeysirigunawardena Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Central Province, Office of the Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police, Meththa Mawatha, Anuradhapura. 4. Ravi Wijewardena Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police, Northern Province, Office of the Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police, Meththa Mawatha, Anuradhapura. 5. C. Vithanawasam Disciplinary Inquiry Officer, Yakalla, Nedogodawewa. 6. R. A. Saaman Kumara alias Jayantha No. 83, 02/01 A Colony, Adhiranigama, Ihala Halmillewa, Eppawala. 7. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2025-06-12	SC/APPEAL/38/2014	Jayamaha Mudalige Karunawathie Jayamaha No. 86/21, Santa Maria Road, Kandewatte, Ja-Ela Petitioner-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Jayamaha Mudalige Leelawathie Jayamaha No. 1/43, Raja Maha Vihara Mawatha, Maharagama (1A and 3A and 6th Respondent- Respondent- Respondent) 2. Jayamaha Mudalige Sarath Padmasiri Jayamaha 181, South Batagama, Batagama (2nd Respondent-Respondent-Respondent) Deceased Samanpali Padma Perera Proposed Substituted 2A Respondent-Respondent-Respondent and Others View More	Hon. Kumuduni Wickremasinghe J			Download
2025-06-11	SC/APPEAL/217/2014	H. Damayanthi Samarasekara No.50/1, New Jayaweera Mawatha, Ethulkotte. 2nd Defendant-Appellant-Appellant and 2nd Defendant-Respondent- Appellant Vs. Sathyajith Deshabandu Welaratne Presently at No.15, Gainsburry Lane, Acton, London United Kingdom By his Attorney U.D. Welaratne No. 57/14. Jayaweera Mawatha, Ethul Kotte. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent and Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Achala Wengappuli J			Download
2025-06-11	SC/APPEAL/17/2012	Karunanayaka Gurunnanselage Somathilaka of Illukpitiya, Getaheththa, (Deceased) Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Karunanayaka Gurunnanselage Indrani Karunanayaka No.50, Rakinadeniya Road, Illukpitiya, Getaheththa, Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. Wilson Eheliyagoda of Beragala Road, Kegalle. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 2. P.Piyadasa of Illukpitiya, Getaheththa, 2nd Defendant-Appellant-Respondent 3. P.Ariyadasa of Illukpitiya, Getaheththa,(Deceased) 3rd Defendant-Appellant-Respondent 3A. Galabada Kankanamlage Wimalawathie 3B. Pathirannehelage Nirushika Sudharsani 3C. Pathirannehelage Anusha Subhasini Pathirana 3D. Pathirannehelage Nadeeka Chamari Pathirana 3E. Pathirannehelage Asanka Sanjeewa Pathirana 3F. Pathirannehelage Anurudda Sanjaya Pathirana, All of Illukpitiya, Getaheththa, Substituted-3A-3F-Defendant-Appellant-Respondents View More	Hon. Achala Wengappuli J			Download
2025-06-09	SC/TAB/5/2023	Honourable Attorney-General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant – Appellant Vs. 1. Jayakodi Aarachchige Anura Chaminda Appuhamy 2. Thavarasa Sadukaran 3. Aglesa Pille Thavarsa 4. Yakdehi Arachchige Lasantha Priyalal Apphamy alias Yaddehi Arachchige Lasantha Priyalal 5. Kandiah Chandrakumar Accused - Respondents View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda PC J	Prior to this matter being fixed for hearing, Summons were issued on all Accused – Respondents. Only the 1st and 4th Accused – Respondents presented themselves before this Court. They were enlarged on bail. Following the issue of Notices on the Sureties of the Accused – Respondents who did not appear, the wife of the 2nd Accused – Respondent appeared before Court. On a request made by the Complainant – Appellant (the Attorney-General), the Court issued Warrants of Arrest on those Accused – Respondents who were not present before Court. Learned Senior Deputy Solicitor General (Snr. DSG) informed Court of steps being taken by the Complainant – Appellant to trace the whereabouts of the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Accused – Respondents. SC TAB APPEAL 05/2023 – JUDGMENT 3 He submitted that the assistance of INTERPOL had been sought and obtained. He also informed this Court that INTERPOL had issued ‘Red Notices’ on these three Accused – Respondents. Being satisfied that this Court could not take any further action to secure the attendance of the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Accused – Respondents, this Appeal was fixed for hearing and was taken-up today. This Judgment relates to an Appeal preferred by the Honourable Attorney General (Complainant - Appellant) against a verdict of acquittal entered by a Trial-at-Bar of the High Court of the Western Province holden in Colombo. The Accused-Respondents had been indicted by the Complainant – Appellant for having jointly committed offences contained in sections 54A(b), 54A(c) and 54A(d) of the Poisons, Opium, and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. The essence of the indictment preferred to the High Court by the Complainant - Appellant was that the five Accused named on the face of the indictment had, on or about 21st April 2019, committed the offences of importation, trafficking and joint possession of 196.986 kilograms of Diacetyl Morphine (commonly referred to as ‘heroin’). The narrative of the prosecution’s case is that, on intelligence received by the State Intelligence Service and passed on to the Sri Lanka Navy, the latter had followed up on the intelligence and engaged in a search operation using the naval patrol boat ‘Sagara’ commanded by Captain Anil Bowatte, which, at the time of the receipt of information, was already patrolling the seas of Sri Lanka on routine reconnaissance duties. The intelligence received was to the effect that a large quantity of heroin was being trafficked into Sri Lanka using a fishing vessel. Thus, the Navy patrol vessel proceeded in the direction in which the fishing vessel was said to be sailing. On 21st April 2019, in mid sea, the Navy detected a multi-day fishing trawler (registered with the Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources) which coincided with the information received. The Navy vessel accosted the fishing craft, and on instructions given by Captain Bowatte, Commander Nishantha Dhahanayake boarded the fishing vessel along with several other Navy personnel, and searched it. Navy officers found 13 large polysac bags kept in front of the ‘wheel house’ of the fishing vessel. There were five persons on the fishing vessel. Having opened one sack, they observed inside it another polysac bag, and inside that polysac bag, a large number of polythene packets. On suspicion that these packets contained heroin, the Navy personnel apprehended the 5 suspects (Accused – Respondents) and transferred them along with the suspected contraband to the Navy boat. The Navy brought the fishing boat, the 5 suspects and the 13 polysac bags to shore, and at the Naval Base in Trincomalee, handed them over to the officers of the Police Narcotics Bureau (PNB). Deputy Inspector General Sajeewa Medawatte of the PNB took charge of the 5 suspects and 13 polysac bags. Inspection of the 13 polysac bags by officers of the PNB revealed that, SC TAB APPEAL 05/2023 – JUDGMENT 4 inside each polysac bag was another ploysac bag, and inside the inner bag were a large number of polythene packets which totaled to 248. Field testing of the substance inside the polythene packets revealed that the powdery substance was Diacetyl Morphine. The gross weight of the substance detected by the Navy was found to be 273 kg. Later, the afore-stated 248 packets and the 26 polysac bags (13 polysac bags inside each of which were another polysac bag) were sealed and forwarded to the Government Analyst through the Magistrates Court. The five suspects (Accused – Respondents) were arrested, produced before the learned Magistrate and placed in remand custody. Following a full trial at which fourteen (14) witnesses had testified for the prosecution, the trial-at-bar called for the defence of the Accused. The 1st Accused had given evidence under oath, and the other four Accused had made statements from the dock. At the end of the trial, the Trial-at-Bar had acquitted all Accused. It is against such verdict of acquittal that the Complainant - Appellant (Honourable Attorney-General) had preferred this Appeal. The core of the submission made by learned Snr. DSG on behalf of the Appellant was that the Trial-at-Bar had committed the following errors in the appreciation and analysis of the prosecution’s evidence: i) That the court had failed to appreciate the significance of the un-impugned evidence of prosecution witnesses Nos. 1 and 2 (Navy officers Captain Anil Bowatte and Commander Nishantha Dhahanayake) who made the detection, apprehended the suspects, and brought the suspects ashore along with the heroin) regarding the circumstances relating to the (i) detection of heroin, (ii) apprehension of the suspects (Accused – Respondents) who were in joint possession of the heroin, and (iii) handing over of the heroin and the suspects to the officers of the PNB. ii) That the court had failed to appreciate the significance of the admissions recorded at the commencement of the trial as well as during the trial, which significantly strengthened the case for the prosecution. iii) That the court had attached inappropriate significance to certain minor discrepancies arising out of the testimonies of some of the prosecution witnesses pertaining to the marking and the sealing of certain external covers (the two sets of 13 polysac bags), inside which polythene packets containing heroin were found. iv) That, in view of the foregoing, the court had erroneously concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. SC TAB APPEAL 05/2023 – JUDGMENT 5 Learned Snr. DSG submitted that the Accused had been acquitted due to the foregoing erroneous appreciation of evidence and conclusions reached by the Judges of the Trial-at-Bar. In response, we heard learned President\'s Counsel and the other two Counsel who represented the Accused-Respondents. While not directly contesting the submission made by learned Snr. DSG, they submitted that the prosecution’s case pertaining to the substance recovered (productions in the case) had given rise to a reasonable doubt and therefore the Accused were entitled to the benefit of such doubt. On a consideration of the evidence led at the trial and the submissions of learned counsel, it is the view of this Court that, regrettably, the core finding of the learned Judges of the High Court who sat at the Trial-at-Bar which led to the Acquittal of the Accused was perverse. Such perverse finding appears to have arisen due to a mis-appreciation of the evidence of the Government Analyst regarding the productions received by him in comparison with the evidence of officers of the Police Narcotics Bureau regarding the productions that were sent to him for analysis and report. This discrepancy relates to the markings given and the sealing of the external covers (the 13 external polysac bags), inside which another set of polysac bags were found. It is inside such inner polysac bags that the packets (polythene packets) containing heroin were found. It is necessary to note that there has been no discrepancy in the evidence presented by the prosecution regarding the 13 inner polysac bags and the 248 polythene packets (inside which heroin was found). We have carefully read and understood the evidence led by the prosecution and the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses by learned defence counsel. In fact, there has been hardly any cross-examination of the testimony given by the two officers of the Sri Lanka Navy, who made the detection and brought the suspects, the heroin and the vessel ashore. On a consideration of the totality of the evidence led at the trial, we do not find a reasonable doubt regarding the evidential integrity pertaining to the prosecution’s narrative pertaining to the substance recovered during the detection having been sent to the Government Analyst and the Government Analyst having received such productions and analyzed them. This is in view of the fact that the Government Analyst Report dated 9th July 2020 reveals very clearly that the core productions being the 248 polythene packets which contained the total of 253.486 Kg of heroin with a purity rate of 70% had in fact been received by the Government Analyst. It is a matter of concern that the learned Judges of the Trial-at-Bar had not given due consideration to the fact that such a large quantity of heroin could not have been introduced either by the Sri Lankan Navy or by the Police. Furthermore, this Court notes that, during the course of the trial, an admission had been recorded on SC TAB APPEAL 05/2023 – JUDGMENT 6 25th October 2022 that the integrity of those 248 polythene packets having been sealed correctly, marked and thereafter forwarded to the Government Analyst was not being challenged by the defense. It is an alarming fact that the learned Judges had not judicially considered the impact of such admission and inferences to be drawn in that regard. It is necessary for this Court to observe that, in a case of this nature, where it is alleged that heroin was found in the possession of the Accused, as regards the said substance (commonly referred to as the ‘productions’), what is necessary for the prosecution to establish are the following: (i) That the productions referred to in the prosecution’s case were in fact recovered from the possession of the Accused. (ii) That without unnecessary delay, the productions recovered from the suspects were properly sealed and given unique markings. (iii) That without unnecessary delay, such sealed and marked productions were forwarded to the Government Analyst in the manner provided by law. (iv) That what the Government Analyst received were the sealed and marked productions recovered from the suspects. (v) That what the Government Analyst analyzed and reported on were the productions that were recovered from the suspects. (vi) That the Government Analysts Report arises out of the quantitative and qualitative scientific analysis of the productions recovered from the possession of the Accused. What is necessary is for the prosecution to prove each of these requirements beyond reasonable doubt and not to the even higher degree of mathematical accuracy. If in fact the productions recovered from the suspect or suspects, as the case may be, were sealed and marked, without avoidable delay and subjecting such productions to any tampering, it would be unnecessary to present the evidence of each and every police officer or other official in whose custody the productions were during the subsequent period and its journey to the Government Analyst’s Department. What is necessary is for each of the above-mentioned six (6) requirements to be established through the testimony of credible witnesses whose testimony is trustworthy. A comforting factor for a trial court (which would not be essential, should the primary evidence be reliable and cogent), would be the existence of some form of reliable corroborative evidence. The making of accurate, contemporary and detailed notes and other official entries and corroborative human testimony, photographs or videography would serve this purpose. In the final analysis of the evidential integrity of the chain of evidence relating to the productions, it would be necessary for the court to pay due regard to the position of the defence which may be manifest by the lines of cross-examination SC TAB APPEAL 05/2023 – JUDGMENT 7 of prosecution witnesses, suggestions made to prosecution witnesses and evidence presented by the defence. It would be necessary for the trial Judge to arrive at a finding regarding the six (6) requirements referred to above, following an objective and holistic judicial consideration of the evidence presented on behalf of both the prosecution and the defence. In that regard the attendant circumstances including the quantity of the substance recovered, circumstances under which the detection or recovery was made and the conduct of the detection officers would be highly pertinent. We have noted that the case for the defence does not raise a reasonable doubt regarding the case for the prosecution, particularly as the evidence given under oath by the 1st Accused and the dock statements made by the remaining Accused had been rejected by the Trial-at-Bar. In these circumstances, it appears to this Court convincingly that the inference the learned Judges of the Trial-at-Bar had arrived at by virtue of the purported discrepancy with regard to the external polysac bags [inside which 13 inner polysac bags and the 248 polythene packets in which the heroin is said to have been found] is erroneous. An objective and holistic consideration of the evidence led at the trial denotes clearly that such purported discrepancy does not affect the root of the prosecution’s case, and therefore should not have been acted upon. Therefore, it is the view of this Court that the learned Judges of the High Court had arrived at a perverse finding which has seriously prejudiced the case for the prosecution. In the light of this perverse finding it would not be in the interest of justice founded upon the primary goals of Criminal Justice and fair trial to allow the impugned Acquittal to stand. When these aspects of the impugned Judgment of the Trial-at-Bar was put to the learned Counsel for the Accused – Respondents, as true officers of Court called upon to assist in the due administration of Criminal Justice is expected to do, the learned President\'s Counsel (one time Attorney-General) as well as the other two Counsel for the Accused – Respondents, submitted that they would not, in the interest of justice, have any objection to the Acquittal of the Accused being set aside and this matter being referred back to the High Court for a re-trial. On a consideration of the totality of the relevant circumstances, this Court finds itself in agreement with that view of learned counsel for the Accused – Respondents. In these circumstances, this Court quashes and thereby sets aside the verdict of Acquittal contained in the impugned Judgment of the Trial-at-Bar dated 6th April 2023, and direct the Trial-at-bar (to be constituted based on a direction by Her Ladyship the Hon. Chief Justice) to conduct the trial afresh. It is to be observed that this Court will SC TAB APPEAL 05/2023 – JUDGMENT 8 not interfere with any of the pre-trial decisions taken by the Trial-at-Bar which would include proceedings during the pre-trial conference conducted. Given the period of time that has lapsed since the date of Acquittal, the Trial-at-Bar is directed to give priority to the conduct of the re-trial. The trial will be founded upon the earlier mentioned indictment preferred to the High Court by the Honourable Attorney General. It is the view of this Court that in the given circumstances of this matter, such re-trial would necessarily have to be conducted by three new Judges of the High Court appointed by Her Ladyship the Honourable Chief Justice. The Attorney General shall be entitled to acting terms of the law and secure the attendance of all the Accused to face the re-trial. The Orders for bail made by this Court shall stand until the new Trial-at-Bar decides on the matter. The Appeal is allowed. Parties shall bear their own costs. Accused are directed to report to the High Court of Colombo when they are Noticed to do so.		Download
2025-06-06	SC/APPEAL/94/2022	1. Peoples’ Bank, Head Office, No. 75, Chiththampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 2ND RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTAPPELLANT 1. Shelton Anthoney Kahawe, No: 115, Nawajanapadaya, Ruwaneliya, Blackpool. APPLICANT-APPELLANTRESPONDENT 2. The Manager, Peoples’ Bank, Ragala. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTRESPONDENT View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J			Download
2025-06-04	SC/APPEAL/14/2015	1. Somi Ranasinghe 2. Karunasiri Ranasinghe 1st &2nd Accused- Appellant -Appellants Vs. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’sDepartment, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent- 3. Nihal Dissanayake Alias Hinni Mahaththaya 3rd Accused-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Achala Wengappuli J			Download
2025-06-04	SC/APPEAL/25/2015	Nihal Dissanayake Alias Hinni Mahaththaya. Presently at Remand Prison 3rd Accused- Appellant- Appellant Vs. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent 1. Somi Ranasinghe 2. Karunasiri Ranasinghe 1st &2nd Accused-Appellant- Respondents View More	Hon. Achala Wengappuli J			Download
2025-06-04	SC/APPEAL/73/2012	Polwatte Telebulgalage Wimalarathne, Pittegama, Bulathkohupitiya. Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner/Appellant -Vs- 1. Nainakadayalage Amaradasa, No. 57, Kegalle Road, Bulathkohupitiya. (deceased) 2. Nainakadayalage Daisy Premalatha, Chaya Studio, Bulathkohupitiya. (deceased) 1(a) and 2(a) Prageeth Sanjeewa Kumara 1(b) and 2(b) Tharanga Chaminda Kumara, 1(c) and 2(c) Maneke Yapa Priyadarshana, All of Chaya Studio, Bulathkohupitiya. Substituted Defendant- Respondents - Respondents View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando PC CJ			Download
2025-06-04	SC/APPEAL/88/2024	Dr. Prathap Ramanujam, No.12/2, Vihara Mawatha, Kolonnawa. 2nd Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Athauda Arachchige Patrine Dilrukshi Dias Wickremasinghe, No. 372/2, Thalawathugoda Road, Hokandara South. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 01. Mr. Dharmasena Dissanayake, No.21/1, Dr. Sydney Premathirathne Mawatha, Seeduwa. 03. Mrs. V. Jegarajasingam, Kandy Road, Krishnapuram 10, Trincomalee. Presently of No.1/3, 265/115, Torrington Hague Residencies, Torrington Avenue, Colombo 05. 04. Mr. G.S.A. de Silva, No. D ½ , Charles Apartments, De Silva Cross Road, Kalubowila. Presently of 4G, 189 Residencies, Baseline Road, Colombo 09. 05. Mr. S. Ranugge, No.34A, Wijaya Road, Kolonnawa. 06. Mr. D. Laksiri Mendis, No.7A, Cambridge Place, Colombo 07. Presently of ; B/10/4, Empire Residencies, 51, Braybrooke Place Colombo 02. 07. Mr. Sarath Jayathileka, No.117/30, Ananda Rajakaruna Mawatha, Colombo 10. 08. Mrs. Sudharma Karunarathna, No. 93/1, Elhena Road, Maharagama. Defendant-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Achala Wengappuli J			Download
2025-06-04	SC/APPEAL/89/2024	Athauda Arachchige Patrine Dilrukshi Dias Wickremasinghe, No. 372/2, Thalawathugoda Road, Hokandara South. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Dr. Prathap Ramanujam, No.12/2, Vihara Mawatha, Kolonnawa. 2nd Defendant-Petitioner-Respondent 01. Mr. Dharmasena Dissanayake, No.21/1, Dr. Sydney Premathirathne Mawatha, Seeduwa. 03. Mrs. V. Jegarajasingam, Kandy Road, Krishnapuram 10, Trincomalee. Correct Address No.1/3, 265/115, Torrington Hage Residencies, Torrington Avenue, Colombo 05. 04. Mr. G.S.A. de Silva, No. D ½ , Charles Apartments, De Silva Cross Road, Kalubowila. Correct Address 4G, 189 Residencies, Baseline Road, Colombo 09. 05. Mr. S. Ranugge, No.34A, Wijaya Road, Kolonnawa. 06. Mr. D. Laksiri Mendis, No.7A, Cambridge Place, Colombo 07. Correct Address B/10/4, Empire Residencies, 51, Braybrooke Place Colombo 02. 07. Mr. Sarath Jayathileka, No.117/30, Ananda Rajakaruna Mawatha, Colombo 10. 08. Mrs. Sudharma Karunarathna, No. 93/1, Elhena Road, Maharagama. Correct Address No.63/1, Elhena Road, Maharagama Defendant-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Achala Wengappuli J			Download
2025-06-04	SC/APPEAL/126/2022	The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd, Lake House, D.R.Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT- APPELLANT Vs. R.A.S Janaka, 100 D, Pragathi Mawatha, National Housing Complex, Kiribathgoda, Kelaniya. Presently at- No.375 Ehalayagoda, Imbulgoda. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDANT View More	Hon. Kumuduni Wickremasinghe J			Download
2025-06-03	SC/APPEAL/69/2019	Lindamilage Telex Alfred De Silva, No. 8/5, 2nd Lane, Polkotuwa Road, Kaduwamulla, Moratuwa. Substituted 5th Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Uromi Shiranthi Fernando, Pasan Krishantha Fernando, Both of No. 123, Walpola Road, Panadura. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondents 1A-A. Ranmuthuge Somalatha Fernando, 1A-B. Sellapperumage Sham Randeer Fernando, 1A-C. Wajira Darshani Fernando, No. 462, Galle Road, Rawathawatte, Moratuwa. 2A. Kalutara Waduge Susantha Fonseka, No. 122, D 2/1, Indrajothi Mawatha, Thantirimulla, Panadura. and Others View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-06-03	SC/APPEAL/101/2015	1A. Don Asoka Dayarathne (deceased) 2A. Thakshila Erandi Dayarathne 2B. Wikum Madhura Sampath Dayarathne 3. Chandrawathi Devasurendra Dayarathne All of Kahawandala, Udamulla. Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellants Vs. 1. T.G. Wijerathne 2. T.G. Panditharathne 3. T.G. Wilson, All of Acharige Watte, Kahawandala, Udamulla. Defendant-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-06-03	SC/APPEAL/104/2024	Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 1st Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. Sandresh Ravindra Karunanayake, 1291/6, Rajamalwatte Road, Battaramulla. Petitioner-Respondent 2. The Registrar, High Court at Bar in Case No. HC (TAB) 2445/2021, High Court of Colombo. 3. Justice K.T. Chitrasiri, Retired Judge of the Supreme Court, Chairman, Commission of Inquiry appointed to investigate into and report on the issuance of treasury bonds, 92/20, Thalapathpitiya Road, Udahamulla, Nugegoda. 4. Kandasamy Velupillai, Retired Deputy Auditor General, Member of the Commission of Inquiry appointed to investigate into and report on the issuance of treasury bonds. 5. Secretary to the President, Presidential Secretariat, Colombo 01. 2nd to 5th Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-06-03	SC/APPEAL/154/2018	Gamalajjage Jayathilake, No. 278, Ingiriya Road, Bope, Padukka. 3rd DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- APPELLANT Vs. Wijesinghage Nimalawathie, Rambukkanagama, Ingiriya. (Deceased) PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT- RESPONDENT 1A. Wewalpanawa Gamage Jothipala 1B. Wewalpanawa Gamage Buddhika Lankara 1C. Wewalpanawa Gamage Nishadi Dilrukshika 1D. Wewalpanawa Gamage Vidusha Wathsala Lankani All of Rambukkanagama, Ingiriya. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT-RESPONDENTS 1. Wewalpanawa Gamage Sugathasingho, No.200, Bope, Padukka (Deceased) 1A. Wewalpanawa Gamage Lalitha Ramani, No. 277, Bope, Padukka. 2. Kudabalage Lalitha Ranjani, No. 523, Colombo Road, Padukka. 4. Kuda Balage Rani Chandralatha, No. 523, Colombo Road, Padukka. 5. Kuda Balage Leelawathie, No. 276, Uthuru Arukwatte, Padukka. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J			Download
2025-05-30	SC/APPEAL/8/2014	Y.B. Alecman, No. 19, Pallansena, Kochchikade DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – APPELLANT 1. Mahabadalage Gnanawathie 2. Y.B. Ajantha Kamal Nasantha. Both of: No. 19, Pallansena Road, Kochchikade. 3. Geethani Chitramali, No. 26/7, 3/3, Good Hope Residencies, De Saram Road, Mt. Lavinia. 4. Niranthi Chithramali, No. 27, Gemunu Mawatha, Borupana Road, Ratmalana. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – APPELLANTS Vs Hapuarachchige Don Douglas Martin Appuhamy, No. 294/2, Silver Sands Road, Daluwakotuwa, Kochchikade. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Arjuna Obeyesekere J			Download
2025-05-30	SC/APPEAL/44/2020	Hettigoda Gamage Gnanawathi, No. 128/5, Anderson Road, Dehiwala. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Hettigoda Gamage Sugathadasa, No. 128/6, Anderson Road, Dehiwala. 2. Hettigoda Gamage Gunadasa, No. 195/3, Neelammahara Road, Godagamuwa, Maharagama. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J			Download
2025-05-30	SC/APPEAL/61/2024	Director General, Commission to Inves􀆟gate Allega􀆟ons of Bribery or Corrup􀆟on, No. 36, Malalasekera Mawatha, Colombo 7. COMPLAINANT – APPELLANT - Vs – Sandresh Ravindra Karunanayake, No. 1291/6/1, Rajamalwa􀆩e Road, Ba􀆩aramulla. 1ST ACCUSED – PETITIONER – RESPONDENT Arjun Joseph Aloysius, No. 52/1, Flower Road, Colombo 7. 2ND ACCUSED – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Arjuna Obeyesekere J			Download
2025-05-30	SC/APPEAL/101/2013	Ranasinghe Arachchige Sarath Perera No. 58/2, 3rd Lane, Pegiriwatta Road, Gangodawila, Nugegoda. Defendant – Appellant- Appellant Vs. Ambuldeniyage Don Edwin No. 142/6C, Salawa Road, Mirihana, Nugegoda. Plaintiff – Respondent- Respondent 1. (A) Ambuldeniyage Dayawathi 2. (B) Ambuldeniyage Bandularatne 3. (C) Ambuldeniyage Dona Kamalawathie 4. (D) Ambuldeniyage Mitraratne 5. (E) Ambuldeniyage Samanlatha 6. (F) Ambuldeniyage Don Chandranrathne All of: No. 142/6C, Salawa Road, Mirihana, Nugegoda Substituted Plaintiff – Respondent – Respondents View More	Hon. K. Priyantha Fernando J			Download
2025-05-30	SC/APPEAL/121/2019	Seylan Bank PLC, Seylan Towers, P.O. Box 400, No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Petitioner-Respondent-Appellant Vs. The Kandy Tyre House (Pvt) Limited, No. 1087, Maradana Road, Colombo 08. And also, of No. 106, Kotugodella Veediya, Kandy. Respondent-Petitioner-Respondent View More	Hon. A.L. Shiran Gooneratne J			Download
2025-05-30	SC/FR/37/2016	D.K. Poornalatha, No. 99, Sri Gunalankara Road, Off Saranankara Road, Kalubowila, Dehiwala. Petitioner Vs. 1. Mr. Dhanasiri Amarathunga, His Worship the Mayor, 1A. Stanley Dias, His Worship the Mayor, 2. Mr. Dhammika Muthugala, The Municipal Commissioner, 2A. Sunil Dalagama, Acting Municipal Commissioner, 2B. Mr. M.M.C.K.K. Mannapperuma, The Municipal Commissioner, The Dehiwala Mount Lavinia Municipal Council, Dehiwala. 3. Dehiwala Mount Lavinia Municipal Council, The 1st to 3rd Respondents of; The Dehiwala Mount Lavinia Municipal Council, Dehiwala. 4. Urban Development Authority, 3rd Floor, “Sethsiripaya”, Battaramulla, Sri Jayawardenepura, Kotte. 5. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. A.L. Shiran Gooneratne J			Download
2025-05-30	SC/FR/426/2010	Kalidasan Sachchudanandan No. 104, Ginigathhena road, Yatiyanthota. Petitioner Vs. 1. Officer-in-charge of Police Station, Yatiyanthota. 2. Kahavita Vidanalage Wijewardena, Sub-Inspector Police Station, Yatiyanthota. 3. Kaduharalalage Palitha Dharmasiri (52483), Sergeant, Police Station, Yatiyanthota. 4. P. K. W. A Jeewananda (PC48702) Police Constable Police Station, Yatiyanthota. 5. Mahinda Balasooriya, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo. 6. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Menaka Wijesundera J			Download
2025-05-30	SC/FR/507/2019	1. Heenatigala Kanaththage Indika Prasanna, No, 477/8A, Kotte Road, Pitakotte 2. Wendakoon Mudiyanselage Shamira Thilakarathne, No. 141/1, Church Road, Pahala Mawila, Nattandiya 3. Indika Kenath Fernando, No. 254/24, Welaboda Rd, Katunayake. 4. Subhanu Janaka Hiddallaarachchi, No.13, 11th Lane, Palathota Watta, Duwa Temple Road, Kalutara South. 5. Galgamuge Somil Chandima Silva, No. 72/A, Udugampala Road, Kotugoda. 6. Balasuriya Lekamalage Gayan Prasanna Balasuriya 19/A, Nagawanarama Road, Nedagamuwa, Kotugoda. 7. Thiyunuwan Senadheera No.34, Marapola, Veyangoda. 8. Sathika Sanjeewanie Liyanage, No.06 A, Malwattha, Bemmulla. 9. Angodage Don Mahesh Indrajith. No.536/2, Batagama South, Kandana. 10. Warnakulasuriya Malith Sudarsha Lowe No 82, Convert Rd.,Bolawalana, Negombo. 11. Suranga Jayawardana Wickramasinghe No.474/16,Kamburagalla watta, Ruggahawila. 12. Kodagoda Ranasinghege Dinusha Manoj Ranasinghe, 46/2, Wijayamangalarama Road, Kohuwala 13. Asmagoda Pathiranage Saman Pushpa Kumara, No 2/23, Big city, Pellawatte, Minuwangoda. 14. Nanayakkara Pathiranage Lakmal Suranga, Thalahenawattta, Dadagamuwa, Veyangoda 15. Herath Pathiranage Amila Eranga Herath, Ketawala Gedara, Wewagama, Kuliyapitiya 16. Disanayake Mudiyanselage Amitha Ruwan Disanayake, Ambagaswewa,Hathagama, Riddibedi Ella, Maho. 17. Gamaralalage Nilantha Aruna Bandara Kanmeewala. Parabewila, Pothuhera, PC 60330. 18. Rajapaksha Pathirennehelage Upul Jayarathne Edirisinghe No. 101, Dambutuwa, Debahera. Petitioners VS. 1. Airport and Aviation Services (SriLanka) (Private) Limited, Bandaranaike International Airport, Katunayake. 2. Major General (Retired) G. A Chandrasiri AND OTHERS View More	Hon. Menaka Wijesundera J			Download
2025-05-30	SC/FR/545/2011	Development Co-ordinators\' Society, District Secretariat\'s Office, Kandy. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 1A.The Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration, Provincial Councils, Local Government, Democratic Governance, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 1B.The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Fisheries, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 1C. Mr. Pradeep Yasarathne, The Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs. 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Planning, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 2A. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 2B. The Secretary, Ministry of Policy Planning, Economic Affairs, Child Youth and Cultural Affairs, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 2C. Mr. K.M. Mahainda Siriwardhane, The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 3. M.N. Junaid, Co-Chairman, National Salaries and Cadres Commission, No. 130, Block 02, BMICH, Colombo 07. 4. C.N.C.W. Mathews, Co-Chairman, National Salaries and Cadres Commission, No. 130, Block 02, BMICH, Colombo 07. 5. B. Wijerathna, The Secretary, National Salaries and Cadres Commission, No. 130, Block 02, BMICH, Colombo 07. 6. Ariyapala de Silva, Member, National Salaries and Cadres Commission, No. 130, Block 02, BMICH, Colombo 07. 7. S.C. Mannapperuma, Member, National Salaries and Cadres Commission, No. 130, Block 02, BMICH, Colombo 07. 8. Deshabandu M. Mackey Mohomed, Member, National Salaries and Cadres Commission, No. 130, Block 9. Prof. Carlo Fonseka, Member, National Salaries and Cadres Commission, No. 130, Block 02, BMICH, Colombo 07. 10. Soma Kotakadeniya, Member, National Salaries and Cadres Commission, No. 130, Block 02, BMICH, Colombo 07. 11. Jerry Jayawardena, Member, National Salaries and Cadres Commission, No. 130, Block 02, BMICH, Colombo 07. 12. Dr. Lionel Fernando, Member, National Salaries and Cadres Commission, No. 130, Block 02, BMICH, Colombo 07. 13. Leslie Devendra, Member, National Salaries and Cadres Commission, No. 130, Block 02, BMICH, Colombo 07. 14. V. Kanagasabapathi, Member, National Salaries and Cadres Commission, No. 130, Block 02, BMICH, Colombo 07. 15. Gunapala Wickramarathna, Member, National Salaries and Cadres Commission, No. 130, Block 02, BMICH, Colombo 07. AND OTHERS View More	Hon. Janak De Silva J			Download
2025-05-29	SC/HCLA/90/2019	Distilleries Company of Sri Lanka PLC No. 110, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. Respondent – Appellant – Petitioner Vs. Nilanda Thilakaratne No. 101/14, Seeduwa South, Seduwa. Applicant – Respondent – Respondent View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda PC J			Download
2025-05-29	SC/FR/45/2022	1. Elayadura Prasad Senadara De Silva, Chief Inspector of Police, No. 12, Gajaba Road, Colombo 08. 2. Rathnamalala Mudiyanselage Janaka Sanjeewa Rathnamalala, Chief Inspector of Police, No. 03, Kukuloya Raod, Narampanawa, Kandy. 3. Uduwewela Gedara Chaminda Gunarathna, Chief Inspector of Police, B130/5, Meepitiya, Kegalle. 4. Hetti Arachchillage Daya Nalin Hettiarachchi, Chief Inspector of Police, No. 44, Arabadeniya, Godakawela. 5. Rajapaksha Pathirannahalage Indika Sanjeewa, Chief Inspector of Police, 26/4, Pahalagama, Weweldeniya. 6. Dissanayaka Mudiyanselage Chandana Pradeep Dissanayaka, Chief Inspector of Police, Gallindagara Janapadaya, Delmaga. Narangoda. 7. Goda Kumarage Chandana Wasantha Kumara Nadeniya, Chief Inspector of Police, 157/2, Pothgul Vihara Mawatha, Muwagama, Ratnapura. 8. Rajapaksha Pathirennehelage Upul Rajapaksha, Chief Inspector of Police, 539/3, Kattambuwawa, Koonwewa, MAHO. 9. Punchibandage Anura Ranaweera, Chief Inspector of Police, Upali Kolaniya, Rambewa, Anuradhapura. 10. Dass Mudiyanselage Chamara Nirosh Kumara Herath, Chief Inspector of Police, 287/D3, 2, Green City, 1st lane, Muththettugala, Kurunegala. 11. Panditha Vidhana Madhawa Gunawardhana, Chief Inspector of Police, No. 1, Mederihena, Kaduruduwa, Wanchawala, Galle. AND OTHERS View More	Hon. M. Sampath K.B. Wijeratne J			Download
2025-05-29	SC/FR/112/2021	1. D.S.R.D. Fernando No. 166B, St. Joseph Mawatha, Kaluwarippuwa East, Katana. 2. B.A.M.U. Bambaragoda No. 126, School Lane, Badalgama. 3. M.A.M.C. Muthugala No. 197, Molwaththa, Kithulwala, Mirigama. 4. H.T.N.M. Wickramarathne No. 699/12, Galle Road, Randombe, Ambalangoda. 5. G. Sagarika Lakmini Kandagoda Waththa, Nabadawa, Yakkalamulla. And 290 others Petitioners Vs. 1. Hon. Chamal Rajapaksa, State Minister of Home Affairs, State Ministry of Home Affairs, “Nila Medura”, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 5. 1A. Hon. Dinesh Gunawardena, Minister of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Ministry of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 2. N.H.M. Chithrananda, Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, “Nila Medura”, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 5. 2A. Neel Bandara Hapuhinne, Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 7. AND OTHERS View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda PC J			Download
2025-05-28	SC/APPEAL/212/2017	The Ampara Multipurpose Co O perative Society Limited, D S. Senanayake Veediya, Ampara. PETITIONER APPELLANT Vs. 1. H.M. Herath Abeyweera District Secretary, District Secretariat, Ampara. 2. B.M.M.M. Basnayake, Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Ampara. 3. L.S.C. Siriwardene, No. 40, Sama n bedda, Palm Kadavura, Uhana. 4. The Commissioner of Lands, Land Commissioner s Department, Colombo. 5. Illan Gamage Piyadasa of D/675, Pandukabhaya Mawatha, Ampara. 5A. Madura Illan Gamage No. 28, Pandukabhaya Mawatha, Ampara. 6. Sunil Kannangara, District Secretary, District Secretariat, Ampara. RESPONDENT RESPONDENT S View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J			Download
2025-05-28	SC/APPEAL/22/2020	Hudson Samarasinghe, 255/B/11, Torrington Garden, Torrington Mawatha, Colombo 07 Respondent-Petitioner-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Thilaka Wadasinghe Liyanarathnage 37, Somaweera Chandrasiripura, Mampe, Piliyandala. Applicant-Respondent-Respondent-Repondent View More	Hon. Achala Wengappuli J			Download
2025-05-28	SC/SPL LA/82/2022	Commissioner General of Inland Revenue Department of Inland Revenue Sri Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs. Cargills Quality Dairies (Pvt) Ltd., 40, York Street, Colombo 1. APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Janak De Silva J			Download
2025-05-26	SC/HC CALA/329/2023	Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation Ltd., No. 21, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Janashakthi Insurance Company Limited, No. 47, Muttiah Road, Colombo 02. Presently, Allianz Insurance Lanka Limited, Level 25-27, One Galle Face Tower, No. 1A, Centre Road, Galle Face, Colombo 02. Plaintiff ? Appellant- Respondent View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando PC J			Download
2025-05-23	SC/APPEAL/21/2005	AND NOW BETWEEN The Building Materials Corporation No: 192/10, Srimath Bandaranayake Mawatha, Colombo Defendant ? Respondent ? Appellant Vs. Cinemas Limited, No: 117, New Chetty Street, Colombo-13. Plaintiff ? Appellant ? Respondent View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2025-05-23	SC/CHC APPEAL/39/2014	AND NOW BETWEEN Diesel & Motor Engineering Co. Ltd, No. 65, Jetawana Road, Colombo 14. DEFENDANT- APPELLANT -VSFrancis Milton Kevin Noronha, Joseph?s Corner, 188 B Perry Road, Bandra, Mumbai 4000050, India. and also of: No. 13, Templer?s Road, Mt. Lavinia. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2025-05-23	SC/CHC APPEAL/4/2013	AND NOW BETWEEN Sheela Wijewardene No. 7/16, Thalapathpitiya Road, Udahamulla, Nugegoda. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT -VS- 1. Sarath Kothalawala, No. 112/7, 1/1, Kanadawatta Terrace, Off Poorwarama Road, Colombo 05. 2. Rajiv Sebastian No. 112/7, 1/1, Kanadawatta Terrace, Off Poorwarama Road, Colombo 05. DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2025-05-23	SC/APPEAL/167/2014	AND NOW BETWEEN Ceylon Electricity Board, No. 50, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, P O Box 540, Colombo 02. PETITIONER ? APPELLANT - VS - 1. Hon. Athauda Seneviratne, Minister of Labour and Manpower, Ministry of Labour and Manpower, Labour Secretariat, Colombo 05. 2. D. S. Edirisinghe, Commissioner General of Labour, Department of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Colombo 05. 3. K. M. Sarathchandra, No. 53/2, Nawala Road, Nugegoda. 4. G. D. Abayaratne, No. 130, Sri Devananda Road, Piliyandala. 5. H. D. Thilakaratne, ?Prabha?, Koshenawatta, Madulawa Road, Watareka, Meegoda. RESPONDENTS ? RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2025-05-23	SC/APPEAL/114/2018	AND NOW BETWEEN Amarasinghe Arachchige Sumith Amarasinghe No. 42, Ruhunupura, Thalawathugoda. PETITIONER ? RESPONDENT - APPELLANT -VS- Amarasinghe Arachchige Nalini No.225/47, Siridhamma Mawatha, Colombo 10. RESPONDENT ? APPELLANT ? RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2025-05-23	SC/FR/690/2012	1. R.P. Susil Priyankar Seneviratne No. 411/3, Navateldeniya, Galadivul-wewa. Petitioner Vs. 1. P. Prasanna Karunajeewa, PC 37248 2. R.M.T. Karunatilake, Sergeant 32781 3. M.D. Jagathpala, PC 48123. 4. M.G.A.T.B. Abeysinghe, PC 63722 5. H.M. Upali Herath, PC 45450 6. P.K.G.S.P. Prematunga, PC 35275 7. Upula Seneviratne Officer-in-Charge The 1st ? 7th Respondents of the Police Station, Thambuttegama 8. Inspector General of Police, Sri Lankan Police Department, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 9. Hon The Attorney General, Attorney General?s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12 Respondents View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2025-05-23	SC/HC CALA/187/2016	27. Vithanage Seelani Perera No. 212, Horagala West, Padukka 28.? ? Vithanage Swarna Malanie Perera No. 33, Bolawalana Mw, Negombo 29.? ? Vithanage Sriyalatha Perera No.254, Daampe, Meegoda 32.? ?Vithanage Deepika Chandanie Perera No. 89 G, Kumudu Mw, Naampamunuwa, Piliyandala. 33.? ?Vithanage Rupamala Perera No. 9, Polwatte Road, Pamunuwa, Maharagama 46.? ? Vithanage Nihal Perera No. 38/4, New Hospital Road, Pamunuwa, Maharagama. DEFENDANT ? RESPONDENT ? PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Vithanage Kusumawathie Perera No. 492/A, Welipara, Thalawathugoda 2a. Meemanage Leelawathie No. 97/16, Railway Mawatha, Maharagama 3. ?H.D. Asilin, No. 352, Pannipitiya Road, Thalawathugoda 4. ?P.G. Somapala Perera No. 125, Hiripitiya, Pannipitiya 4a. Pattini Gamage Thilakarathna Perera No.11/24, Hiripitiya, Pannipitiya 5. Meemanage Simon Perera No. 383/15, Temple Road, Thalapathipitiya, Nugegoda 5. (A). Meemanage Piyadasa Perera, 5.? (B). Meemanage Nandawathie Perera, AND OTHERS View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2025-05-23	SC/APPEAL/43/2016	AND NOW BETWEEN - VS ? 1. Hewa Dewage Josalin. (died) 2. Suduwa Dewage Jamis Somadasa alias Somadasa Gamage (died) 2a Kalanchige Sisilin 2b Sudu Dewage Shiroma Nishanthi Gamage 2c Sudu Dewage Anoma Nilmini Gamage 2d Sudu Dewage Champika Neel Gamage 2e Sudu Dewage Anushka Shayamali Gamage All of No.275, Pahala Karagahamuna, Kadawatha. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFFRESPONDENTAPPELLANTS -VS- 1. Nawalage Winson Cooray, 1a Nawalage Sunil Cooray 1b Nawalage Sarath Coorey No.279/2/A, Pahala Karagahamuna, Kadawatha. 2. Nawalage Mallika Cooray, No. 369, Neligama, Ragama. 3. Somadasa Silva, No. 276/1, Pahala Karagahamuna, Kadawatha. 4. K. K. Seelawathie, No. 276/2, Pahala Karagahamuna, Kadawatha. 5. Mervin Mendis, No. 276/2/B, Pahala Karagahamuna, Kadawatha. 6. D.A. Hewage, No. 276, Pahala Karagahamuna, Kadawatha. 7. G.A. Evgin Perera, No. 276/1, Pahala Karagahamuna, Kadawatha. 8. Nawalage Pabilis Cooray, 8a Nawalage Thamara Coorey No. 308, Neligama, Ragama. DEFENDANT ? APPELLANT ? RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2025-05-22	SC/APPEAL/137/2022	Gunawardana Kulawadu Mestrige Jinali Renuka Fernando, No. 190B, New Galle Road, Walana, Panadura. 2A Substituted Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Warnakulasuriya Mestrige Sujatha de Silva, No. 190C, Near New Bridge, Panadura. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent Neetha Nandani de Silva, Palm Grove Farm, Deman Handiya, Nittambuwa. 1D Substituted Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-05-22	SC/APPEAL/191/2018	Ceylinco Securities and Financial Services Ltd. Now Nation Lanka Finance PLC, 53 1/1, Island Building, Galle Road, Colombo 3. 1st Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. Watawala Kankanamlage Mahesh Padmakumara, 2. Nalika Chandanie Perera Gamage, Both at 14/4B, Depanama, Pannipitiya. Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents 2. Manawaduge Don Chitra Kumudunie, 218/5, Pathiragoda Road, Pamunuwa, Maharagama. 3. Mangala Samarasinghe, 14/3C, Station Lane, Borella Road, Pannipitiya. 2nd and 3rd Defendants-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-05-22	SC/APPEAL/134/2023	Asiabike Industrial Limited, No. 114, Old Galle Road, Henamulla, Panadura. Respondent ? Respondent ? Petitioner Vs. Epa Arachchige Kumudu Upendra Premachandra, No. 26/2, Janajaya Mawatha, Atambagoda, Panadura. Applicant ? Appellant ? Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2025-05-22	SC/APPEAL/49/2020	AND NOW BETWEEN 1. K. Dona Nimalawathie 2. H. Dona Nilusha Pasandika 3. H. Dona Nilanka Naduni Shyamanika All of No. 64, De Silva Road, Kalubowila, Dehiwala. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANTS -Vs- P. H. Dayananda, No. 40, Nandimithra Place, Pamankada. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2025-05-22	SC/FR/33/2021	Dilrukshi Dias Wickramasinghe 377/2, Thalawathugoda Road, Hokandara South. PETITIONER -Vs- 1. Hon. Upaly Abeyrathne, Chairman Presidential Commission of Inquiry to inquire and obtaining information pertaining to the alleged incidents of Political Victimization of Public Officers, Employees of State Corporations, Members of Armed Forces and the Police Service, No. 42/10, Beddagana North, Pita Kotte. 2. Hon. Daya Chandrasiri Jayathilaka, Member Presidential Commission of Inquiry to inquire and obtaining information pertaining to the alleged incidents of Political Victimization of Public Officers, Employees of State Corporations, Members of Armed Forces and the Police Service, No. 24, Diyawanna Gardens, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. AND OTHERS View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2025-05-21	SC/FR/119/2015, SC/FR/120/2015, SC/FR/121/2015, SC/FR/122/2015	1. Manimandre Arachilage Suneetha Kalyani de Silva, 206T, Balummahara, Imbulgoda. 2. Jayatunga Arachchige Dona Mala Malkanthi, 354/B, Kosinna, Ganemulla. 3. Ratnam Antony Niruja, 249/D, Galahitiyawa, Ganemulla. 4. Tisuri Ama Liyanage, 114/CC/2, Ranmutu Uyana, Parakandeniya, Imbulgoda. Petitioners Vs. 1. S.J.B. Suwaris, Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Walasmulla. 2. D. Chandrika Mabarana, Grama Sevaka, Waldelgaha-mula (Area No. 553), Office of the Grama Sevaka. 3. N. K. Illangakoon, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 3(a). Pujitha Jayasundera, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 4. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General?s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2025-05-21	SC/APPEAL/198/2018	Ceylon Bank Employees Union 20, Temple Road, Colombo 10. (On behalf of W.M. Wijeratne Banda) APPLICANT-RESPONDENTAPPELLANT Vs. People?s Bank 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT-APPELLANTRESPONDENT View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J			Download
2025-05-21	SC/APPEAL/51/2021	1. Velayuthapillai Thayalan No. 17/1, Seenivasagnam Road, Jaffna. 2. Vasuki Thayalan No. 17/1, Seenivasagnam Road, Jaffna. Plaintiffs-Respondents- Appellants V. Ratnam Yogenthiran No. 44/5, Palam Road, Kantharmadam, Jaffna. Presently in Qatar, Appearing through his Attorney, Yogendran Kavivarshan No. 44/5, Palam Roadm Kantharmadam, Jaffna. 1st Defendant- Petitioner- Respondent Rajini Yogenthiran No. 44/5, Palam Road, Kantharmadam, Jaffna. 4 2nd Defendant-Respondent- Respondent View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2025-05-21	SC/CHC APPEAL/38/2022	B.J. International Pvt Ltd, “Vijitha”, Kahatapitiya, Hanwella and No. 375/B, Malamulla, Panadura. PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT -Vs- National Medicines Regulatory Authority, No. 120, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz			Download
2025-05-20	SC/APPEAL/111/2013	AND NOW BETWEEN Satharasinhage Dharmasena, Maththegoda, Polgasowita. (Deceased) 4th DEFENDANT-APPELLANTPETITIONER Kodikkarage Ewline Sumanawathie of Maththegoda, Polgasowita SUBSTITUTED 4th DEFENDANTAPPELLANT- APPELLANT Vs. 1. Weliwattage Seeman Perera (Deceased) 1A. Weliwattage Upali Indrasiri Perera, 2. Weliwattage Yasawardane Nandasiri Perera 3. Weliwattage Yasawardane Chandrasiri Perera All of No. 327, High Level Road, Pannipitiya PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS 1. Colomage Celestina Jayawardane, (Deceased) 1? Satharasinghage Amaratunga, 1? Satharasinghage Don Abeywardane, 1? Satharasinghage Dharmasena, 2. Satharasinghage Amaratunga, (Deceased) 2? Jayasinghe Arachchige Kamalawathi, 2? Satharasinghage Don Nalani, 2? Satharasinghage Don Sarathchandra, 3. Satharasinghage Don Abeywardane, 5. Satharasinghage Don Gunawardane, (Deceased) 5? Satharasinghage Amaratunga, 5? Satharasinghage Don Abeywardane, 5? Satharasinghage Dharmasena All of Maththegoda, Polgasowita. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENTRESPONDENTS View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J			Download
2025-05-20	SC/FR/248/2019	Madapathage Tilak Jayantha Perera, No. 1395/5, Hokandara Road, Pannipitiya. PETITIONER VS. 1. State Printing Corporation, Panaluwa, Padukka. 2. Sendanayake Arachchige Binara Jayawardena, The Chairman, State Printing Corporation, Panaluwa, Padukka. 3. R.M. Nilantha Monarawila, General Manager, State Printing Corporation, Panaluwa, Padukka. 4. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. View More	Hon. A.H.M.D. Nawaz J			Download
2025-05-16	SC/APPEAL/118/2022	Jayaratne Bandage Senaka Kumara Herath Accused - Appellant - Appellant Vs. The Hon. Attorney General Attorney General?s Department Colombo 12. Complainant - Respondent - Respondent View More	Hon. Menaka Wijesundera J			Download
2025-05-16	SC/APPEAL/30/2020	AND NOW BETWEEN 7. Muheyadeen Bawa Muhammadu Supiyan, Assistant Returning Officer, Kahatagasdigiliya Pradeshiya Saba, Election Office, Anuadhapura. 7th Respondent ? Appellant 8. R. M. Wanninayake, Returning Officer, Anuradhapura District, Election Office, Anuradhapura. 8th Respondent ? Appellant Vs. Wickramaarachchilage Gamini Jayasekara, Candidate of Sri Lanka People?s Front, Konwewa Para, Kahatagasdigiliya. Petitioner ? Respondent 1. Jinapalage Thilakaratne, Candidate ? Independent Group 01, Gam ? Maddha, Kahatagasdigiliya. 2. Babasinghe Baddegamage Dayapala, Candidate ? United National Party, Kiralagala Para, Kahatagasdigiliya. 3. Arampola Mudiyanselage Wasantha Arampola, Candidate ? Sri Lanka Freedom Party, Gam ? Maddha, Kahatagasdigiliya. 4. Suraweerage Susil Jayalath, Candidate ? People?s Liberation Front, No. 29, Siwdiyagama, Kahatagasdigiliya. 5. Aahamed Mawalana Asseyyadu Mohomad Ali, Candidate ? Sri Lanka Muslim Congress, Kiralagama Para, Kahatagasdigiliya. AND OTHERS View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2025-05-14	SC/APPEAL/35/2012	AND NOW BETWEEN Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No.19, Church Street, Colombo 01. Respondent - Petitioner - Appellant Daya Constructions (Private) Limited, No. 362, Colombo Road, Pepliyana, Boralesgamuwa. AND NOW Olympus Construction (Pvt) Ltd, No. 445 ?, Colombo Road, Pepliyana, Boralesgamuwa. Claimant - Respondent - Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2025-05-14	SC/APPEAL/99/2016	A.M. Malani Chandralatha, No. 311, Parakandeniya, Imbulgoda. 2B Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Ampe Mohottige Podihamine, No. 20/1, Katuwalamulla, Ganemulla. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent 1B. A.M.A. Surangi Nilmini Dissanayake, Wakkunuwela, Nakkawatte. 4A. Prabachandra Weliwita, 5. Prabachandra Weliwita, 6. Nandana Weliwita, All of Kendaliyaddapaluwa, Ganemulla. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-05-14	SC/APPEAL/100/2020	Rajapaksha Appuhamilage Lionel Ranjith, 282/1, Pahala Karagahaamuna, Kadawatha. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. Suraweera Arachchige Dona Leelawathi, 282/1, Pahala Karagahaamuna, Kadawatha. 2. Nawalage Anushka Udayanga Cooray, 306/1, Neligama, Ragama. 3. Registrar, Land Registry, Gampaha. Defendant-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-05-09	SC/CHC APPEAL/34/2002	And now between 2. Indulakshin Wickremasinghe Senanayake, No 1, 33rd Lane, Bagatalle Road, Colombo 03. 3. Premalal Wickremasinghe Senanayake, No 31/20, Bathiya Mawatha, Kalubowila, Dehiwala. 4. I.W.S Holdings (Pvt) Ltd, 451A, Kandy Road, Kelaniya. 5. Dynacom Engineering (Pvt) Ltd, 451A, Kandy Road, Kelaniya. 2ND ? 5TH RESPONDENTS ? APPELLANTS -Vs- Dr. Renatus Diederich Gebhard Wilhelm Koehn, Rothwiesenweg 8, 53229 Bonn, Germany and presently of No. 197, Rajapihilla Mawatha, Kandy PETITIONER ? RESPONDENT Phillip Nikolaus Koehn, Kiiser-Karl-Ring 38A, 53111 Bonn, Germany and presently of No. 197, Rajapihilla Mawatha, Kandy SUBSTITUTED ? PETITIONER ? RESPONDENT 1. Dynavision Broadcas??ng Company (Pvt) Ltd., No 451A, Kandy Road, Kelaniya. 6. Board of Investment of Sri Lanka, West Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 01. 7. Controller of Exchange, Central Bank of Sri Lanka, 61, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01. AND OTHERS View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2025-05-08	SC/APPEAL/116/2022	Now Between Patali Champika Ranawaka, No. 88/1, Jayanthipura Road, Jayanthipura, Battaramulla. 1st Accused ? Petitioner ? Appellant vs. Honourable Attorney-General, Attorney-General?s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant ? Respondent ?Respondent Walawe Mahadurage Dilum Thusitha Kumara, Imaduwa, Galle. 2nd Accused ? Respondent ? Respondent Wasala Atapattu Samarakoon Mudiyanselage Ralahamige Sudath Asmadala Asmadala Walauwa, Aranayaka. 3rd Respondent ? Respondent ? Respondent View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J.			Download
2025-05-08	SC/APPEAL/17/2022	Ceylon Cold Stores PLC No. 148, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 2. Respondent ? Appellant ? Appellant Vs. Inter Company Employees? Union No. 259/9, Sethsiri Mawatha, Koswatte, Talangama. (On behalf of Kannaariam Nadarajah) Applicant ? Respondent ? Respondent View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda, P.C., J.			Download
2025-05-08	SC/SPL LA/244/2024	Umma Yekeena Samsudeen, No.233/29 B, Madampitiya Road, Colombo 14. PETITIONER - PETITIONER -Vs- 1. Officer in Charge, Police Narcotic Bureau, Colombo 01. 2. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, No.159, Hulsdorp, Colombo 12. RESPONDENT - RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz			Download
2025-04-30	SC/APPEAL/88/2021	Nadugala Vidhana Pathiranage Piyadasa Rathuralagewatte Hiththatiya Meda, Matara. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General?s Department, Colombo 12. 2. Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Maharagama. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J			Download
2025-04-04	SC/FR/155/2009	1. W.B. Inoka Nadishani Koragahawetiya, Athungahakotuwa 2. Anuja Samantha Kahandawaarachchi No. 837/D, Gemunu Mawatha Athurugiriya Road, Homagama. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. K.D. Somapala Senior Superintendent of Police, Colombo North, SSP Office, Peliyagoda. 2. Chaminda Edirisuriya Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Kiribathgoda. 2A. Ajantha Pushpakumara Inspector of Police, Police Station, Peliyagoda. 3. Chandana Gamage Inspector of Police, Police Station, Kiribathgoda. 4. Jayantha Wickramaratne Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 4A. C.D. Wickramaratne Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 5. Hon. Attorney-General Attorney-General?s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J			Download
2025-04-04	SC/FR/59/2025, SC/FR/60/2025, SC/FR/65/2025, SC/FR/68/2025, SC/FR/69/2025, SC/FR/72/2025	1. C.V. Wigneshwaran, No. 16C, Cambridge Terrace, Colombo 07. 2. Visvalingam Manivannan, No. 58, Ramanathan Road, Jaffna. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. I. Saseelan, Returning Officer, Point Pedro Pradesh Sabha, Assistant Returning Officer Jaffana Administrative District, Election Office, Jaffna. 2. Mr. R. M. A. L Rathnayake, Chairman 3. Mr. M. A. P. C. Perera, Member, 4. Ameer Faaiz, Member 5. Anusuya Shanmuganathan, Member 6. Prof. D. M. S. S. Lakshman Dissanayake, Member 7. The Election Commission of Sri Lanka Election Commission of Sri Lanka, Election Secretariat, P.O. Box 2 Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya. 8. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, No.159, Hulftsdorp Street, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J			Download
2025-04-04	SC/WRIT/33/2025	1. Jeevan Thondaman, Secretary, Ceylon Workers Congress, No. 72, Ananda Coomaraswamy Mawatha, Colombo 07. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Returning Officer, Maskeliya Pradhesiya Sabha, Election Officer, Nuwara Eliya. 2. Mr. R. M. A. L Rathnayake, Chairman, Election Commission View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J			Download
2025-04-04	SC/WRIT/30/2025, SC/WRIT/38/2025, SC/WRIT/63/2025, SC/WRIT/64/2025	Jeevan Thondaman, Secretary, Ceylon Workers’ Congress, No 72, Ananda Coomaraswamy Mawatha, Colombo 07. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Returning Officer, Panwila Pradeshiya Sabha, Election Office, Kandy. 2. Mr. R M A L Rathnayake, Chairman of the Election Commission 3. Mr. M. A. P. C. Perera, 4. Mr. A. M. Faaiz, 5. Ms. Anusuya Shanmuganathan, 6. Prof. D M S S Lakshman Dissanayake, All who are Members of the election Commission. 7. Mr. Saman Sri Ratnayake, Commissioner General of Elections All of Elections Secretariat, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya. 8. Ranjith Madduma Bandara General Sectetary, Samagi Jana Balawegaya. 815, E W Perera Mw, Ethulkotte. 9. Dr. Nihal Abesinghe, General Secretary, Jathika Jana Balawegaya, 464/20, Pannipitiya Road, Pelwatte, Battaramulla. 10. Thalatha Athukorale, General Secretary, United Nations Party, 400, B120, Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte. 11. Ranjan Seneviratne, Sarvajana Balaya Party No. 11, Park Avenue, Colombo 08. 12. Lasantha Alagiyawanne, The Secretary, People’s Alliance, No.301, T.B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10. 13. Bandula Chanerasekera, Secretary, United Republic Front, 4/120, Thalkotuwa Udyanaya, Narahenpita. 14. Hon. Attorney General Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J			Download
2025-04-04	SC/WRIT/9/2025, SC/WRIT/43/2025, SC/WRIT/57/2025	1. M A Sumanthiran, General Secretary, Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi, 30, Martin Road, Jaffna. 2. Iruthayanathan Charles Nirmalanathan, 205/13 Bernaate Illam, Sinnakai Mannar. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Returning Officer, Manthai West Pradeshiya Sabha, Election Office, Jaffna. 2. Mr. R M A L Rathnayake, Chairman of the election Commission 3. Mr. M A P C Perera, 4. Mr. A M Faaiz, 5. Ms. A Shanmuganathan, 6. Prof. Lakshman Dissanayake, All who are members of the Election Commission 7. Mr. Saman Sri Ratnayake, Commissioner General of Elections All of Elections Secretariat, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya. 8. Ranjith Madduma Bandara General Sectetary, Samagi Jana Balawegaya, 815, E. W. Perera Mw, Ethulkotte. 9. Dr. Nihal Abesinghe, General Secretary, Jathika Jana Balwegaya, 464/20, Pannipitiya Road, Pelawatte, Battaramulla. 10. D. Devananda, Ealam People’s Democratic Party, 273, Stanley Road, Jaffna. 11. Tissa Jayawardena Yapa, Secretary, People’s United Front, No 10/21A, Elhena Road, Maharagama. 12. Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam, Secretary, All Ceylon Tamil Congress, 15 Queen’s Road, Colpetty, Colombo 3. 13. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. AND OTHERS View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J			Download
2025-04-04	SC/FR/203/2024	M. A. Sumanthiran, No. 3/1, Daya Road, Colombo 06. PETITIONER-COMPLAINANT Vs. 1. I. S. H. J. Illukpitiya The Controller General of Immigration and Emigration, Suhurupaya, Sri Subhuthipura Road, Battaramulla. 1st RESPONDENT-ACCUSED In the matter of an application for bail under and in terms of Section 9(7)(b) of the Contempt of Court, Tribunal or Institution Act, No. 8 of 2024. 1. I. S. H. J. Illukpitiya The Controller General of Immigration and Emigration, Suhurupaya, Sri Subhuthipura Road, Battaramulla. and No. 233/17, Galagahena, Pitipana North, Kiriwaththuduwa. (Presently held in Colombo Remand Prison) 1st RESPONDENT-ACCUSED PETITIONER Vs. M. A. Sumanthiran, No. 3/1, Daya Road, Colombo 06. PETITIONER-COMPLAINANT- RESPONDENT Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General?s Department, Colombo 12. 10th RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2025-04-04	SC/APPEAL/135/2019 WITH 149/2019	Gamadikari Mudiyanselage Undiyagedera Ranjith Ariyarathna of No. 91, Viduhala Mawatha, Aluvihara, Matale. Defendant-Appellant- Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Karapperu Wijethunga Rajapaksha Mudiyanselage Dhammika Kumara Wijethunga of Dorakumbura, Dunkolawatta. 2. Dugganna Wijeratna Wasala Mudiyanse Ralahammilage Madewatta Wallawewe Dammantha Kumari Dehigama of Dorakumbura, Dunkolawatta. Plaintiff-Respondent- Respondent-Respondents In the matter of an application for Appeal from the Judgment dated 26/10/2018 in Appeal No. CP/HCCA/KANDY/110A/2015 (F) in terms of Section 5C (1) of the Act No. 54 of 2006. 1. Karapperu Wijethunga Rajapaksha Mudiyanselage Dhammika Kumara Wijethunga Appearing by his Power of Attorney, Kapilasena Wijethunga of Dorakumbura, Dunkolawatta. 2. Dugganna Wijeratna Wasala Mudiyanse Ralahammilage Madewatta Wallawewe Dammantha Kumari Dehigama of Dorakumbura, Dunkolawatta. Plaintiffs View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2025-04-04	SC/APPEAL/203/2012	R.D. Fernando, No. 09, Rankoth Vihara Road, Panadura. A.K. Susil Peiris, No. 15A, Rankoth Vihara Road, Panadura. S. Sampath Pushpakumara, No. 17, Rankoth Vihara Road, Panadura. K.D. Dayawathi, No. 19, Rankoth Vihara Road, Panadura. 4, 6, 7B and 8 CLAIMANTPETITIONER-RESPONDENTAPPELLANT-PETITIONERS Vs. S.P. Mercy Catherine Perera, No. 1/1, Sinha Garage, 7th Cross Street, Panadura. (Deceased) a. Hewafonsekage Swarna Hycinth Anne Fonseka, No.22, M.E. Cooray Mawatha, Wadduwa. b. Hewafonsekage Kanthi Janet Fonseka, ?Ratnawasa?, Katuwalagoda Road, Welipenna, Matugama. c. Hewafonsekage Siransi Anita Fonseka, No. 585/9A/02, Arawwala, Pannipitiya. d. Hewafonsekage Shirley Lucius Tilak Fonseka, No. 164/12, Leon Silva Mawatha. e. Hewafonsekage Swaneeta Ranjanee Agnus Fonseka, No. 585/9A/12, Arawwala, Pannipitiya. f. Hewafonsekage Swanee Melinda Fonseka, No. 21, Janetvilla, Walpola, Panadura. g. Hewafonsekage Sunil Lucius Vijith Fonseka, No. 21, Janetvilla, Walpola, Panadura. h View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J			Download
2025-04-04	SC/APPEAL/192/2015	G.G.G. Mohamed Ismile Safeer Mohomed, Palliyakotuwa, Batugoda, Kandy. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTAPPELLANT Vs. P.G. Sulaiman Lebbe Nizzamdeen, Palliyakotuwa, Ambatenna. 1st DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT -RESPONDENT Kumaresan Nadar Thangasamy, No. 149, Maliban Street, Colombo 11. (And now presently at A6, Bloemendhal Flats, Kotahena, Colombo 13.) 2nd DEFENDANT-APPELLANTRESPONDENT View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J			Download
2025-04-04	SC/APPEAL/175/2018	Sandya Kanthi Ranasinghe, No. 285/3, Sethsiri Place, Sudarshana Mawatha, Malabe. DEFENDANT- APPELLANT- APPELLANT -VS- Weerasekarage Vineetha Rodrigo, No. 168/B, Biyagama. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2025-04-04	SC/WRIT/6/2025, AND OTHERS	1. Dr. Suresh Gangatharan, Secretary, Democratic National Alliance, No. 25, 3/2, Lauri’s Road, Colombo 05. 2. Mr. P. Udayarasa, 148, Station Road, Vairapuian Kulam, Vavuniya. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Returning Officer, Vavuniya South Pradeshiya Sabha, Election Office, Vavuniya. 2. Mr. R M A L Rathnayake, Chairman of the Election Commission 3. Mr. M A P C Perera, 4. Mr. A M Faaiz, 5. Ms. A Shanmuganathan, 6. Prof. Lakshman Dissanayake, All who are members of the Election Commission 7. Mr. Saman Sri Ratnayake, Commissioner General of Elections All of Elections Secretariat, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya. 8. M.A. Sumanthiran General Secretary, Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi, 30, Martin Road, Jaffna. 9. Dr. Nihal Abesinghe, General Secretary, Jathika Jana Balwegaya, 464/20, Pannipitiya Road, Pelawatte, Battaramulla. 10. D. Devananda, Ealam People’s Democratic Party, 273, Stanley Road, Jaffna. 11. Thalatha Athukorala, United National Party, Sirikotha, Pita kotte Junction, Pitakotte. 12. N. Ratnalingam, Democratic Tamil National Alliance, 13, Haig Road, Colombo 4. 13. G. Ponnampalam, All Ceylon Tamil Congree, 120, Main Street, Jaffna. 14. Ranjith Madduma Bandara, Samagi Jana Balwegaya, 592, Bangalawatte Junction, Kotte Road, Pitakotte. 15. C V Vigneswaran, Tamil Makkal Koottany, Temple Road, Nallur. 16. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney- General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J			Download
2025-04-03	SC/APPEAL/8/2017	1. Pallocci Donatella, 145, via Leornadi, Roma, Italy. And presently resident in Unawatuna. 2. Palermi Luca, 07, via Benucci, Roma, Italy. And presently resident in Unawatuna. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellants Vs. Yamuna Kanthi Stein, No. 158, Kapparatota Road, Weligama. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2025-04-03	SC/APPEAL/60/2020	1. Gunasinghe Chandrawathie of Pothupitiya South, Wadduwa. PLAINTIFF - PETITIONER - PETITIONER ? APPELLANT 1. Gunasinghe Siriyawathie, (Deceased) of Pothupitiya South, Wadduwa. 1A. Gunasinge Somdasa of Pothupitiya South, Wadduwa. 2. Kekiriwaragodage Sunil. 2A. Kakiriwaragodage Ananda No.382, Kerawalapitiya, Hendala, Wattala. 3. Duware Amara Kumari (Deceased) 3A. Kakirigodage Sunil. 3B. Duware Wilbert alias Gilbert, 517, Kahatagahawatta, Pothupitiya South, Wadduwa. 3C. Duware Wimalasiri, 517, Kahatagahawatta, Pothupitiya South, Wadduwa. 3D. Duware Nilanthi Ashoka, 517, Kahatagahawatta, Pothupititya South, Wadduwa. 4. Gunasinghe Somadasa All of Pothupitiya South, Wadduwa. 5. Jasenthuhewage Nandani (Deceased) View More	Hon. M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J.	Partition -Scheme inquiry- should the Court consider the necessity of an individual party over several other parties -modification of Commissioner?s scheme of partition-Partition Law No 21 of 1977		Download
2025-04-03	SC/APPEAL/148/2019	Chemisales Holding (Pvt) Ltd., 21, Wattalpola Road, Moon Crescent, Pallimulla, Panadura. And 45, Industrial Colony, Nagoda, Kalutara. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. People?s Bank, 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Plaintiff-Petitioner-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-04-02	SC/APPEAL/89/2018	D. N. Wijetunga, No. 80/1A, Layards Road, Colombo 05. Now residing at No. 04, Ramakrishna Place, Colombo 06. Plaintiff ? Appellant ? Petitioner Vs. T. C. Amarasekera, No. 06, 2nd Lane, C. A. M. Housing Scheme, Baddegana Road (South), Pitakotte. (Deceased) Indrajith Hiran Christopher Amarasekara No. 06, 2nd Lane, C. A. M. Housing Scheme, Baddegana Road (South), Pitakotte. Substituted Defendant ? Respondent ? Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2025-04-01	SC/APPEAL/40/2018	1. Solanga Arachchige Nomananda, No. 320, Kendaliyaddapaluwa, Ganemulla. 2. Ranasinghe Arachchige Magilin Nona alias Magilin Ranasinghe, No. 320, Kendaliyaddapaluwa, Ganemulla. Defendant-RespondentPetitioner/Appellants Vs. Solanga Arachchige Kulawardena No. 320/2, Kendaliyaddapaluwa, Ganemulla. (since deceased) Plaintiff-Appellant- Respondent 1A. Solanga Arachchige Nandasena 1B. Solanga Arachchige Siriyalatha 1C. Solanga Arachchige Hema Kanthi all of 320/2, Kendaliyaddapaluwa, Ganemulla. Substituted Plaintiff ? AppellantRespondents View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando PC J			Download
2025-03-28	SC/FR/47/2014	1. Egoda Weerasekarage Thilak Pushpakumara Medahena Road, Welegoda, Matara. 2. Lokukamdi Hanndige Prashan de Silva, No. 18, Wimalasara Mawatha, Galkanwa Road, Gokona Road, Panadura North. 3. Hewapaththinige Nishantha Priyadarshana, No.23, Sarath Mawatha, Malaweewawaththa, Palathota, Kaluthara South. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Nanda Mallawarachchi, Former Secretary, Ministry of Law and Order, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo. 1A. Jagath Wijeweera, Former Secretary, Ministry of Law and Order, Southern Development, No. 25, Whiteways Building Sir Baron, Jayathilake Mawatha, Colombo 01. 1B. Pathmasiri Jayamanna, Former Secretary, Ministry of Law and Order, Janadhipathi Mawatha. 1C. Kamal Gunaratne, Secretary, Ministry of Law and Order, Southern Development, No. 25, Whiteways Building Sir Baron, Jayathilake Mawatha, Colombo 01. 1D. Viyali Gunathilake, Secretary of Public Security, Ministry of Public Security, 15th Floor, Suhurupaya, Battaramulla. AND OTHERS View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J	Article 12(1), National Police Commission, Promotion to the rank of Chief Inspector of Police, Absorption Scheme.		Download
2025-03-28	SC/FR/17/2015	1. Provincial Public Service (Local Government), Revenue Inspectors Trade Union, Revenue Inspectors Brand, Colombo Municipal Council, Town Hall, Colombo 07. 2. Prins Dalugoda, No. 1277/5 Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 3. Seemanmeru Pathiranage Sujeewa Kalyanapriya Pathirana, No. 103/7 Jayaboo Mawatha, Muthuhena Watta Road, Meegoda. 4. Asuramuni Dasantha Mangala Kumara Silva, No. 620/D2, Eriyaweitya, Kaleniya. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. A. J. M. Mussamil (Ceased to hold Office), The Governor, Secretariat of the Governor, Western Province, No. 98/4, Havelock Rd, Colombo 05. 1A. Dr. Seetha Arambepola, The Governor, Secretariat of the Governor, Western Province, No. 98/4 Havelock Road, Colombo 05. 1B. Air Marshall Roshan Gunathilaka, The Governor, Secretariat of the Governor, Western Province, No. 98/4 Havelock Road, Colombo 05. 2. Pradeep Yasarathna, (Ceased to hold Office) Chief Secretary of the Western Province, Office of the Chief Secretary Western Province, 204, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Battaramulla. AND OTHERS View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J	Article 12(1) of the Constitution, Article 14(1)(g) of the Constitution, Scheme of Recruitments, Salary Scale, Public Administration Circular No.06/2006, Revenue Inspectors Trade Union		Download
2025-03-27	SC/APPEAL/38/2011	Wijayarathna Gamage Palitha Srilal, 379B, Kamburagalla, Rakgahawila. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Wilwara Archchilage Sunethra Srimathi, Kamburagalla, Rakgahawila. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-03-27	SC/APPEAL/102/2019	1A. Godayalage Thilakapala, Madagoda, Warakapola. Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellan Vs. 1. Liyanaarachchige Romel Nona, Madagoda, Warakapola And Others Defendants-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-03-25	SC/APPEAL/143/2018	L.W.D Udaya Athula No. 195/2 Gonawala, Kelaniya 2nd Defendant-Appellant- Appellant Vs. 1. Wadutantirage Verjiniya Shirani Fernando 2. Gihan Jenius Moses 3. Sheyani Verjiniya Moses 4. Enila Jekila Moses (2nd, 3rd and 4th Plaintiffs appearing by their next friend the 1st Plaintiff) All of No. 12A Banglawatta Terrace, Banglawatta Mabola, Wattala Plaintiffs- Respondents-Respondents Manager, Shanak International (Pvt) Ltd, No. 38, 2nd Lane, Rawathawatta, Moratuwa 1st Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe			Download
2025-03-24	SC/APPEAL/62/2018	J. M. Chandrika Priyadharshani, The Competent Authority, Plantation Management Monitoring Division, Ministry of Plantation Industries, No. 55/75, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. Applicant ? Competent Authority ? Respondent ? Respondent ? Appellant Vs. Ammasi Krishna, Kotiyagala Estate Lower Division, No. 09, Housing Scheme, Plot No. 26, Kotiyagala Estate, Bogawanthalawa. Respondent ? Petitioner ? Appellant ? Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2025-03-24	SC/APPEAL/168/2015	Pradeshiya Sanwardana Bankuwa 933, Kandy Road, Vedemulla, Kelaniya Party Sought to be Substituted in place of the 1st Defendant ? Petitioner ? Appellant - VS - 1. K G P M Nirmalatha, 596/76 Bandaranaike Mawatha, Anuradhapura Plaintiff ? Petitioner ? Respondent ? Respondent 2. A B Karunathilake, 3. Rathnasiri Siriwardena, 4. U B Semasinghe of Rajarata Sanwardana Bankuwa, Head Office, Anuradhapura 2nd 4th Defendants-Respondents-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2025-03-21	SC/MISC/2/2012	Beligaswatta Akkarakuruppu Mudiyanselage Lal Dhammika Pushpa Kumara, Ovitakanda, Bogodaaramba, Pelmadulla. Permit Holder- Appellant- Appellant- Appellant Vs. 1. Rev. Bengamuwe Sri Rathnapala Dammadinna Thero, Pelmadulla Rajamaha Viharaya, Pelmadulla. Objector- Respondent- Respondent- Respondent 2. National Gem And Jewellery Authority, 25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 3 3. Wimalaratne Muthugala, Senior Regional Manager National Gem and Jewellery Authority, Ratnapura 4. General Rohan Daluwatte, Former Chairman, National Gem and Jewellery Authority, 25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 3 5. Anil Koswatta, Former Chairman National Gem and Jewellery Authority, 25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 3 6. B.M.U.D. Basnayake Secretary, Ministry of Environment ?Sampath Paya? No.82, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla, Palmadulla. 7. Wajira Narampanawa Chairman, National Gem and Jewellery Authority, No.25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 03. (Ceased to hold office) AND OTHERS View More	Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe			Download
2025-03-21	SC/FR/123/2009	1. H.T.A. Ariyaratne 2. H.R.D.G. Mendis Both of: No. 53, Horape Temple Road, Ragama. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Jayantha Wickremarathne, Former Inspector General of Police, 1A. N.K. Illangakoon, Former Inspector General of Police, 1B. C.D. Wickremaratne, Inspector General of Police. 2. A.L. Keerthi Kumara Atapa?u, ReOred Senior Superintendent of Police of the Crime Division of the Western Province. 1 st, 1A, 1B and 2nd Respondents at Police Headquarters, Colombo 1. 3. Neville Piyadigama 3A. Senaka Walgampaya 3B. P.H. Manatunge 3C. K.W.E. Karaliedda 3D. S.C.S. Fernando 3E. E.W.M. Lalith Ekanayake 3 rd ? 3E Respondents were/is Chairman, NaOonal Police Commission 4. Nihal Jayamanne 4A. Elle Gunawansa Thero 4B. Savitri Wijesekera 4C. S. Liyanagama 4D. D.K. Renuka Ekanayake 5. R. Sivaraman 5A. D. Dissanayake 5B. Y.L.M. Zwaheer 5C. A.S.P.S.P. Sanjeewa 5D. K. Karunaharan 6. Elle Gunawansa Thero 6A. Charmaine Madurasinghe 6B. Anton Jeyanthan 6C. Gamini Navarathne 6D. N.S.M. Samsudeen 6E. View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2025-03-21	SC/APPEAL/82/2017	Mohamed Sufian Mohamed Faumi, No. 249, Thihariya, Kalagedihena. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT- APPELLANT Vs. 1. P.A. Sunila Kanthi Perera 2. P.A. Shriyani Mallika Perera 3. P.A. Kumuduni Champika Perera 4. P.A. Sunil Renuka Perera All of Perera Bakery, Thihariya, Kalagedihena. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT- RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J			Download
2025-03-21	SC/APPEAL/60/2004	A. S. de. S. Haegoda No. 30/7, Stanley Thilakaratne Mawatha, Nugegoda. (Deceased) Plaintiff ? Respondent ? Appellant 1(a). Ratnavali Chandrika Haegoda, No. 30/7, Stanley Thilakaratne Mawatha, Nugegoda. Substituted Plaintiff ? Respondent ? Appellant Vs. 1. M. Gunaratne Perera No. 131, Subadrarama Road, Gangodawila, Nugegoda. (Deceased) Defendant ? Appellant ? Respondent 1(a). Hewa Malaviarachchige Dona Dayaseeli Dhammika, No. 131, Subadrarama Road, Gangodawila, Nugegoda. Substituted Defendant ? Appellant ? Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2025-03-20	SC/APPEAL/199/2018	1. Mapa Pathirennehelage Sediris Singho of Kalaotuwawa, Kalagedihena. 2. Ranatunga Arachchige Piyaseeli of Kalaotuwawa, Kalagedihena. 1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANT- RESPONDENT-APPELLANTS Vs. 1a. Rajapaksha Pathirennehelage Renuka No. 99/2, Kalaotuwawa, Kalagedihena. 2. Rajapaksha Pathirennehelage Renuka No. 99/2, Kalaotuwawa, Kalagedihena. 1ST AND 2ND PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT-RESPONDENTS 1b. Kamburugodage Aslin Nona No. 100, Kalaotuwawa, Kalagedihena. 1c. Rajapaksha Pathirennehelage Chandrasekara No. 99/1, Kalaotuwawa, Kalagedihena. 1d. Rajapaksha Pathirennehelage Ranjani 1e. Rajapaksha Pathirennehelage Rani 1f. Rajapaksha Pathirennehelage Chandrika 1g. Rajapaksha Pathirennehelage Athula All of No. 100, Kalaotuwawa, Kalagedihena. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS 3. Nayaka Thanthrige Kamalawathie of Rathmale, Kalaotuwawa. (Deceased) 4a. Kamala Nissanka 4b. Vineetha Jayasekara 4c. Dilani Rasika All of Rathmale, Kalakotuwa, Kalagedihena. 3RD AND 4a, 4b, 4c DEFENDANT- RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J			Download
2025-03-20	SC/APPEAL/145/2010	Ummu Jesseema Samsudeen, Wife of Sahurdeen, No. 14, Tharalanda Road, Matale. PLAINTIFF ? RESPONDENT ? APPELLANT 1. Abdul Hameed Sahurdeen, No. 14, Tharalanda Road, Matale. 2. Mohammed Anas Shafee, No. 7A, Tharalanda Road, Matale. SUBSTITUTED ? PLAINTIFF ? RESPONDENT ? APPELLANTS Vs 1. Matale Municipal Council, Matale. 2. Yasabandu Samaraweera, Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Matale. 2A. B.C.R. Baba Pajohn, Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Matale. 2B. Yuresh Nishantha Maduwage, Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Matale. DEFENDANTS ? APPELLANTS ? RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2025-03-19	SC/CHC APPEAL/16/2007	Seylan Bank Limited, No. 33, Sri Baron Jayatilaka Mawatha, Colombo 01. Presently at: “Ceylinco-Seylan Towers”, No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Defendant-Appellant Vs, Lanka Milk Foods (CWE) Limited, Welisara, Ragama. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2025-03-18	SC/FR/37/2020	Madurapperumage Kanchana Priyadarshini Madurapperuma Pokunuwita, Henagama, Jayanthi Mawatha. (Presently in remand prison Kalutara) PETITIONER Vs. 1. Kelum Sangeeth, Sub-Inspector of Police, Peliyagoda Special Crimes Operations Unit, Paliyagoda. 2. The Secretary of Defence, Ministry of Defence, Colombo 01. 3. Manjula Silva, Inspector of Police, Officer-in-Charge, Police Station Ahangama. 4. Samarasinghe, Inspector of Police, Special Crimes Investigation Division, Western Province (North), Paliyagoda. 5. Samanlal, Sub Inspector of Police, Special Crimes Investigation Division, Western Province (North), Paliyagoda. 6. Indika Special Crimes Investigation Division, Western Province (North), Paliyagoda 7. Bandara, Police Sergeant No. 4866, Special Crime Investigation Division, Western Province (North), Paliyagoda. 8. Ranga, Police Constable 76336, Special Crime Investigation Division, Western Province (North), Paliyagoda AND OTHERS. View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J			Download
2025-03-14	SC/APPEAL/171/2010	L. G. J. De Silva (Deceased) No. 15, Beach Road, Matara. PETITIONER-1ST RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Loku Galappattige Somachandra de Silva No. 103/7, Abeysekera Road (Off Watarappala Road), Mt. Lavinia. SUBSTITUTED PETITIONER-1ST RESPONDENT-APPELLANT -Vs- 1. Paranahencharige Siridiyas (Deceased) Helambagaswela, Tissamaharama. 1ST RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT 1A. Paranamanage Sisira No. 294/6, Seva Piyasa Road, Helambagaswela, Tissamaharama. 1A RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT Assistant Commissioner of Agrarian Services Agrarian Services Office, Hambantota. 2ND RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2025-03-14	SC/FR/288/2015	Daya Shanthapriya Gunawardena No. 101/1, 2/2, Senior Police Officers Quarters, Kew Road, Colombo 2. PETITIONER -Vs- 1. His Excellency Maithripala Sirisena Minister of Defense, Mahaweli Development and Environment, No. 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 05. 2. Hon. Ranil Wickremasinghe Minister of Policy Planning, Economic Affairs, Child, Youth and Cultural Affairs, ?Times Building? Bristal Street, Colombo 01. 3. Hon. John Amarathunga Minister of Public Order and Christian Affairs Floor 13, ?Sethsiripaya?, Stage II, Battaramulla. 4. Hon. Joseph Michael Perera Minister of Home Affairs, New Secretariat, Maligawatte, Colombo 10. 5. Hon. Gamini Jayawickrema Perera Minister of Food Security, No. 27, 8th floor, CWE Secretariat Building, Colombo 2. 6. Hon. Mangala Samaraweera Minister of Foreign Affairs Republic Building, Colombo 1. 7. Hon. S. B. Dissanayake Minister of Rural Economic Affairs 780, Maradana Road, Colombo 10. 8. Hon. A. H. M. Fowzie Minister of Disaster Management Vidya Mawatha, Colombo 7. AND OTHERS. View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2025-03-14	SC/APPEAL/95/2021	1. Senaratne Mudiyanselage Subaneris Appuhamy alias Subaneris Senaratne, Paddawala, Kirindiwela. 1st Defendant (since deceased) 1B. Kalidasage Kanchana Dilruksha Wijewardena, 225/1, Bogahawatte, Kirindiwela. Substituted 1B Defendant-AppellantAppellant Vs. 1. Danee Kadinappuli Piyasiri Manawasinghe, 43, Walpola Road, Kirindiwela. 2. Robert Kadinappuli Rathnasiri Manawasinghe, 43, Walpola Road, Kirindiwela. (since deceased) 2A. Wijitha Surendra Manawasinghe, 43/2, Ihalagama, Kirindiwela. 3. Muthugala Pedige Premadasa, Sri Kanthi Saloon, Nittambuwa Road, Kirindiwela. (since deceased) 3A. Ranthilakage Kamalawathie alias Ranthilakalage Kamalawathie, 3B. Muthugala Pathiranage Vajira Priyadarshana Mutugala, 3C. Muthugala Pathiranage Indika Priyadarshana Mutugala, 3D. Muthugala Pathiranage Nirosha Priyadarshani Mutugala, All of 41/F, Udumillawatta, Kirindiwela. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondents 2. Sammandapperuma Mohotti Appuhamilage Don Jemis Wijewardena Jayasekera Bandara, Obawatte Walawwa, Radawana. View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-03-14	SC/APPEAL/54/2021	Liyanawaduge Susantha Priyalal Dharmasiri, Sri Lak Motor Traders, No. 26, Main Street, Anuradhapura. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Seylan Bank Limited, ?Ceylinco Seylan Towers?, No. 90, Galle road, Colombo 03. Seylan Bank PLC, ?Seylan Towers?, No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Plaintiff - Appellant - Respondent View More	HON. MENAKA WIJESUNDERA J			Download
2025-03-14	SC/APPEAL/206/2012	Rev. Omalpe Somananda Thero, Sri Jinaraja Viharaya, Danvilana, Veyangoda. Petitioner-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Rev. Ratmale Sri Somarathna Thero, Sri Poorwaramaya, Naiwala, Veyangoda. Substituted Plaintiff-RespondentRespondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-03-11	SC/APPEAL/166/2019	Sabeera Salee, No.24/198, Gothami Road, Borella, Colombo 08. (Deceased) 1A. Azeezur Rahuman Fathima 1B. Azeezur Rahuman Fathima Azfah 1C. Azeezur Rahuman Fathima Azreen No. 254/N, Gothatuwa Road, Gothatuwa. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT- APPELLANTS Vs. Hasan Mohamed Samsun Nisa, No.67/143, Kureishani Maulana Lane, Dematagoda, Colombo 09. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT- RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Sampath B. Abayakoon J			Download
2025-03-07	SC/APPEAL/223/2017	Upali Seneviratna No. 276, High Level Road, Maharagama. DEFENDANT- APPELLANT- APPELLANT -VS- Suduwadewage Dinapala No. 304/12, Ihalabiyanwila, Kadawatha. PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2025-03-06	SC/APPEAL/88/2015	Kariyawasam Arachchige Priyantha Dayarathna. Palapolkotuwa, Millathe, Kirindiwela. 2. Aserappulilage Costa alias Adikaramlage Siripala Costa. Ihalagama, No. 37/c, Meegahawatte, Mahaloluwa, Kirindiwela. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Kadinappuliradage Nandapala (Deceased). Meegahawatte, Mahaloluwa, Kirindiwela. 1a. Galkessage Agnes Weelawathie. No. 37, Meegahawatte, Mahaloluwa, Kirindiwela. 2. Kadinappuliradage Mayurupala. No. 04, Beligollawatte, Kirindiwela. 3. Kadinappuliradage Rejona (Deceased). 3a. Jayani Vishaka Pathirage. 4. Patapilige Steven Pathirage (Deceased). 4a. Jayani Vishaka Pathirage. 5. Kadinappuliradage Asline Fernando alias Asilin Fernando (Deceased) 5a. Dewagirige Chithralatha. Papolkotuwa, Millathe, Kirindiwela. 6. Kariyawasam Arachchige Muditha Karunaseeli. No. 130, Beligollawatte, Kirindiwela. 7. Rathnayakage Dharmadasa. Aluth Gedarawatte, Rathambale, Urapola. 8. Rathnayake Jayathilake Rathambale, Urapola. 9. Rathnayakage Sunanda Silmatha. Rathambale, Urapola. AND OTHERS. View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2025-03-06	SC/FR/338/2017	Korawage Ranjith alias ?Shantha?, Masdeniya, Pathawita, Beralapanathara. PETITIONER -Vs 1. Rukman Kumara, Officer-in-Charge, The Police Station, Urubokka. 2. Sudusingha, Police Driver The Police Station, Urubokka. 3. Mahesh Widanapathirana, Nawarathnawila Tea Factory, Moragala, Kirulapone. 4. J.A.Janaka Witharana, Bengamuwa, Urubokka. 5. Pujith Jayasundara, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01 6. Hon.Attorney General, Attorney General?s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe			Download
2025-03-05	SC/APPEAL/66/2022	1. D. S. Kumarasinghe (Deceased), 1A. Liliyan Kumarasinghe, (Deceased) 1B. Lakmal Samantha Kumarasinghe, 2. Ajith Nilanjan Kumarasinghe, 3. Lakmal Samantha Kumarasinghe, No. 633, Trincomalee Street, Matale. Defendant-Respondent-Appellants Vs. Konara Mudiyanselage Piyadasa. No. 102, Malwatta Road, Matale. Presently at, No. 51, Ward Place, Colombo 07. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-03-05	SC/CHC APPEAL/22/2010	Sri Lanka Savings Bank Limited of No. 110, D S Senanayake Mawatha, Colombo 10. Presently of No. 265, Ward Place, Colombo 07. PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT -VS- Habib Bank AG Zurich, incorporated in Switzerland and having a registered place of business at Nos. 148-151 Main Street, Colombo 11. DEFENDANT- RESPONDENT Hatton National Bank Limited, No. 481, T. B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT- RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2025-03-05	SC/APPEAL/148/2023	Mohammed Faiys Mufeez Arfath, No. 48, Kankanamgoda Road, China Fort, Beruwala. Plaintiff-Judgment Creditor-Respondent-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Selladore Pathmanathan, No. 48, Kaleel Place, Kalutara South. Also No. 151/1, Dam Street, Colombo 12. 2nd Defendant-Judgment Debtor-Petitioner-Petitioner-Respondent Mohammed Saleem Mohammed Siyam, No. 179, Hill Street, Kalutara South. 1st Defendant-Judgment Debtor-Petitioner-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-03-05	SC/APPEAL/128/2012	Gotabhaya Upali Wickramasinghe Ravindra Disna, 241, Hunupitiya, Wattala. 1st Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Werakkodi Arachchige Mary Nona, 761, Hunupitya, Wattala. 2nd Defendant Respondent-Respondent (Deceased) Roshan Pradeep Kannangara, 761, Hunupitiya, Wattala. 2A Defendant-Respondent-Respondent Mohamed Hanifa Ummu Raseena, 764, Kanthi Mawatha, Hunupititya, Wattala. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-03-05	SC/APPEAL/5/2021	JMC Jayasekara Management Centre (Pvt) Limited, No. 65/2A, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Commissioner General of Inland Revenue, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardinder Mawatha, Colombo 02. Claimant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-03-05	SC/APPEAL/132/2018	1. Dewrage Punchihamy, 2. Kankanam Arichchige Wijedasa, Meddawahena, Parapamulla West, Deiyandara. Defendant-Respondent-Appellants Vs. Kalappu Arichchi Liyanage Somawathie, Deepika Niwasa, 372, Parapamulla West, Deiyandara. Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-03-03	SC/APPEAL/39/2024	Arunodhini Wirasinghe (nee Subasinghe) Kethumathi, Sandalankawa. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant 1. Liyanage Siriyalatha Perera No. 472/4, Wewa Road, Averihena, Hokandara. 2. Wasantha Oswald Weerasinghe No. 472/4, Wewa Road, Averihena, Hokandara. Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2025-02-28	SC/APPEAL/169/2015	Malagodage Thilakeratne No. 15/1, Sri Sangabodhi Mawatha Wellampitiya. 1ST DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs. Malagodage Iranganie, No. 151/1, Sri Sangabodhi Mawatha, Wellampitiya PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT Secretary, Ceylon Electricity Board EPF, Head Office, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2 2ND DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J			Download
2025-02-27	SC/APPEAL/165/2016	1A. Enderutennagedara Shahul Hameed Siththy Faiza, 1B. Enderutennagedara Shahul Hameed Nizaak, 1C. Enderutennagedara Shahul Hameed Fathima Azriya, 1D. Enderutennagedara Shahul Hameed Mohamed Nawfil, 1E. Enderutennagedara Shahul Hameed Siththy Nafeela, 1F. Enderutennagedraa Shahul Hameed Siththy Naleera, 1G. Enderutennagedraa Shahul Hameed Mohamed Nimlar, 1H. Enderutennagedraa Shahul Hameed Siththy Nawsila, 1I. Enderutennagedraa Shahul Hameed Siththy Nakeeba, 184/18, Matale Road, Katugastota. Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Son of Nagolle Gedera Appuhamy, M.M. Podibanda, Kahawatta, Mullegama, Ambatenna (Deceased). 1A. M. M. Ratnayaka, 1B. M. M. Bandara Menike, 1C. M. M. Mangalika Kumari, No. 14/2, Kahawattta, Ambatenna. Substituted 1st Defendant- Respondents-Respondents- Respondents 2. Thalawinne Gedara Kiri Menike, Kahawatta, Mullegama, Ambatenna. 2nd Defendant-Respondent- Respondent-Respondent 3. Ederutennagedara Shahul Hameed Nuhun Nihar, Nowfil Lodge, Bulugahathenne, Akurana. Substituted Pl View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-02-25	SC/APPEAL/166/2014	K.D.A. Hettiarachchi, Premasiri Super Market, 243, R.A. De Mel Mawatha, Colombo 3. PLAINTIFF ? RESPONDENT ? APPELLANT Nadira Gishani He??arachchi Piyasena, 62/B/5, Vajira Road, Colombo 5. SUBSTITUTED ? PLAINTIFF ? RESPONDENT ? APPELLANT Vs Ceylinco Insurance Company Limited, 15A, Alfred Place, Colombo 3 With its registered office at 2, Hyde Park Corner, Colombo 2. DEFENDANT ? APPELLANT ? RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2025-02-25	SC/CONT/9/2024	The Registrar, Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, Superior Court Complex, Colombo 12. PETITIONER Vs. Wickramage Don Dharmasiri Karunaratne, No. 57, Baseline Road, Colombo 08. RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2025-02-25	SC/CHC APPEAL/52/2007	And now between Alliansz Insurance Lanka Limited, No. 675, Dr. Danister De Silva Mawatha, Colombo 9 Formerly, 01ashakthi Insurance Company Limited, 01ashakthi Insurance PLC., and 01ashakthi General Insurance Limited, No. 47, Muttiah Road, Colombo 2. DEFENDANT ? APPELLANT 2 Vs. Lagan International Limited, Lagan House, 19, Clarendon Road, Belfast, BT 13 GB, Northern Ireland. PLAINTIFF ? RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2025-02-25	SC/APPEAL/61/2018	Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka, Belihuloya. 1st Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Malevige Wimaladasa De Silva, 118/B, Pitawela Watta, Gampola Road, Gelioya. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent Prof. I.K. Perera, Vice Chancellor of Sabaragamuwa University, 31/5, A.D.M. Kolabage Mawatha, Nawala Road, Nugegoda. 2nd Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-02-21	SC/APPEAL/117/2016	Colombo Municipal Council, No. 11, Esther Avenue, Park Road, Colombo 05. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-APPELLANT J.M. Bhadranie Jayawardhana, Municipal Commissioner, Colombo Municipal Council, Town Hall, Colombo 07. Vs. Sarosha Mandika Wijeratne, No. 11, Esther Avenue, Park Road, Colombo 05. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J	res ipsa loquitur; contributory negligence; computation of damages; actuarial evidence on damages; negligence; Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Joint Wrongdoers) Act, No. 12 of 1968; Subrogation		Download
2025-02-20	SC/RULE/5/2023	Saman Masakorala 9/1 A, Pelawatta Para, Nugegoda. COMPLAINANT -Vs- Samitha Samanmalee Thennakoon, Attorney-at-Law No. 164/16, Liyan Silva Mawatha, Thalpitiya North, Panadura. RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2025-02-20	SC/APPEAL/37/2014	1. W. Arthur Deepal Peiris 2. W. Sunethra Peiris 3. W. Ashoka Ajith Peiris No. 256, Galle Road, Mount Lavinia. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Ranil Perera ?Vajira Builders?, No. 2, Vajira Road, Colombo 04. and ?Seek Saloon?, No. 256B, Galle Road, Mount Lavinia. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-02-19	SC/APPEAL/15/2015	Enapatti Kumara Gorok Kumburage Premaratne, (deceased) No1.A, Gonagala, Ruwanwela. Wickramarachchi Appuhamilage Dayawathie, No1.A, Gonagala, Ruwanwella. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF -APPELLANT -VS- Galvita Kumara Bopatteage Ariyaratne, Gonagala. DEFENDANT ? RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Galvita Kumara Bopatteage Ariyaratne, Gonagala. DEFENDANT - RESPONDENT APPELLANT -VS- Enapatti Kumara Gorok Kumburage Premaratne, (deceased) No.1A, Gonagala, Ruwanwella. Wickramarachchi Appuhamilage Dayawathie, No.1A, Gonagala, Ruwanwella. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF -APPELLANT ? RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2025-02-19	SC/APPEAL/167/2018	Batuwanthudawa Kankanamge Somadewa, ?Seethala?, Thuththagalla, Ahangama. 3rd DEFENDANT-APPELLANT- PETITIONER -VS- 1. Muthuwahandi Lambert, 2. Hetti Arachchige Amarawathie, 3. Mithuwahandi Lalantha Madushan, (Appearing by his next friend appointed in District Court Balapitiya Case No. PB/236) All three of them ?Amara? Ang Junction, Rathgama. 4. Padma Hettiarachchi, Ang Junction, Rathgama. (Next Friend) PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS- RESPONDENTS 1. Haththotuwa Gamage Rukman Mahendra, Mahawatta, Habaraduwa. 2. Prasad Malaka Batuwanthudawa ?Seethala?, Thiththagalla, Ahangama. 1st and 2nd DEFENDANT- RESPONDENTS- RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2025-02-19	SC/APPEAL/194/2014	1. Letchumy Suntharanathan, New Kalmunai Road, Kallady, Batticaloa. 2. Suntharanathan Premini, New Kalmunai Road, Kallady, Batticaloa. Defendant-Respondent-Appellants Vs. Sellathangam Logitharajah, New Kalmunai Road, Kallady, Batticaloa. (Deceased) 01aththany Logitharajah, New Kalmunai Road, Kallady, Batticaloa. Substituted Plaintiff-AppellantRespondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-02-18	SC/FR/367/2013	1. Thushara Malpriya Wilhanachchi “Rajagaya”, Bogaha Junction, Akmeemana. 2. Narigama Patabandige Pramitha Roshan “Samadhi”, Hawpegewatta, Poddala. 3. Vithanage Roshan Perera Addaragewattha, Piyadigana, Gintota. 4. Koggala Vithanage Nilantha Agantholla Wattha, Metaranba, Unawatuna. 5. Mohamed Shaffy Fathuma Rushdiya No. 16/3A, Playground Road, Obeysekarapura, Rajagiriya. 6. Walpita Gamage Sameera Pradeep Walpita South, Aramba Junction, Poddela. 7. Dadallage Jayalakshi Chandrasekara Uyana Watta, Talpe. 8. Maligaspe Koralage Rangana Sujeewa Kajugas Kanaththa, Kithulampitiya, Wackwella, Galle. 9. Nanayakkara Vithanage Nalaka Samantha Dehigahahena, Hiyare, Galle. 10. Kodituwakku Kankanamge Priyantha “Jayakody”, Ganegoda, Akeemana. 11. Androvita Gamage Rupika Priyanganie Walawe Gedara Manavila, Walahanduwa, Galle. 12. Chathurani Samarasinghe No. 34C, Kithulampitiya Road, Galle. 13. Gammaddegoda Liyanage Chandi Bopewatta, Opatha, Uluvitike. 14. Upul Eresha Runage “Sandaresa”, Melagoda, Wanchawala. AND OTHERS View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2025-02-18	SC/APPEAL/76/2022	1. Fazal Hardware Pvt Ltd, No. 39/41, Pettigalawatta, Galle. 2. Fazal Import & Transport Pvt Ltd, No. 29, Matara Road, Galle. Respondent-Appellant-Petitioners Buwalu Patabandige Thilakasiri, Kulunu Kanda, Unawatuna. Applicant-Respondent-Responden View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2025-02-14	SC/FR/110/2016	Gamlath Bandara Rathnasiri Panapitiya Road, Meda Pothupitiya, Wadduwa. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Mr. Soba Ranaweera, Inspector of Police, Police Station, Beruwala. 2. Mr. Duminda Rajapaksha, Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Beruwala. 3. Mr. Ranmal Kodithuwakku, Senior Superintendent of Police, Beruwala Division, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Kalutara. 4. W.A.D Gamini Jayalath Wijesingha Assistant Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Kalutara. 5. Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 6. Mr. P. Don 01ath Aruna Shantha No. 172, Adistanapura, Gorakaduwawatta, Mattiyanamulla, Payagala. 7. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney-General?s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J	Articles 12(1), 13(1) and 13(2) Offences Against Public Property Act Who can make a complaint Reasonable cause for arrest		Download
2025-02-14	SC/APPEAL/20/2024 , SC/APPEAL/21/2024	Laksiri International Freight Forwarders Private Ltd Of No. 31, St. Anothony?s Mawatha, Colombo 03. RESPONDENT-PETITIONER-APPELLANT-APPELLANT Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Colombo East) Colombo East District Office, Labour Secretariat, Labour Department, Colombo 5. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J	Payment of Gratuity Act Duty of the Labour Commissioner to give a fair hearing Audi alteram partem Probative value of uncertified documents		Download
2025-02-11	SC/APPEAL/86/2011	1. Allen Chamini Johnson No. 20, 2nd Lane, Rampart Road, Ethul Kotte. 2. Lionel Fernando No. 22, 1st Lane, Rampart Road, Ethul Kotte. 3. S. K. A. Gunawathie No. 31/8, 1st Lane, Rampart Road, Ethul Kotte. 4. Kuruvitage Somapala Silva No. 31/9, 1st Lane, Rampart Road, Ethul Kotte. 5. Kuruvitage Sitha Ran01i Silva No. 31/9, 1st Lane, Rampart Road, Ethul Kotte. 6. Pahalagamage Arunamali No. 29, 2nd Lane, Rampart Road, Ethul Kotte. 7. Senarath Paranayapa Kamalawathie No. 29, 2nd Lane, Rampart Road, Ethul Kotte. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7A, 8 & 9A Defendant-Appellant-Appellants V. Kuruvitage Beny Silva No. 25, 1st Lane, Rampart R2, Ethul Kotte, Kotte. (Deceased) Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent Kuruvitage Sajith Deepashika Silva No. 25, 1st Lane, Rampart R2, Ethul Kotte, Kotte. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent Kuruvitage Susila Nandanie Silva No. 26/24, 1st Lane, Rampart Road, Ethul Kotte. (Deceased) AND OTHERS View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2025-02-11	SC/APPEAL/209/2014	Rankothpedige Lalith Premathilaka Haalpanwila East, Near the Temple, Marawila. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant 1. Hewasunderage Lionel Dasanayake Haalpanwila, Marawila. 2. Hewasunderage Gunadasa Maranda, Marawila. (Deceased) Defendants-Appellants-Respondents 2a. Hettiarachchige 01et Nona No. 112/A, Marandawella, Marawila. 2b. Hewasundarage Shayam Thisedha Hewasundara No. 112/A/2, 3 Marandawella, Marawila. 2c. Hewasundarage Thanushka Himali No. 112/A/2, Marandawella, Marawila. 2d. Hewasunarage Nirosha Lakmali No. 112/A/2, Marandawella, Marawila. Substituted 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d Defendants-Appellants-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2025-02-10	SC/APPEAL/1/2025	Niyakulage Dilruk Sanjeewa Fernando, No. 137, Nisalagiri Uyana, Boraegoda, Poruwadanda, Horana. Plaintiff-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Diyagama Vidanelage Somawathie Perera, No. 412, Ratiyagoda, Kuda Aruggoda, Aruggoda. 1A. Meddakandage Anilka Rohini Perera, (Substituted 1st Defendant) No. 412, Ratiyagoda, Kuda Aruggoda, Aruggoda. 2. Meddakandage Anilka Rohini Perera, No. 412, Ratiyagoda, Kuda Aruggoda, Aruggoda. Defendant-Respondents-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-02-10	SC/FR/365/2020	Sachith Prabath Wijeratna, Amunukole, Megodawewa. Petitioner Vs. 1. Police Inspector B.S. Chandrasiri, Crime Branch, Police Station, Anuradhapura. 2. Police Sergeant Sampath 32226, Crime Branch, Police Station, Anuradhapura. 3. Police Sergeant Nishantha 37057, Crime Branch, Police Station, Anuradhapura. 4. C.D. Wickramaratne, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 5. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General?s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-02-10	SC/FR/135/2023	Sierra Construction Ltd., No. 112, Havelock Road, Colombo 05. Petitioner Vs. 1. Road Development Authority, ?Maganeguma Mahamedura? No. 216, Denzil Kobbakaduwa Mawatha, Koswatta, Battaramulla. 2. Project Director, Miscellaneous Foreign Aided Projects Division, Road Development Authority, No. 465, Ganahena, Battaramulla. 3. Secretary, Ministry of Transport and Highways, 7th Floor, Sethsiripaya Stage II, Battaramulla. 4. Maga Engineering (Pvt) Ltd, No. 200, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 5. Tudawe Brothers (Pvt) Ltd, No. 505/2, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 05. 6. International Construction Consortium (Pvt) Ltd, No. 70, S. De S. Jayasinghe Mawatha, Nugegoda. 7. Nawaloka Construction Company (Pvt) Ltd, No. 115, Sir James Pieris Mawatha, Colombo 02. 8. Kanwel Constructions and Civil Engineering (Pvt) Ltd, Wattegedara Road, 41A, Purana Road, Maharagama 10280. 9. K. D. Ebert & Sons Holdings (Pvt) Ltd, No. 5/41, Madiwela Road, Embuldeniya, Nugegoda. 10. Attorney General, Attorney General?s Department, Colomb View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-02-07	SC/SPL LA/266/2023	B.S. Cooray No. 1/215, Udumulla, Mulleriyawa. 10th Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Kuruwitage Don Marlin Minura Siriwardena No. 50 1/1, Ambatale, Mulleriyawa New Town Petitioner-Responden1. Ceylon Petroleum Corporation No 609, Dr. Danister de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 09 2. W.W. D. Sumith Wijesinghe, Chairman and Board Member, Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, No. 609, Dr. Danister De Silva Mawatha, Colombo 09 AND OTHERS View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando PC J			Download
2025-02-07	SC/MISC/4/2014	Wathukarage Shantha Merril Kumara, Gonakumbura, Ratnapura. Appellant Vs. 1. National Gem and Jewellery Authority, No. 25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 03. 2. Amitha K. U. Gamage, Chairman/Chief Executive Officer, No. 25, National Gem and Jewellery Authority, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 03. 2G. Viraj De Silva, Chairman/Chief Executive Officer, National Gem and Jewellery Authority, Macksons Tower, Alfred House Gardens, Colombo 03. 3. N.K.G.K. Nemmawatta, Director General, No. 25, National Gem and Jewellery Authority, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 03. 3E. 01aka Udaya Kumara, Director General, National Gem and Jewellery Authority, Macksons Tower, Alfred House Gardens, Colombo 03. 4. N.P. Samaratunga, Deputy Director (formerly Senior Regional Manager), National Gem and Jewellery Authority Regional Office, Ratnapura. 4C. H.P. Karunathilake, Deputy Director Enforcement and Regional Development, National Gem and Jewellery Authority Regional Office, Ratnapura. AND OTHERS. View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena J			Download
2025-02-06	SC/APPEAL/36/2011	1. Kusuma Wijetunga Thavaluwila, Ambalantota. 2. Sudirikku Hennedige Nilupul Jayawickrema Thavaluwila, Ambalantota. Defendants-Respondents-Appellants V. Anura Silva Abeyratne, XB- 8/311, Edmonton Housing Complex, Colombo 06. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2025-02-05	SC/APPEAL/56/2018	Rupika Sarojini Thuduwewatte, No. 24/31, Rangiri Vihara Road, Ambalanthota. 1ST PARTY PETITIONER- APPELLANT ? PETITIONER Vs 1. Kodithuwakku Kankanamge Shantha, ?Gayani?, Kiribathgoda, Dehigahalanda, Ambalanthota. 2. Jagath Kankanam Abeykoon Jennona, ?Ransiri?, 4th Channel, Beragama, Ambalanthota. 3. Hewa Walimunige Chandrawathi, Koggala, Ambalanthota. RESPONDENTS ? RESPONDENTS ? RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2025-01-30	SC/WRIT/11/2024	1. Pararajasingam Uthayarasa No. 148, Station Road, Varava, Puliyakulam, Vavuniya. 2. Gurunathapillai Vijendrarathnam No. 384/3, Mannar road, Veppamkulam, Vavuniya. 3. Abdul Gafoor Kaleefath Subihan Karadukuli, Maradakachchi, Mannar. PETITIONERS -Vs- 1. R. M. A. L. Rathnayake Chairman, Election Commission. 2. M. A. P. C. Perera Member, Election Commission. 3. Ameer Faaiz Member, Election Commission. 4. Anushya Shanmuganathan Member, Election Commission. 5. Prof. Lakshman Dissanayake Member, Election Commission. And Other RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2025-01-30	SC/FR/87/2021	1. M. I. M. Iynullah, AAL No. 182/2, 2nd Floor, Hulftsdorp Street, Colombo 12. For and on behalf of: 2. Wasala Mudiyanselage Upali Ratnayake Polpithigama, Daladagama, Mahawa. 3. Kumara Pathirannehelage Niranjala Priyadarshi Hemamali Polpithigama, Daladagama, Mahawa. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. C. D. Wickramaratne Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Church Road, Colombo 01. 2. Nishantha De Zoysa Senior Superintendent of Police, Director, Criminal Investigation. 3. Lalith Dissanayake Chief Inspector, Officer-in-Charge, Special-Unit. 2 and 3 above, both of: Criminal Investigation Department, Colombo 01. 4. CI H. P. Y. W. Herath Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Mahawa. 5. CI R. P. U. Ratnamalala Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Mahawa. 6. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General?s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2025-01-30	SC/FR/170/2022	P. W. T. Dhanushka No. 297-D080A, Arukgoda, Alubomulla, Panadura. PETITIONER Vs. 1. C.D. Wickramaratne Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Church Road, Colombo 01. 2. SSP Nishantha De Zoysa Director, Criminal Investigation, Criminal Investigation Department, Colombo 01. 3. CI Lalith Dissanayake Officer-in-Charge, Special-Unit. Criminal Investigation Department, Colombo 01. 4. CI Waduge Krishantha Ruwan Kumara Officer-in-Charge (Acting), Police Station, Mahawa. 5. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General?s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2025-01-30	SC/FR/51/2021	1. Mayomi Ranawaka, AAL 41/1, Belmont Street, Colombo 12. For and on behalf of: 2. W. U. C. Premasiri No. 214, Weragodamulla, Horampella, Minuwangoda. 3. K.A. Shanika Madurangi No. 214, Weragodamulla, Horampella, Minuwangoda. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Gotabaya Rajapakshe His Excellency the President of the Republic and Hon. Minister of Defence, 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 03. 2. SSP Nishantha De Zoysa Director ? Criminal Investigation. 2(a). SSP Kavinda Piyasekera Director ? Criminal Investigation. 3. CI Lalith Dissanayake Officer-in-Charge, Special-Unit. 2, 2(a) and 3 above all of: Criminal Investigation Department, Colombo 01. 4. CI Waduge Krishantha Ruwan Kumara Officer-in-Charge (Acting), Police Narcotic Bureau, Colombo 01. 4(a). CI Jayasekara Officer-in-Charge, Police Narcotic Bureau, Colombo 01. 5. CI Rohan Mahesh Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Minuwangoda. 6. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General?s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-12-31	SC/FR/286/2024, SC/FR/287/2024, SC/FR/291/2024, SC/FR/294/2024	1. J.G. Mangala 2. J.G. Thilini Sabodha (Minor) Both of; No. 124/2C, Honnantara South, Kesbewa. And 52 Others, 1. Dehiwala Liyanage Mahesh Maduranga Liyanage No. 300A, “Chandra Niwasa”, Radawana. And 53 Others, 1. Lakshman Bandara Mullegama No. C-172, Badulupitiya, Badulla. And 5 Others, 1. Subasinghe Mudiyanselage Sanudi Thehansa Chandrasena (minor) No. 1/64, Kalalgoda Road, Pannipitiya. And 7 Others Petitioners VS. 1. Mr. H.J.M.C. Amith Jayasundara Commissioner General of Examinations Department of Examinations. 2. Mr. Shantha Padmalal Ariyaratne Deputy Commissioner of Examinations, Department of Examinations. 3. Mr. A.H.G.R. Eranga Gunenewardena Deputy Commissioner of Examinations School Examinations Confidential Division. Department of Examinations. AND OTHERS Respondents View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J.			Download
2024-12-19	SC/APPEAL/151/2014	1. Sabareen Corera 2. Corera Johnson 3. Corera Melvin 4. Corera Alpin 5. Corera Maclin 135, Customs Road, Trincomalee. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANTS – RESPONDENTS – RESPONDENTS – APPELLANTS Vs Ganendralingam Sri Vidyadevi, 10/5, Huskinsons Street, Trincomalee. Presently of Canada, Through her Attorney, A Kulalingam, 60/80, 17th Lane, Murugan Koviladdi, Linganagar, Trincomalee. PLAINTIFF - PETITIONER – APPELLANT - RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2024-12-18	SC/APPEAL/5/2012	Kuruppu Arachchige Don Sunil Kuruppu Thalagala, Gonapola Junction. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant V. 1a. Dinesha Shavithri Abeysinghe Also known as Dinesha Kumari Liyanage No. 264, 2/1, High Level Road. 1b. Panduka Abeysinghe No. 7/282, Kotte Road, Mirihana, Nugegoda. Substituted 1st Defendant-Appellant-Respondents 2a. Ramani Sandya Morawaka No. 44, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. Substituted 2nd Defendant- Respondent -Respondent View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2024-12-17	SC/APPEAL/119/2023	Murshida Shiyam No. 76, Ward Place, Colombo 07 (Presently in Remand Prison) 3rd Accused-Appellant-Appellant V. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2024-12-12	SC/FR/35/2024	Bulugaha Pathirannehelage Sarith Maheeputhra Pathirathne, No. 110/1, Wataddara, Veyangoda. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Hon. Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena, (Speaker of the Parliament) Chairman of the Constitutional Council. 2. Hon. Dinesh Gunawardena, (Prime Minister) Member of the Constitutional Council. 3. Hon. Sajith Premadasa, (Leader of the Opposition) Member of the Constitutional Council. 4. Hon. Nimal Siripala de Silva, (Minister of Ports, Shipping and Aviation) Member of the Constitutional Council. 5. Hon. Sagara Kariyawasam, (Member of Parliament) Member of the Constitutional Council. 6. Hon. Kabir Hashim, (Member of Parliament) Member of the Constitutional Council. 7. Dr. Prathap Ramanujam, Member of the Constitutional Council. 8. Dr. Dilkushi Anula Wijesundere, Member of the Constitutional Council. 9. Prof. Weligama Vidana Arachchige Dinesha Samararatne, Member of the Constitutional Council. 10. Mr. Dhammika Dasanayake, Secretary General to the Constitutional Council. All 1st to 10th Respondents: AND OTHERS. View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-12-12	SC/FR/97/2021	Sansoon Salley Mohamed Azath No. 61/A, Flower Road, Colombo 07 Petitioners Vs. 1. Hon. Attorney-General Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. 2. C.D. Wickramaratne, Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 3. Nishantha de Zoysa, Senior Superintendent of Police, Director, Criminal Investigations Department, Colombo 01. 3A. Rohan Premaratne, Director, Criminal Investigations Department, Colombo 01. 4. Jayantha Payagala, Chief Inspector of Police, Special Investigations Unit 1, Criminal Investigations Department, Colombo 01. 5. Sarath Weerasekara, Minister of Public Security, 14th Floor “Suhurupaya” Battaramulla. 6. Major General (Retd.) Jagath Alwis, Secretary, Ministry of Public Security, 14th Floor “Suhurupaya” Battaramulla. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2024-12-11	SC/CHC APPEAL/32/2008 with SC/CHC APPEAL/32A/2008	Nallathamby Chandra, No. 17, The Glade, Welshwood Park, Colchester, Essex 004 3JD, United Kingdom. 3rd Defendant-Appellant Vs. Merchant Bank of Sri Lanka PLC, Bank of Ceylon Merchant Tower, No. 28, St. Michael’s Road, Colombo 03. Plaintiff-Respondent Nallathamby Kumarachandran, No. 8/1, Maitland Crescent, Colombo 7. 2nd Defendant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2024-12-10	SC/APPEAL/141/2017	Jayakody Arachchige Naradha Jayakody, ‘Sarasavi’, Goigam Godella, Udugampola. Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Wickramaarachachige Sriyawathi Jayakody, No. 162 HC, Mahara, Kadawatha. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-12-02	SC/APPEAL/111/2022	Duro Pipe Industrial (Pvt) Ltd, 307, 2nd Floor, George R. De Silva Mawatha, Colombo 13. Employer Respondent-Appellant-Appellant VS Hettige Pradeep Silva, 325, Dewatagahawatta, Negombo. and 36 Others Employee Applicants-Respondents- Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-12-02	SC/APPEAL/206/2014	1. Lion Brewery (Ceylon) PLC, No. 61, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 1. 2. Hariharan Selvanathan, C/O No. 83, George R. De Silva Mawatha, Colombo 13. 4. Suresh Kumar Shah, C/O No. 83, George R. De Silva Mawatha, Colombo 13. 5. Don Chandima Rajakaruna Gunawardana, No. 61, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 1. 6. Lional Cuthbert Read De Cabraal Wijetunge, No. 1, Charles Avenue, Colombo 3. 9. Chandrarathne Talpe Liyanage, No. 278/5, Borella Road, Depanama. 10. Chitta Prasanna Amerasinghe, No. 31, Mandala Place, Madiwela, Kotte. 11. D.R.P. Goonetilleke, No. 11, Siripala Road, Mount Lavinia. 1st, 2nd, 4th to 6th and 9th to 11th Petitioners-Appellants Vs. Mr. S.A.C.S.W. Jayatilleke, Director-General of Excise, 1st Respondent-Respondent Mr. E.M.B.D. Ekanayake, Director-Excise Duty, Both of Excise Duty Division, Department of Sri Lanka Customs, Colombo 1. 2nd Respondent-Respondent Ms. Sudharma Karunarathne, Director-General of Excise, Excise Duty Division, Department of Sri Lanka Customs, Colombo And Others. View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-12-02	SC/APPEAL/33/2020	Auriya Vinothini Yogaraja nee Poopalarathnam, No. 543/2/B, Galle Road, Wellawatta. and now 3037, Shorepine CT, Riverside, CA 92504, USA. (through her Power of Attorney Weerakkody Arachchilage Sampath Seenadeera of No. 41, Darmarama Road, Rathmalana) Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Riyal Mohomed Riswan, No. 28, 13th Lane, Kollupitiya, Colombo 03. and No. 151/3, Galle Road, Dehiwala. 6th Defendant-Appellant-Respondent And 1. Parwathi Pragash alias Madoona Damayanthi, No. 151/3, Galle Road, Dehiwala. 2. Wijesooriya Arachchige Don Gunapala, No. 6/61, Hill Street, Dehiwala. 3. Mohamed Subathir Mohomed Abhu Yaseed, No. 45, Hamden Lane, Wellawatte. 4. Nimaleshwaree Edward Yaseed, No. 45, Hamden Lane, Wellawatte. 5. Niroshan Company (Pvt.) Ltd, No. 65, Stock Place, Colombo 10. Defendants-Respondents- Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-11-29	SC/FR/66/2019 WITH SC/FR/72/2019	01. Edirachcharige Kushan, No.J/11, GreenTerrace, Kahanthota Road, Malabe. 02. Isuru Nadayalage Ashoka Premasiri Udanvita, Melsiripura. and others petitioners vs, 01. SriLanka Bureau of Foreign Employment, No.234, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Koswatta, Battaramulla. 02. The Chairman, SriLanka Bureau of Foreign Employment, No.234, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Koswatta, Battaramulla. and others Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe			Download
2024-11-29	SC/FR/74/2020	Mrs. V. Hiroshini Piyadasa No. 262, Bogahagoda, Dorape, Angulugaha. PETITIONER Vs. 1. University of Ruhuna 2. Senior Professor Sujeewa Amarasena Vice Chancellor 3. Professor Saman Chandana 4. Professor S.D. Wanniarachchi 5. Dr. H.P. Suriarachchi 6. Dr. H.B. Asnanthi 7. Dr. K.G. Imandra 8. Senior Professor M.V. Weerasuriya 9. Dr. Upali Pannilage 10. Mr. Samantha Kumara 11. Professor P.A. Jayantha 12. Professor Vasantha Devasiri 13. Professor W.G.D. Darmarathne 14. Professor Sampath Gunawardena 15. Professor N.J.De.S. Amarasinghe 16. Mrs. H.M. Wanigasinghe 17. Mr. M.G. Punchihewa 18. Mr. K.N. Samarasinghe 19. Admiral Samarasinghe 20. Mr. U.G. Karunarathna 21. Mr. C.R. De Zoysa 22. Professor L.P. Jayathissa 23. Professor D.A.L. Leelamani 24. Professor Sarath Amarasinghe 25. Mr. Gunapala Wijesinghe Dedewage 26. Mrs. L.C. Amarasinghe And others. View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.	Article 12(1); University Establishment Code; Entitlement to emolument pending inquiry; Duty on the University to file a police complaint when inquiry involves criminal allegations		Download
2024-11-29	SC/SPL LA /16/2019	Upali Gunasekera, M/s Palm Paradise Cabanas, Goyambokke, Tangalle. Presently of No. 19/2, Sunandrama Road, Kalubowila, Dehiwala. 2ND DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Domingo Hewage Premachandra, Goyambokke, Tangalle. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT Vs. 1. Kankanamge Don Titus Dharmaratne, Kottegoda, Nugegoda. 2. Punyasiri Wickramasinghe, Goyambokke, Tangalle. 3. Pllakkara Gamage Martyn, Goyambokke, Tangalle. 1ST, 3RD AND 4TH DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.	Appeal filed in the name of a deceased person; misidentification of parties; Applications to cure defects in the caption or misnomer/misidentification of parties		Download
2024-11-29	SC/FR/162/2015	Abdul Jabbal Mohammad Illyas, No. 28, Haputale Road, Welimada. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Hon. Gamini Jayawickreme Perera, Minister of Food and Security, No.27, CWE Secretarial Building, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. 1A. Hon. Rishard Bathiudeen, Ministry of Industry and Commerce, No. 73/1, Galle Road, Colombo 03. and others View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.	One month rule; Suppression of material facts; failure to act in good faith; vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt		Download
2024-11-29	SC/APPEAL/120/2016	Abdul Majeed Mohamed Amanullah, No. 198, Poruthota, Kochchikade. -Vs- 1. Martin Joseph Fernando No.40, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 03. 2. Lokukaluthotage Nandasena, 49, Hudsan Road, Colombo 08. DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz			Download
2024-11-29	SC/FR/240/2020, SC/FR/215/2020, SC/FR/97/2016	Y.G. Gnanathilaka, No. 17/1B, 2nd Lane, Gurudeniya Road, Ampitiya, Kandy. Minuwangoda. PETITIONER Vs. 1. D. Dissanayake, Chairman, 1A. Retired Justice Jagath Balapatabendi, Chairman, 1B. Sanath J. Ediriweera, Chariman, and others Respondents View More	Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz			Download
2024-11-29	SC/FR/348/2013	1. M.P.A.C. Pieris No. 3 /4, New Police Flats, Maligawatta, Colombo 10 And 27 others PETITIONERS -Vs- 1. N.K. Illangakoon The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 1A. Mr. Pujith Jayasundara, Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 1B. C. D. Wickramaratne Acting Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. And 21 others RESPONDENTS AND 1. M.P.A.C. Pieris No. 3 /4, New Police Flats, Maligawatta, Colombo 10. 2. C.M.D.J.B. Palihena 25/2/A, Angammana Road, Ratnapura. 3. A.H.A.S. Somasiri No. 67/2B, Vivekarama Temple Road, Webadagalla, Nittambuwa. 4. T.M. Ratnayake 13/1, Dharmapala Mawatha, Bandarawela. 5. R.M.G. Rathnayake No. H 315, Anderson Flats, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. And Others. View More	Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz			Download
2024-11-28	SC/FR/419/2015	Weerasuriya Arachchige Leela Weerasuriya. No.1/21, Kalapaluwawa, Rajagiriya. Petitioner Vs. 1. People’s Bank, No.75, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo - 02. 2. Mr. Hemasiri Fernando The Chairman, People’s Bank, No.75, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo - 02. 2A. Mr. Sujeewa Rajapakse The Chairman, People’s Bank, No.75, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo - 02. 3. Mr. Rohan Pathirage , Deputy General Manager/Secretary to the Board of Directors, People’s Bank, No.75, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo - 02. 3A. Ms. Shyama Wijekoon, Secretary (Acting) to the Board of Directors, People’s Bank, No.75, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo - 02. 4. Mr. Jehan P. Amarathunga, The Director People’s Bank, No.75, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo - 02. And Others. View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2024-11-28	SC/APPEAL/167/2013	1. Annaratnam Thangarajah nee Sinnatamby, 2. Wijeshanthi Thangaraja, Both of Hettiveediya, Puttalam. Both appearing by Thiyagaraja Kanagasabai of 229/60. 11th Cross Street, Mannar Road, Puttalam Their duly appointed Attorney PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT- APPELLANTS -VS- Ratnayake Padmawathi Ramaiah No. 7/17, Paul's Road Puttalam DEFENDANT – APPELLANT - RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2024-11-28	SC/APPEAL/122/2017	Seneriya Ranasinghe Pathmarajah Liyanaarachchi, Joseph Coorey Mawatha, Bonnalagoda, Beruwala. DEFENDANT- RESPONDENT- PETITIONER -VS- Manatungage Isilin Nona, Moragalla, Beruwala. PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT- RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2024-11-27	SC/APPEAL/151/2019	B. Jayarathne, Jaya Sewana, Alokapura, Hambanthota. PETITIONER-APPELLANT- APPELLANT Vs. 1. Assistant Commissioner of Agrarian Services, Hambanthota. 2. A.A. Dayasena, 27, Kaduru Pokuna Road, Tangalle RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2024-11-27	SC/APPEAL/181/2018	Commercial Bank of Ceylon PLC No.21, Razik Fareed Mawatha, Colombo 01. DEFENDANT - APPELLANT -Vs- Srija Ceramics (Pvt) Ltd, No. 90/3, Nawala Road Nugegoda. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz			Download
2024-11-27	SC/FR/278/2021	Madappuliarachchige Oliver Gregory Ernest Fernando No. 38/5, Peiris Mawatha, Idama, Moratuwa. Petitioner Vs. 1. Municipal Council of Moratuwa Old Galle Road, Moratuwa. 2. Wannakuwattawaduge Samanlal Fernando Mayor of Municipal Council of Moratuwa Old Galle Road, Moratuwa. 3. S.D. Thevarapperuma Municipal Commissioner Municipal Council of Moratuwa, Old Galle Road, Moratuwa. 4. Warnakulasuriya Arachchige Dona Damayanthi No. 54/1, Weda Mawatha, Gorakana, Keselwatta, Panadura. 5. Honourable Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J.			Download
2024-11-27	SC/APPEAL/114/2020	Kakille Dissanayake Arachchige Ruwan Chamara No. 262A, Hillside Watta, Haliwala, Galle. 1st Accused – Appellant – Appellant vs. 1. Officer-in-Charge Police Station, Akmeemana. Complainant – Respondent – Respondent 2. Honourable Attorney-General Attorney-General’s Department Colombo 12. Respondent - Respondent View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J.			Download
2024-11-27	SC/CHC APPEAL/62/2012	The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, No. 24, Sir Baron Jayathilake Mawatha, Colombo 01. Plaintiff Vs. Pratap Shyam Sunder Singh, No. 1, Rockwood Apartment, Rockwood Place, Colombo 07. Defendant AND NOW BETWEEN Pratap Shyam Sunder Singh, No. 1, Rockwood Apartment, Rockwood Place, Colombo 07. Defendant – Appellant Vs. The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, No. 24, Sir Baron Jayathilake Mawatha, Colombo 01. Plaintiff – Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2024-11-26	SC/RULE/2/2021	Ashanthi Weerakoon, No. 262, Kotte Road, Nugegoda. COMPLAINANT Vs. E. A. Vajira Dissanayake, No. 181, Kajugahawatta, Gothatuwa New Town, Angoda RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2024-11-26	SC/APPEAL/145/2023	Commissioner General of Inland Revenue, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Appellant - Appellant Vs. Lignocell (Pvt) Ltd., No. 400, Deans Road, Colombo 10. Respondent- Respondent Chas. P. Hayley and Company (Private) Limited, No. 400, Deans Road, Colombo 10. Substituted Respondent- Respondent View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC. J.			Download
2024-11-25	SC/APPEAL/166/2016	1A. Hettiarachchige Nirosha Chinthamani Ariyadasa 1B. Hettiarachchige Osmand Ariyadasa. 1C. Hettiarachchige Lakshman Ariyadasa. SUBSTITUTED 1ST DEFENDANT – RESPONDENTS – APPELLANTS 2. Thisa Walangu Mudiyanselage Nandawathi Kumarihami All of No. 157/1, Pannipitiya Road, Thalawathugoda. Presently at No. 571/3, Madiwela Road, Thalawathugoda. 2ND DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT Vs. Jagath Udaya Samarawickrama, No. 229/1, Siddhamulla, Piliyandala. PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2024-11-25	SC/APPEAL/130/2014	Sri Lanka Henayalage Somadasa [Presently detained at the Remand Prison, Welikada] 2nd Accused – Appellant – Appellant vs. Honourable Attorney-General Attorney-General’s Department Colombo 12. Complainant – Respondent – Respondent View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J.			Download
2024-11-25	SC/FR/266/2014	S.D. Nirmala Janaki Malkanthi Weerasinghe, No. 86A, Medemulla, Minuwangoda. PETITIONER Vs. 1. The Director, Women and Children Bureau of the Police, Colombo 14. 2. Inspector of Police, Samson Fernando, The Officer-In-Charge, Women and Children Bureau of the Police, Colombo 14. 3. Mrs. Anoma Dissanayake 3A. Dr. Natasha Balendra 3B. Mrs. Marini de Livera 3C. Professor Mudhitha Vidanapathirana, 3rd – 3A, 3B and 3C Respondents being the Chairperson/Chairman, National Child Protection Authority, 30, Thalawatugoda Road, Madiwela, Sri Jayawardanapura , Kotte. 4. Inspector of Police Bopitigoda, The Officer-In-Charge, Special Investigations Unit, National Child Protection Authority, No. 30, Thalawatugoda Road, Madiwela, Sri Jayawardanapura , Kotte. 5. The Officer-In-Charge, Police Station, Marawila. 6. The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Fort, Colombo 1. 7. Shermil Nayan Satharasinghe, No. 25, Sagaragama, Naththandiya. 8. The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2024-11-22	SC/APPEAL/85/2021	1. H.K. Ajith Pushpakumara of No.63/9A, Sri Rathanapala Mawatha, Matara. 2. Hewa Babrandage Irangani of 18/142, Kajugahawatte Road, Hiththatiya , Matara. 3. A.W.P. Shantha Pandithasekara of No.105, Tangalle Road, Weeraketiya. 4. Kankani Gamage Somapala Yapa of “Suriya Niwasa”, Naotunna, Kekanadura. 5. Rathgodage Chiththaratna of Wasalawalawwa Waththa, Matara Road, Thihagoda. And Others Vs. 1(b) P.M.P. Udayakantha Surveyor General of Sri Lanka, Surveyor General’s Department, Colombo 05. 1 (c) S.M.P.B. Sangakkara Surveyor General. 1(d) A.L.S.C. Perera- Surveyor General, 1(e) Mr. W.T.M.S.B. Tennakoon, Surveyor General 1(f) A. Dissanayake- Surveyor General, 1(g) W.S.L.C. Perera- Surveyor General 2(a) I.H.K. Mahanama, Secretary, Ministry of Land and Land Development, 2(b) R.A.K.Ranawaka – Secretary. Ministry of Land and Land Development, 2(c) W.A. Chulananda Perera -Secretary, Ministry of Lands, And Others View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2024-11-22	SC/APPEAL/87/2021	The Surveyors Institute of Sri Lanka, Professional Centre, 275/75, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. PETITIONER-PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs. 1. The Land Survey Council, Surveyor General’s Office, P.O. Box 506, Colombo 05. 2. Mr. S.M. W. Fernando, Surveyor General and the Chairman of the Land Survey Council, Surveyor General’s Office, P.O. Box 506, Colombo 05. 2A. Dr. K. Thavalingam, Surveyor General and the Chairman of the Land Surveyor Council, Surveyor General’s Office, P.O. Box 506, Colombo 05. 2B. Mr. Nihal Gunawardena, Surveyor General and the Chairman of the Land Surveyor Council, Surveyor General’s Office, P.O. Box 506, Colombo 05. 2C. Mr. P. M. P. Udayakantha, Surveyor General and the Chairman of the Land Surveyor Council, Surveyor General’s Office, P.O. Box 506, Colombo 05. 2D. Mr. S. M. P. P. Sangakkara, Surveyor General and the Chairman of the Land Surveyor Council, Surveyor General’s Office, P.O. Box 506, Colombo, AND OTHERS. View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2024-11-22	SC/APPEAL/86/2021	The Surveyors’ Institute of Sri Lanka, Professional Centre, 275/75, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs. 1. The Surveyor General, Surveyor General’s Department, Colombo 05. 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Lands and Land Development, Colombo. 3. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS 4. The Government Surveyor’s Association, No.10, Bambalapitiya Drive, Colombo 4. 5. Kandage Sanath Kumara Wijayawardena, Senior Superintendent of Surveys, Survey Department, Kirulapone Road, Narahenpita. INTERVENIENT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENTS. View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2024-11-22	SC/APPEAL/78/2012	1. A. K. D. Lionel Dagiligoda, Agalawatta. 2. A. K. D. Gunapala Dagiligoda, Agalawatta. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANTS Vs. 1. A. K. D. Kusumawathi Suriyagoda, Polgampala. (And now of, Gurugoda, Dapiligoda, Agalawatta) DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT 2. A. K. D. Karunaratna, Dagiligoda, Agalawatta (And now of, Angammulla Road, opposite Akkarapaha, Kakulangala, Agalawatta) DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-11-22	SC/APPEAL/46/2013	1. Dabura Withanage Gnanapala of Summit House Meepawala, Poddala. (Deceased) 1ST DEFENDANT- RESPONDENT-PETITIONER- APPELLANT a) Kariyawasam Godakandage Amara Indrani Nanayakkara b) Malsha Prabodani c) Chanuka Dilshan d) Dinusha Ruvishan All of, Panwila Road, Narawala, Poddala SUBSTITUTE 1ST DEFENDANT- RESPONDENTS- APPELLANTS -VS- 1. Narawala Gamage Somawathie of Angurumulla Watta, Pannamaga, Poddala. 2. Nagoda Liyanaarachchige Somawathie of Angurumulla Watta, Pannamaga, Poddala. 3. Narawalagamage Premawathie of Angurumulla Watta, Pannamaga, Poddala. PLAINTIFFS- APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS 2. Narawala Gamage Dayawathie 209/F, Bokundara Road, Makuuduwa, Piliyandala. 2ND DEFENDANT- RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2024-11-20	SC/APPEAL/41/2016	Rupassara Pedige Shamal Indunil Ruapassara, No. 92, Happitiya, Wathurugama. ACCUSED-APPELLANT-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. 2. Officer-in-Charge, Kirindiwela Police Station, Kirindiwela. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.			Download
2024-11-12	SC/APPEAL/82/2022	The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. COMPLAINANT- RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. Selvarasa Kirubakaran of Pulloly East, Point Pedro. presently in the New Magazine Remand Prison, Colombo 8. ACCUSED-PETITIONER- RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC			Download
2024-11-12	SC/APPEAL/79/2019	Kotapamunuge Dhammika, 67, Siriniwasa, Panadugama, Akuressa. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Bandupala Jayasundara, ‘Menik’, Porathota, Akuressa. Kotapamunuge Kumarasiri, Siriniwasa, Panadugama, Akuressa. Koswatta Ralalage Seelawathie, Mahawila, Godapitiya. 1st-3rd Defendants-Respondents-Respondents Mohomed Hameen Nabeesathul Mishriya, Potumullagewatta, Godapitiya, Akuressa. 4A Substituted Defendant-Petitioner-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena			Download
2024-11-12	SC/APPEAL/113/2021	01. Urban Development Authority of Sri Lanka 6 th and 7 th Floors, “Sethsiripaya” Battaramulla. 02. L.P. Harshan De Silva, Chairman, Urban Development Authority of Sri Lanka, 6 th and 7 th Floors, “Sethsiripaya” Battaramulla. 03. N.P.K. Ranaweera, Director General, Urban Development Authority of Sri Lanka, 6 th and 7 th Floors, “Sethsiripaya” Battaramulla. 04. N.A.S.N. Nissanka, Director, Western Province, Urban Development Authority of Sri Lanka, 6 th and 7 th Floors, “Sethsiripaya” Battaramulla. 05. Lalith Wijeratne Director Colombo Metro Region (Former Urban Development Authority of Sri Lanka, 6 th and 7 th Floors, “Sethsiripaya” Battaramulla. RESPONDENT PETITIONERS APPELLANTS Vs. 01. 88 th Developers(Pvt)Ltd. No.15/5, Circular Road Sapumal Place, Rajagiriya. 02. M.S.C. Perera, Director 88 th Developers(Pvt)Ltd No.15/5, Circular Road Sapumal Place, Rajagiriya. PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS 06. Municipal Commissioner Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte. And Others View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC			Download
2024-11-12	SC/RULE/8/2022	Mr. Kodagodage Tissa de Silva, No. 20 ‘Manimekala’ Suramya Place, Kattubedda, Moratuwa. Complainant Vs Warnakulasooriya Kalugamage Nimalka Fernando, No. 45/A, Paththiyamwaththa, Kimbulapitiya, Negombo. Respondent View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2024-11-12	SC/APPEAL/155/2023	Ceylon Electricity Board 50, Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 2 Heladhanavi Limited 36, Bristol Street Colombo 01 Claimant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC			Download
2024-11-12	SC/APPEAL/171/2014	Ven. Gatamanne Sasanaratana Thero, Siri Sunanda Maha Viharaya, Beliatta. Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Ven. Gatamanne Dhammalankara Thero, Siri Sunanda Maha Viharaya, Beliatta. Presently at: Sri Vivekaramaya, Lalpe, Hakmana. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena			Download
2024-11-12	SC/APPEAL/29/2013	Maheswaryamah widow of Kanagasabapathy Subramanium, Pathanpuram Polikandy, Valvettithurai Plaintiff- Appellant- Appellant Vs 1. Kanthan Velupillai (deceased) 2. Wife Saraswathy 3. Thambimuthu Nanthakumar 4. Wife Thanaledchumy All of Polikandy, Valvettithurai Defendants- Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC, J			Download
2024-11-12	SC/APPEAL/34/2020	Yogarasa Sathees alias Jegan, Kondavil Road, Annaithiresa Lane, Irupalai, Jaffna. (Presently detained at the Bogambara Prison.) ACCUSED – APPELLANT – PETITIONER Vs. Honourable Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. COMPLAINANT - RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT View More	HON. YASANTHA KODAGODA, PC, J.			Download
2024-11-12	SC/APPEAL/112/2021	01. Urban Development Authority of Sri Lanka 6 th and 7 th Floors, “Sethsiripaya” Battaramulla. 02. L.P.Harshan de Silva, Chairman, Urban Development Authority of Sri Lanka 6 th and 7 th Floors, “Sethsiripaya” Battaramulla. 03. N.P.K. Ranaweera, Director General , Urban Development Authority of Sri Lanka 6 th and 7 th Floors, “Sethsiripaya” Battaramulla. RESPONDENTS PETITIONERS APPELLANTS Vs. 01. 88 th Developers(Pvt)Ltd. No.15/5, Circular Road Sapumal Place, Rajagiriya 02. M.S.C. Perera, Director 88 th Developers(Pvt)Ltd No.15/5, Circular Road Sapumal Place, Rajagiriya. PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC			Download
2024-11-11	SC/APPEAL/72/2014	A.D. Hemachandra Perera, No. 233, “Ajantha”, Bambarakele, Nuwara Eliya. Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Lal Sumanasena, Director, District Land Reform Commission, Badulla Road, Nuwara Eliya. ADDED 1A. Nimal Hathurusinghe, Director, District Land Reform Commission, I.R.D.B. Building, Udapussellawa Road, Nuwara Eliya. 2. Nimal G. Punchihewa, Attorney-at-Law, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, P.O. Box 1526, No. C 82, Hector Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Colombo 7. ADDED 2A. T.A. Sumanathissa Thambugala, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, P.O. Box 1526, No. C 82, Hector Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Colombo 7. ADDED 2B. Sampath Subasinghe Arachchi, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, No. 457, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. ADDED 2C. Sirimewan Dias, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, No. 457, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. ADDED 2D. Pandukabaya Harsha Keerthinanda, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, No. 457, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla and Others View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2024-11-08	SC/APPEAL/31/2023	People’s Bank, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. PETITIONER-PETITIONER-PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs. Gamage Don Chandana Haththotuwa, No. 204, Veluwana Road, Dematagoda. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.	Meaning of ‘action’ and ‘application’ Does the Prescription Ordinance extend to applications under CPC? Applications for an order of possession under Recovery of Loans by Banks (Special Provisions) Act and People’s Bank Act are not ‘actions’	Section 16 Recovery of Loans by Banks (Special Provisions) Act Section 29P People’s Bank Act Prescription Ordinance Civil Procedure Code	Download
2024-11-08	SC/FR/260/2012	01. M.D.S.Peiris No.25, Ratnayaka Road, Thalpitiya South Fishing Village Wadduwa. 02. D. Thushan Sampath No.25, Ratnayake Road, Thalpitiya South Fishing Village Wadduwa. 03. D. Dilhani Priyangika No.25, Ratnayake Road, Thalpitiya South Fishing Village Wadduwa. 04. D.Thushara Sampath No.25, Ratnayake Road, Thalpitiya South Fishing Village Wadduwa. Petitioners Vs. 01. Nimal Karunaratne Former OIC, Wadduwa Police Station. Presently serving at the Mount Lavinia Police Station. 02. A.A.P. Chandana Sepala Formerly attached to the Wadduwa Police Station. Presently serving at the Mount Lavinia Police Station. 03. Officer Susantha Wadduwa Police Station, Wadduwa. 04. P.C. Lionel No.88816, Wadduwa Police Station, Wadduwa. 05. P.C. Sarath No.61547, Wadduwa Police Station, Wadduwa. 06. Anura Senanayaka Deputy Inspector General, Police for the Western Province. 6A. Nandana Munasinghe Senior Deputy Inspector, General Police for the Western Province. And Others. View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC			Download
2024-11-05	SC/TAB/2/2023	Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. COMPLAINANT-APPELLANT Vs Hemasiri Fernando 11A, Sri Saranankara Road, Pamankada, Dehiwala. ACCUSED-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-11-05	SC/TAB/3/2023	Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. COMPLAINANT-APPELLANT Vs Pujith Senadhi Bandara Jayasundara “Bogamuwa Walawwa”, Mahamukalanyaya, Ibbagamuwa. ACCUSED-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-11-04	SC/APPEAL/171/2012	Munasinghe Arachchige Chamila Perera Accused-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2024-11-01	SC/APPEAL/10/2018	Mohamed Hisham Faiz Dumburugiriya Road, Hatton. Co-Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs Alles Dilkush Chandrani Bernedette No. 172/2B, Fruithill, Hatton. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent Velu Sridharan, Warleigh Bungalow, Warleigh Estate, Dickoya Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2024-10-30	SC/CHC APPEAL/32/2014	Abans PLC (PV-5301-PB/PQ) (Successor to ‘Abans Retail (Pvt) Ltd.’ pursuant to a corporate amalgamation with effect from 12-10-2022 under and in terms of Sec. 244 (1) (a) of the Companies Act No. 07 of 2007) No. 498, Galle Road, Colombo 03. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs. Peirisge Rohini Fernando No. 33, Pallanasena, Kochchikade. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena		Companies Act No. 07 of 2007	Download
2024-10-30	SC/APPEAL/133/2013	Weerasinghe Arachchige Ramenike alias Weerakkody Arachchige Ramenike, Bulutota, Sooriyakanda. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. Peter Fernandolage John, Kada Muduna, Sooriyakanda. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2024-10-30	SC/RULE/08/2023	Hon. A. K. M. Patabendige, High Court Judge, High Court No. 4, Colombo. COMPLAINANT Vs. Roshan Davinda Ranaweera, Attorney-at-Law, 231/1, 1st Lane, Athurugiriya Road, Homagama. RESPONDENT View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J.	Duty to appear, assigned counsel, duty of diligence		Download
2024-10-30	SC/APPEAL/156/2016	1. Ambalangodage Subath, Hemantha, Mahawatta, Mahavihara Road, Ahangama. (8th Accused - Appellant - Petitioner) 2. Sudurukku Hannadige Krishantha, Kumara, Mahavihara Road, Madyama, Ahangama. (9th Accused - Appellant - Appellant) 3. Kahadarathmalpage Danushka Udaya Kumara, Aranwala Handiya Kanda, Ahangama (12th Accused - Appellant - Petitioner) 4. Saunda Hannadige Indika Prabath Kumara, Visudarama Road, Aranwala, Ahangama. (13th Accused Appellant - Petitioner) Vs. 1. Officer in Charge, Police Station, Ahangama. (Complainant - Respondent - Respondent) 2. Honourable Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12 Respondent - Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe			Download
2024-10-29	SC/APPEAL/153/2013	M. Azwer Hassim No. 08, Alexandra Road, Colombo 06. (Deceased) Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Abdullah Azwar No. 08, Alexandra Road, Colombo 06. Substituted Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. P. K. Nimal Upali Alahakoon No. 193/4, W. A. Silva Mawatha, Wellawatte, Colombo 06. (Deceased) Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent Chandralatha Abekoon No. 193/4, W. A. Silva Mawatha, Wellawatte, Colombo 06. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2024-10-28	SC/APPEAL/235/2016	Uduma Lebbe Marikkar Mohomad Nizar (deceased), 55/1, Hirimbura Cross Road, Galle. 1st Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Mohamed Sakeen Mohamed Zahi Zindan, 105/1, Cross Road, Hirimbura, Galle. Substituted 1st Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Mutha Merenne Parakrama And 5 Others, 61/2, New Lane 1, Dangedera, Galle. Substituted Plaintiffs- Respondents-Respondents 2B. Mohomad Hafeel Pathuma Risniya, (New Legal representatives of the deceased 2nd defendant) And another 2B & 3A Defendant-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena			Download
2024-10-25	SC/FR/61/2019	M. A. Shamly Mohammed, No. 104/2, Madulbowa, Hemmathagama. PETITIONER vs. 1. Professor Mohan De Silva 1A. Senior Professor Sampath Amaratunga Chairman, University Grants Commission 2. Professor P.S.M. Guneratne 2A. Senior Professor Janitha A Liyanage 2B. Senior Professor Chandana P Udawatte Vice Chairman, University Grants Commission 3. Professor Malik Ranasinghe 4. Rev. Professor K M Sangarakiththa Thero 5. Professor Hemantha Senanayake 6. Dr. Y Haniffa 7. Professor K. Kumara Vadivel 8. Dr. Kapila Senanayake 8A. Senior Professor A.K.W. Jayawardena 8B. Professor Vasanthy Arasaratnam 8C. Professor Premakumara Silva 8D. Rev. Professor Kotapitiye Rahula Thero 3rd – 8D Respondents are members of the University Grants Commission 9. Dr. Priyantha Premakumara, Secretary to the University Grants Commission 10. University Grants Commission 1st – 10th Respondents at 20, Ward Place, Colombo 7 11. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2024-10-22	SC/APPEAL/173/2017	Illakotulena Gamaralalage Thilakerathna, Kalugala, Pitwala, Nawalapitiya. Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Officer in Charge, Motor Traffic Division, Police Station, Kandy. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2024-10-18	SC/APPEAL/132/2014	1(a). S.A. Dona Nandawathi, 146, Thumbowila, Piliyandala. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. S.A. Dona Gunawathi, A 59, Wewa Road, Boralesgamuwa. (Deceased) 1(a). H.N. Pinto Jayawardena, 57 A, Wewa Road, Boralesgamuwa. 7(a). D.D. Munasinghe, 238, Jaliyagoda, Mampe North, Piliyandala. 8. H.N. Pinto Jayawardena, 57 A, Wewa Road, Boralesgamuwa. 9. J. Athukorala, 238, Jaliyagoda, Mampe North, Piliyandala. (Deceased) 9(a). D.D. Munasinghe, 238, Jaliyagoda, Mampe North, Piliyandala. Defendants-Appellants- Respondents 2. S.A. Don Karunarathna, 394/2, High Level Road, Makumbura, Pannipitiya. (Deceased) 2(a). Hettiarachchige Kamala Perera, 394/2, High Level Road, Makumbura, Pannipitiya. 4. S.A. Dona Kusumalatha, 246, Colombo Road, Mampe North, Piliyandala. 5. S.A. Dona Somawathi, 146, Thumbowila, Piliyandala. 6. S.A. Dona Nandawathi, 146, Thumbowila, Piliyandala. Defendants-Respondents- Respondents 2(a). S.A. Don Chandana, 146, Thumbowila, Piliyandala. Plaintiff-Respondent- Respondent View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2024-10-16	SC/FR/263/2009	Ajith Rohan Gunawardena No. 03, St. Anthoney’s Road, Mount Lavinia. 12th RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs. The Monetary Board of the Central Bank, Central Bank of Sri Lanka, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01. 01st RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2024-10-16	SC/APPEAL/25/2018	The Spiritual Assembly of the Bahai faith in Lanka (Ceylon), No.65, National Bahai Center, Havelock Road, Colombo 06. Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner/Appellant Vs. 1. Shirani Pushpalatha De Silva 2. Nanayakkara Casen Pallige Alfred De Silva, both of No. 29/10, Pangiriwatte Road, Mirihana, Nugegoda. Defendant- Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC. J.			Download
2024-10-16	SC/FR/262/2009	Ajith Rohan Gunawardena No. 03, St. Anthoney’s Road, Mount Lavinia. 12th RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs. The Monetary Board of the Central Bank, Central Bank of Sri Lanka, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01. 01st RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2024-10-15	SC/APPEAL/130/2011	Maturata Plantation Limited Presently at Browns Building 11th Floor, Dudley Senanayake Mawatha, Colombo 08. Petitioner-Appellant Vs 1. Jeewan Kumarathunga, Minister of Land and Land Development 1st Respondent-Respondent 1A. John Amarathunga Minister of Land and Land Development 1A1. Harin Fernando Minister of Lands, Govijana Mandiraya, No. 80/05, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. Substituted 1st Respondent-Respondent 2. I.S. Samarakoon, Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Athuruliya. 2nd Respondent-Respondent 2A. Thiththagalla Gamage Sarath Kumara Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Athuruliya. 2A1. Nirosha S. Gamage Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Athuruliya. Substituted 2nd Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2024-10-11	SC/CHC APPEAL/64/2013	Wattedurage Sanath Ranjith Premarathne, 331/C, Pelpitiya, Eheliyagoda. 2nd Defendant – Appellant View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2024-10-11	SC/APPEAL/194/2017	1. Devanayagam Wasanthi U.G. Sunil, No. 81/1, Dikkiriyawa, Kaludaawala, Matale. ACCUSED-APPELLANT-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Officer-in-Charge Fraud Investigation Unit, Police Station, Matale. 2. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 3. Prisons Commissioner, Prison Department, Colombo. COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J.	Leave to Appeal from High Court, Substantial Questions of Law	High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990, Supreme Court Rules of 1990	Download
2024-10-11	SC/FR/127/2016	1. Dr. Kamal Bandula Weerapperuma Bogaha Handiya, Kiri Ibban Ara, Sewanagala. 2. L. D. Susila Wejewardena 3. H. A. Karunawathie 4. P. A. Wimalaratne 2nd to 4th Petitioners: Presently at: Remand Prison, Tangalle. 5. R. A. Upali No. 630, Kiri Ibban Ara, Sevanagala. Petitioners Vs. 1. A. Pushpakumara Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Excise Head Office, No. 28, Staple Street, Colombo 02. 2. Rohan Wijeratne Excise Superintendent (Special Operations), Excise Head Office, No. 28, Staple Street, Colombo 02. 3. Nandana Perera OIC of the Excise Narcotics Division, No. 15, Park Avenue, Boralla, Colombo 08. 4. Thilak Kumara Disanayaka Excise Inspector, Excise Narcotics Division, No. 15, Park Avenue, Boralla, Colombo 08. 5. N. S. Ratnayaka (673) Excise Guard, No. 15, Park Avenue, Boralla, Colombo 08. 6. T. Chaminda (827) Excise Guard, No. 15, Park Avenue, Boralla, Colombo 08. 7. Asanka Bandara (897) Excise Guard, No. 15, Park Avenue, Boralla, Colombo 08. 8. Nalin Priyankara (962) Excise Guard, No. 15, Park Avenue, Boralla, Colombo 08. View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2024-10-11	SC/APPEAL/13/2022	H.M. Premaratne, H.M. Ranaweera, Both Dombagamuwa, Makulpotha. 2nd and 3rd Defendant-Appellant-Appellants H.M. Bandara Menike, Dombagamuwa, Makulpotha. 1A Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. A.P. Premawathie, Dombagamuwa, Makulpotha. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-10-10	SC/APPEAL/87/2014	1. Sarath Wijeratne Wickramasinghe Mahagedarawatta, Yatalamatta, Naagoda. 2. Bandusena Wijeratne Wickramasinghe (Deceased) Mahagedarawatta, Yatalamatta, Naagoda. Accused – Appellant - Appellants Vs. 1. Honourable Attorney-General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent - Respondent 2. Officer-in-Charge (Crime Investigations) Police Station, Galle. Complainant - Respondent – Respondent View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J			Download
2024-10-09	SC/APPEAL/61/2023	Nandana Kumarage Sujeewa Nishanka Karunarathna, Near Kadigamuwa Temple, Kadigamuwa Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Officer-in-charge, Police Station, Rambukkana Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 2. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 2nd Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-10-09	SC/APPEAL/71/2023, SC/APPEAL/72/2023	Lokumanage Sumitra Perera, “Yamuna”, Veedagama, Bandaragama. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant in SC/APPEAL/71/2023 Suriarachchige Rupawathi, Suriarachchige Kamalawathie, Suriarachchige Ariyasena, All of Veedagama, Bandaragama. 5th, 6th and 7th Defendant-Respondent-Appellants in SC/APPEAL/72/2023 Vs. 1. Dissanayakage Dona Leelawathie, 2. Dissanayakage Dona Wimalawathie, 3. Wijemanna Mohottige Kanthi, 4. Suriarachchige Sumanadasa, 8A. Don Lalith Chandana Dissanayake, All of Veedagama, Bandaragama. Defendant-Respondent- Respondents 9A. Kankanige Somaratne, 74, “Samantha”, Veedagama, Bandaragama. Defendant-Petitioner-Respondent 10. K.S. Perera, 11. K. Somasiri, Both “Samantha”, Veedagama, Bandaragama. 12. A. Somawathie, Veedagama, Bandaragama. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-10-09	SC/FR/402/2013	Hewa Kulasuriyage Anura Nimal, Inspector of Excise, Excise Office, Mahawa. Petitioner Vs. Commissioner General of Excise, Sri Lanka Excise Department, No. 28, Staple Street, Colombo 2. 1st Respondent Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 2nd-10th Respondents Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 11th Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-10-08	SC/APPEAL/13/2014	1. Aquamarine International (Pvt) Ltd. No. 60/1, Sri Gnanendra Road, Ratmalana. 2. Nihal Ananda Malavi Pathirana, The Chairman, Aquamarine International (Pvt) Ltd. No. 60/1, Sri Gnanendra Road, Ratmalana. Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner/Appellants Vs. The Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC, J			Download
2024-10-08	SC/APPEAL/137/2017	Sarath Fernando Conservator General of Forests ‘Sampath Paya’, Battaramulla. 7th Respondent – Appellant 7A. Hitisekara Mudiyanselage Piyasena Hitisekera Conservator General of Forests ‘Sampath Paya’, Battaramulla. 1st Added Appellant 7B. Chandrasiri Weragoda Conservator General of Forests 'Sampath Paya', Battaramulla. 2nd Added Appellant Vs. 1. P.B.S. Dissanayake No. 241, Sri Sangaraja Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. S.K. Senarathna No. C9, University Park, Mahakanda, Hidagala. 3. Y.M.A.K. Yapabandara No. 241, Sri Sangaraja Mawatha, Colombo 10. Conducting business in the nature of a partnership under the name and style of “Uva Magnetite” at No. 241, Sri Sangaraja Mawahta, Colombo 10. Petitioner – Respondents 1. Geological Survey & Mines Bureau No. 4, Galle Road, Dehiwala. 2. Dr. N.T.S. Wijesekera Chairman, Geological Survey & Mines Bureau, No. 4, Galle Road, Dehiwala. And Others. View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J			Download
2024-10-07	SC/APPEAL/122/2020	Ranasinghe Arachchige Kapila Nishantha Perera, 327/A, Gunarathna Mawatha, Makola North, Makola. Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2024-10-07	SC/APPEAL/88/2018	1. Agampodi Kamalawathie De Soysa, 2. Indrani Gunasekera nee De Soysa. Both of 430/ 1, Maligawa Pedesa, Boralasgamuwa Plaintiffs- Appellants- Appellants Vs. Ranamuka Devage Siri Wijaya, 479/ 1, Sudharma Road, Wanawasala. Kelaniya Defendant- Respondent- Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe			Download
2024-10-07	SC/TAB/4/2023	Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Chandrasiri Thennakoonwela, No. 14, 5th Lane, Jambugasmulla Mawatha, Nugegoda. Accused-Appellant Vs. Director General, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, No. 36, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. Complainant-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-09-19	SC/APPEAL/3/2023	Jungle Safari Lanka (Pvt) Limited, Rathugala, Galgamuwa, Inginiyagala. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-APPELLANT Vs. H.M. Siriwardana Rathugala Wellassa, Galgamuwa, Inginiyagala. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J.			Download
2024-09-13	SC/APPEAL/67/2018	1. Senaka Kumar Weerarattna 2. Lakshman Jayaraj Kumar Hettiaratchi Trustees of the German Dharmaduta Society, of which the administrative office is situated at, No. 14, Bethesda Place, Colombo 05. PETITIONER-APPELLANTS Vs. 1. S. J. Pathirana, formerly and S. D. A. B. Boralessa, presently Land Commissioner, Department of Land Commission, No. 07, Gregory’s Avenue, Colombo 07. 1(a) R. P. R. Rajapaksha Land Commissioner, Department of Land Commission, No. 07, Gregory’s Avenue, Colombo 07. 1(b) G. D. Keerthi Gamage Land Commissioner, Department of Land Commission, No. 07, Gregory’s Avenue, Colombo 07. 2. Lalith Kannangara, formerly and G. Imaduwa, presently Provincial Land Commissioner (Western Province), Kachcheri Complex, Dam Street, Colombo 12. 2(a) E. A. R. Renuka Provincial Land Commissioner (Western Province), Kachcheri Complex, Dam Street, Colombo 12. 2(b) Nirosha Deepani Ishwara Provincial Land Commissioner (Western Province), Kachcheri Complex, Dam Street, Colombo 12. And others. View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-09-12	SC/FR/08/2019	Dr. Pradeep Kariyawasam, No. 57/2, Sir Ernest de Silva Mawatha Colombo 07. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Colombo Municipal Council Town Hall, Colombo 07. 2. V. K. A. Anura Municipal Commissioner, Colombo Municipal Council, Town Hall, Colombo 07. 2A. Roshanie Dissanayaka Municipal Commissioner, Colombo Municipal Council, Town Hall, Colombo 07. 3. G. B. M. M. Moragolla, Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Colombo Municipal Council, Town Hall, Colombo 07. 3A. K. G. Illusha S Gallage Deputy Municipal Commissioner Colombo Municipal Council, Town Hall, Colombo 07. 4. Dr. Ruwan Wijayamuni Chief Medical Officer of Health, Public Health Department, Colombo Municipal Council, Town Hall, Colombo 07. 5. Sunil Galagama Municipal Secretary, Colombo Municipal Council, Town Hall, Colombo 07. 5A. D. M. S. A. Niroshana Municipal Secretary, Colombo Municipal Council, Town Hall, Colombo 07. 6. Hon. Rosy Senanayake Mayor of Colombo, Colombo Municipal Council, Town Hall, Colombo 07. 7. Commissioner Department of Local Government, And others. View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J.			Download
2024-09-11	SC/CHC APPEAL/10/2015	Azem Morina Gllareva, 32000 K Line, Republic of Kosovo, Gllareva Trading Company, Kosovo. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Saman Weranjan Kasthurirathna No. 171, 3/B, Model Farm Road Colombo 08. And also of No. 511/7, Galle Road, Rawathawatta, Moratuwa. 2. Tea Masters Ceylon (Pvt) Ltd, No. 16, Thissa Mawatha, Borupana Road, Rathmalana. Defendants-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC			Download
2024-09-04	SC/APPEAL/119/2012	1A. Thusitha Chandana Kumara, 1B. Chaminda Jayalath Kumara, Both of, 13/4, Kalinga Ela, Polonnaruwa. Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant-Petitioners Vs. Pihille Gedara Punchi Rala, (deceased) 13/90, Kalinga Ela, Polonnaruwa. 1A. Arugoda Pandakkara Gedara Biso Manike, 1B. Nimal Tilakaratne Bandara, 1C. Nandanie Renuka, 1D. Sankya Kumari All of, 13/90, Kalinga Ela, Polonnaruwa. Substituted Defendant-Respondent-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2024-09-03	SC/FR/235/2012	Hetti Arachchige Sunil Jayantha, No. 101/K/A, Bangalawatte, Kothalawala, Kaduwela. Petitioner Vs. 1. A.Y. Abeywardhana Chief Examiner, Department of Motor Traffic, Werahera. 2. G.H.R. Gunawardana Deputy Commissioner of Motor Traffic, Department of Motor Traffic, Werahera. and others Respondents View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda, P.C. J.			Download
2024-09-03	SC/RULE/5/2022	Ven. Wellawe Sri Chandananda Thero, Ullalapola Sri Sugathawanarama Purana Viharaya, Divulapitiya. COMPLAINANT Vs. Mr. S. Sarath W. de Silva, No. 78/3, 2nd Bastian Mawatha Baddagana Road, Pita-Kotte. RESPONDENT View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, J.			Download
2024-08-29	SC/APPEAL/49/2014	Hettiarachchige Weerasekara, No. 623, Kandewaththa Road, Meegoda. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 2. Danthasinghe Patabendige Shanthi Anoma 3. Danthasinghe Patabendige Latha Danthasinghe Both of No. 6, Thennekumbura, Kandy. 4. Danthasinghe Patabendige Indrani Danthasinghe, No. 649/1, Old Road, Meegoda. 4A. Dininda Thamara, No. 06, Thennekumbura, Kandy. 5. Danthasinghe Patabendige Ashoka Leelarathne, No. 51, Walawwaththa Road, Gangodawila, Nugegoda. Defendant-Appellant-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena			Download
2024-08-23	SC/APPEAL/86/2017	Waisadura Samantha Priyaruwan Jayaweera, 316/1, Hendala Road, Hendala, Wattala. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-APPELLANT VS Karadana Lekamlage Nilupa Sittari Jayaratne, 53/2, Colombo Road, Avissawella. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz			Download
2024-08-23	SC/APPEAL/52/2017	Prof. Thapani Manel Sulochana Atukorale, No. 110/8, Kotte Road, Colombo 08. 3rd DEFENDANT – PETITIONER – APPELLANT Vs 4. Chandradeepa Shanthapriya Perera Abeysinghe, No. 1084B, Liyanagoda, Hokandara Road, Pannipitiya PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT 5. University of Colombo, P O Box 1490, Kumaratunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 07. 6. Prof. Thilak Hettiarachchi No. 90, Templers Road, Mount Lavinia. 1st and 2nd DEFENDANTS – RESPONDENTS – RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz			Download
2024-08-22	SC/APPEAL/69/2012	Senadeeralage Don Chandrawathie 209, Phala Yagoda, Ganemulla SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT - Vs – Senadeeralage Don Chandrasiri 519, Kuda Bollathe, Ganemulla. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2024-08-22	SC/APPEAL/221/2016	1. Warnakulasuriya Gertrute Tressila 2. Mihidukulasuriya Shenali Muthusilili Fernando, Both of 1/16, Colombo Road, Chilaw. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-APPELLANTS -VS- Ruwani Dilhara Rukmali Hathrusinghe, of No. 66/35, Waduragala Watta, Kurunegala Road, Chilaw. 1B Substituted PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz			Download
2024-08-22	SC/FR/69/23, SC/FR/79/23, SC/FR/90/23, SC/FR/139/23	Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Ranjith Madduma Bandara, No. 31/3, Kandawatte Terrace, Nugegoda. PETITIONER Vs. 1. K.M. Mahinda Siriwardana, Secretary to the Treasury, Ministry of Finance, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. and others Respondents View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2024-08-22	SC/APPEAL/126/2011	Somadasa Alahapperuma, 8th Milepost, Jandura Panamura. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant [Now deceased] Alawatta Gamage Dyawathie, Kadjugaha Koratuwa, Rannawala, Urugamuwa. Substituted-Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Kankanam Gamage Kusumawathie, No.84, Hospital Road, Embilipitiya. 2. Seetha Wickramasinghe, 8th Milepost, Jandura Panamura. Defendant-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2024-08-22	SC/CHC APPEAL/56/2014	Eric Peiris, No. 2A, Cemetery Road, Minuwangoda. PLAINTIFF - APPELLANT Vs Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation Ltd, No.21, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. DEFENDANT - RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz			Download
2024-08-09	SC/FR/27/2021, SC/FR/57/2021, SC/FR/58/2021, SC/FR/74/2021, SC/FR/80/2021, SC/FR/115/2021, SC/FR/125/2021, SC/FR/129/2021, SC/FR/132/2021	Padmini Nirmala Ranawaka Gunatilake, No. 59/1, Galpoota Road, Nawala. Petitioner vs. 1. Hon. Upali Abeyrathne, Chairman and Member, Presidential Commission of Inquiry on Political Victimization, No. 42/10, Baddegama Road, Judges Housing Scheme, Baddegama North, Pita Kotte, and others View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2024-08-09	SC/FR/189/2020	1. Kuruppu Arachchige Vincent Lio Dharmarathne, 2. Kuruppu Arachchige Erandi Upuli Dharmarathne 3. Kuruppu Arachchige Udari Nedishika Dharmarathne No. 72/11, Sakvithi Uyana, Jayamalpura, Gampola. Petitioners Vs 1. Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Udapalatha, Gampola. 2. District Secretary, District Secretariat, Kandy. 3. Grama Niladhari, 116, Jayamalapura Division, Udapalatha Divisional Secretary Division, Gampola. 4. Deputy Election Commissioner, District Election Office, Kandy. 5. Senior Surveyor Superintendent, Divisional Survey Office, Kandy. 6. Surveyor Superintendent, Divisional Survey Office, Doluwa, Gampola. 7. Regional Coordinating Officer, Human Rights Commission, Division Office, 8/1, Primrose Road, Kandy. 8. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2024-08-09	SC/CHC APPEAL/26/2018	1. Property Finance and Investment (Pvt) Ltd, M and M Center, 2nd Floor, No. 341/5, Kotte Road, Welikada, Rajagiriya. 2. Medagodage Thusitha Wijayasena 3. Ganegoda Liyanage Don Swarna Wijayasena, Both of No.32/1, Barnes Place, Colombo 7 DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS Vs Sri Lanka Savings Bank Limited, No. 265, Ward Place, Colombo 07. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC. J.			Download
2024-08-09	SC/APPEAL/43/2021, SC/APPEAL/49/2021	Asian Finance Ltd, No. 20, R. A. De Mel Mawatha, Colombo 03. Petitioner-Petitioner Vs, 1. Wasantha Kumara Galagoda, No. 9/31E, Perera Mawatha, Divulapitiya, Boralesgamuwa. 2. Liyana Thanthri Gamage Dammika Dharshana, Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Colombo East District Labour Office, Department of Labour, Colombo 05. 3. H. Hiranagama, Senior Labour Officer, Colombo East District Labour Office, Department of Labour, Colombo 05. 4. The Commissioner General of Labour, Department of Labour, Colombo 05. 5. The Monitory Board of Central Bank of Sri Lanka, No. 30, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 12. 6. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General Department, Colombo 12. Respondents- Respondents And Others. View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2024-08-09	SC/EXP/02/2023	Manusha Nanayakkara, Maligaspe Gedera, Panagamuwa, Wanchawala. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Samagi Jana Balawegaya, 815, E.W. Perera Mawatha, Kotte Road, Ethul Kotte. 2. Ranjith Madduma Bandara, General Secretary, Samagi Jana Balawegaya, 815, E.W. Perera Mawatha, Kotte Road, Ethul Kotte. 3. Sajith Premadasa, President, Samagi Jana Balawegaya, 815, E.W. Perera Mawatha, Kotte Road, Ethul Kotte. 4. K. A. Rohanadeera, Secretary General of Parliament, Parliamentary Complex, Sri Jayawardenapura, Kotte 5. R. M. A. L. Rathnayake, Chairman, Election Commission, Elections Secretariat, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya. 6. M.A.P.C. Perera, Member, Election Commission, Elections Secretariat, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya. 7. A. Faaiz, Member, Election Commission, Elections Secretariat, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya. 8. H.M.T.D. Herath, Secretary, Election Commission, Elections Secretariat, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya. 9. Saman Sri Ratnayake, Commissioner General of Elections, Election Commission, Elections Secretariat, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2024-08-09	SC/EXP/1/2023	Harin Fernando, No. 276/4, Negombo Road, Wattala. PETITIONER Vs. Samagi Jana Balawegaya, 815, E.W. Perera Mawatha, Kotte Road, Ethul Kotte. Ranjith Madduma Bandara, General Secretary, Samagi Jana Balawegaya, 815, E.W. Perera Mawatha, Kotte Road, Ethul Kotte. Sajith Premadasa, President, Samagi Jana Balawegaya, 815, E.W. Perera Mawatha, Kotte Road, Ethul Kotte. K. A. Rohanadeera, Secretary General of Parliament, Parliamentary Complex, Sri Jayawardenapura, Kotte. R. M. A. L. Rathnayake, Chairman, Election Commission, Elections Secretariat, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya. M.A.P.C. Perera, Member, Election Commission, Elections Secretariat, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya. A. Faaiz, Member, Election Commission, Elections Secretariat, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya. H.M.T.D. Herath, Secretary, Election Commission, Elections Secretariat, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya. Saman Sri Ratnayake, Commissioner General of Elections, Election Commission, Elections Secretariat, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2024-08-09	SC/APPEAL/76/2016	1. Sandya Rajapakse, Chairman Janatha Estate Development Board. No.55/75, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. 2. Janatha Estate Development Board. No.55/75, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. 1st &2nd Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellants. -Vs- 1. Ramya Nirmali Illeperuma 2. Ajith Bhathiya Illeperuma Appearing by their power of attorney-holder Opheila Eileen Illeperuma, all of No. 141, Ketawallamulla, Colombo 09. Plaintiff-Petitioner-Respondent-Respondents The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. Added-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2024-08-08	SC/FR/117/2007, SC/FR/158/2007	Ranaweerage Sarath Nandalal, No. 52/4, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. 2. Ariyachakra Bandaranayake Thewanga Mudiyanselage Ariyawanse Bandaranayake, ‘Sampath’, Kanumale, Uhumiya. Petitioners Vs, 1. Public Enterprise Reform Commission, No. 10-11, West Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 01. 2. Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation Ltd, ‘Rakshana Mandiraya’, No. 21, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. 3. Milford Holdings Pvt Ltd, No. 110, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. 4. Greenfield Pacific EM Holdings Ltd, C/O Asia Box Consultancy Services (Pvt) Ltd, 61, Club Street, Singapore 069436. 5. Distilleries Company of Sri Lanka Ltd, 110, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. 6. Altken Spence & Company Ltd, 305, Vauxhall Towers, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. 7. Altken Spence Insurance (Private) Ltd, 305, Vauxhall Towers, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. 8. P.B. Jayasundara, Secretary to the Treasury, Ministry of Finance, Colombo 01. 9. Hon. The Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. And Others View More				Download
2024-08-08	SC/FR/364/2014	A.A. Asoka Ananda, Chilaw Plantations Limited, 165, Puttalam Road, Chilaw. 02.M.G.C. Dias, Chilaw Plantations Limited, Divulapitiya Area Estates, Katukenda No.3 Estate, Badalgama. 03. D.M.G. Dissanayake, Chilaw Plantations Limited, Bingiriya Area Estates, Kiniyama Estate, Weerapokuna. 04. W.K. Pradeep, Chilaw Plantations Limited, 165, Puttalam Road, Chilaw Petitioners Vs. 01. Chilaw Plantations Limited, 165, Puttalam Road, Chilaw. 02. Gamini Rajakarune, Chairman, Chilaw Plantations Limited, 165, Puttalam Road, Chilaw; And Secretary to the Ministry of Coconut Development and Janatha Estate Development 03. Panduka Jayasinghe, Former Executive Chairman, Chilaw Plantations Limited, No.27, 1st Lane, Rampart Road, Ethulkotte. 04. A.M. Chandrapala, Executive Director, Chilaw Plantations Limited, 165/1A, Dutugamunu Street, Kohuwala. 05. O.P.P. Pathiranage, Working Director, Chilaw Plantations Limited, CDA Building, Ground Floor, No.11, Duke Street, Colombo 01. And Others View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC			Download
2024-08-08	SC/SPL LA/86/2021	2. Ranasinghe Arachchige Piyasena 5. Ranasinghe Arachchige Gunasena All of No. 235, Megoda Kollonnawa, Wellampitiya. Substituted Defendant Appellant Petitioners Vs. D. E. Jayasinghe ( No.01, Mahabuthgamuwa, Angoda. 1.(A) Sapinona Sendanayaka No. 81, Mahabuthgamuwa, Angoda. 2.(B) Nihal Jayasinghe No. 2/3A, Mahabuthgamuwa, Angoda. 3.(C) Noel De Nelson Jayasinghe No. 349/B, Kudabuthgamuwa Angoda. 4.(D) Saman Jayashantha Jayasinghe No. 349/B, Mahabuthgamuwa, Angoda. 5.(E) Saman Jayashantha Jayasinghe No. 8L, Mahabuthgamuwa, Angoda. Substituted Plaintiff Respondent Respondents 3. Ranasinghe Arachchige Irene 4. Ranasinghe Arachchige Miyurin Both of No. 235, Megoda Kollonnawa, Wellampitiya. Substituted Defendant Respondent Respondents View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J.			Download
2024-08-08	SC/TAB/01a-01f/2017	1. Andravas Patabendi Ganendra De Vas Gunawardane 2. Bamunusinghe Arachchige Lakmina Indika Bamunusinghe 3. Atapattuge Gamini Sanath Chandra 4. Anantha Pathirage Priyantha Sanjeewa 5. Dissanayake Mudiyanselage Kelum Rangana Dissanayake 6. Andravas Patabendi Ravindu Sameera De Vas Gunawardane 1st to 6th Accused-Appellants Vs. The Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12 Complainant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2024-08-08	SC/APPEAL/48/2018	Hatton National Bank PLC HNB Towers, No. 479, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. Respondent – Appellant – Appellant Vs. M.S.K.A. Pieris 387/4/C, Bodhiraja Mawatha, Habarakada, Homagama. Applicant – Respondent – Respondent View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J.			Download
2024-08-08	SC/APPEAL/20/2011	U. K. Gamage, No. 480, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT-PETITIONER-PETITIONER -VS- R. V. Bandaratilake, No. 448, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT 1.K.L.P. Gamage, No.480, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2024-08-08	SC/APPEAL/19/2017	Ceywater Consultants (Pvt) Ltd., No. 51/1A, Vihara Mawatha, Pepiliyana, Boralesgamuwa. Defendant – Respondent – Appellant Vs. D. A. J. Ranwala, No. 32/1, 2nd Lane, Egodawatta, Boralesgamuwa. Plaintiff – Appellant – Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2024-08-08	SC/TAB/01/2023	Lamahewage Emil Ranjan 2nd Accused-Appellant Vs, Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant – Respondent View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2024-08-06	SC/APPEAL/80/2014	Munasinghe Achchi Lekamlage Emalin Munasinghe, “Chandrakanthi”, Mandawala. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. Munasinghe Achchi Lekamlage Somasiri (Deceased), Pathaha Road, Udugampola. 1A. Munasinghe Achchi Lekamlage Senaadhi Upul Shantha Munasinghe, Pathaha Road, Udugampola. 2. Munasinghe Achchi Lekamlage Gunasekera (Deceased), Pathaha Road, Udugampola. 2A. 2B. 2C. 3. 3A. 3B. 3C. 3D. 4. 5. Munasinghe Achchi Lekamlage Padma Kumari Nilakshi, 283/B, Pathaha Road, Udugampola. Munasinghe Achchi Lekamlage Chitra, 283/B, Pathaha Road, Udugampola. Munasinghe Achchi Lekamlage Shirani, 283/B, Pathaha Road, Udugampola. Munasinghe Achchi Lekamlage Piyasena (Deceased), Pathaha Road, Udugampola. Munasinghe Achchi Lekamlage Gunasekara (Deceased), Pathaha Road, Udugampola. Munasinghe Achchi Lekamlage Padma Kumari Nilakshi, 283/B, Pathaha Road, Udugampola. Munasinghe Achchi Lekamlage Chitra, 283/B, Pathaha Road, Udugampola. Munasinghe Achchi Lekamlage Shirani, 283/B, Pathaha Road, Udugampola. And others. View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2024-08-06	SC/APPEAL/157/2017	Marimuttu Shanmugam (Deceased), No. 3/9, 28th Mile Post, Mahasenpura, Polonnaruwa. PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT – APPELLANT Marimuttu Selvanayagam, No. 3/9, 28th Mile Post, Mahasenpura, Polonnaruwa. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT – APPELLANT - vs - D.M. Gunapala, No. 537, Wadichchale Road, Polonnaruwa. DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2024-08-05	SC/FR/123/2013	Priyancy Don Liyanaarachchi, SC3, Supreme City, Narthanagala Road, Munagama, Horana. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Senaka Walgampaya, Former Chairman, 1A. Proof. S.T. Herrige, Former Chairman, 1B. S.C.S. Fernando, Former Chairman, 1C. E.W.M. Lalith Ekanayake, Chairman, National Police Commission, Block 09, B.M.I.C.H. Premises, Buddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. Ven. Elle Gunawansa Thero, Former Member and others RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J.			Download
2024-08-05	SC/FR/247/2016	Wickramage Don Subadra, No. 234/E, Mulleriyawa North, Angoda. Petitioner Vs. 1. Kotikawatte Mulleriyawa Pradeshiya Sabhawa, Head Office, Gothatuwa New Town. 2. Kumuduni Gunathilleka, Secretary, Kotikawatte Mulleriyawa Pradeshiya Sabhawa, Head Office, Gothatuwa New Town. 2A. Chandani Ekanayake, Secretary, Kotikawatte Mulleriyawa Pradeshiya Sabhawa, Head Office, Gothatuwa New Town. 3. Prasanna Solangarachchi, Solanga Drive, Himbutana, Angoda. 4. Polwattege Arosha Asantha Perera, No. 228/A, Mulleriyawa North, Angoda. 5. Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation, No. 3, Jayawardenapura Mawatha, Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte. 6. Urban Development Authority, 7th Floor, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 7. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-08-05	SC/APPEAL/119/2014	K.M. Farook No.16, Koombiyangoda, Matale. 2nd-Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Thalathuoye Samiddhi Siri Thero, Viharadhipathi, Koombiyangoda Vihara, Matale. Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent 1A. Karder Mohideen Abdul Jabar, No. 20/1, Koombiyangoda, Matale. 3. Mohamed Mujahideen, (Appearing by his guardian Idroos Lebbe Zaheera) No. 16, Koombiyangoda, Matale. 1A and 3rd Defendants-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2024-08-02	SC/CHC APPEAL/5/2007	People’s Bank, No. 75, Chiththampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Fawziya Nizam, No. 07, Mosque Lane, Watarappala Road, Mount Lavinia. 2. Tuan Furkan Buhary, No. 11/D/2, National Housing Scheme, Raddolugama. 3. Abdul Jabar Ifthikar Hussein, No. 47/5, Main Street, Moratuwa. 4. Noor Mohamed Mohamy Nizam, No. 07, Mosque Lane, Watarappala Road, Mount Lavinia. Defendant-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2024-08-02	SC/APPEAL/107/2019	Suraweera Arachchige Milton Suraweera Driver of the Army, No. 83821, Army Camp, Panagoda, Homagama, Presently at, Polgahakanda, Guruwala, Dompe. DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT - Vs - Konni Arachchige Sriyanthi Samanmali, 37/12, 3rd Lane, Rawathawatta, Moratuwa. PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2024-08-02	SC/APPEAL/96/2016, SC/APPEAL/97/2016	AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Niranjan Naganathan 2. Yogendran Naganathan Both of 312/1, Hendala Road, Wattala. 3. P. Sudarshan 57, Senanayake Mawatha, Bandarawela Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellants Vs. 2. Somasekaran Shanmuganathan Of Mandandawela, Matale. 2nd Defendant-Appellant-Respondent. View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2024-08-02	SC/SPL LA/192/2024	Kannake Arachchige Asantha Sanjaya Rukmal Wimaladasa, “Wimal Engineering” Pvt Ltd, Negombo Road, Dunagaha. RESPONDENT – APPELLANT – PETITIONER -Vs- Rajasekera Waduge Sarika Sugandini Rajasekera, Godigamuwa Road, Dunagaha. APPLICANT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. A.H.M.D. Nawaz J			Download
2024-08-01	SC/FR/33/2013	K. B. D. Ajith Priyantha Jayasundara, No. 15/5, Jayagath Road, Navinna, Maharagama. Petitioner Vs. 1. H. T. Kamal Pathmasiri, District Secretary, Colombo District Secretariat, Dam Street, Colombo 12. 1a. Sunil Kannangara, District Secretary, Colombo District Secretariat, Dam Street, Colombo 12. 1b. Pradeep Yasarathne, The District Secretary, ‘Nil Medura’ (Official Residence), Colombo District Secretariat, Elvitigala Mawatha, Narahenpita. 2. Jagath Chandrasiri, Additional Secretary (Graduate Training Programme), Ministry of Public Administration, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 2a. K. V. P. M. Gamage, Additional Secretary (Graduate Training Programme), Ministry of Public Administration, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 2b. K. G. R. Wimasooriya, (Graduate Training Programme), Ministry of Public Administration, Independence Square, Colombo 07. And Others. View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2024-07-31	SC/RULE/1/2021	Hon. Judge S.A.I.S. Suraweera, Provincial High Court Judge, Provincial High Court, Polonnaruwa, COMPLAINANT Vs. Punnya Kumari Palaketiya, 14/18, Onegama Polonnaruwa. RESPONDENT View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J. Hon. A. L. Shiran Gooneratne J. Hon. Janak De Silva, J.			Download
2024-07-29	SC/RULE/2/2023	Bodiyabadhuge Lanwel Godfrey Perera. No. 02, Perera Cottage, Uswella, Maggona. COMPLAINANT Vs Dickshan Arnold Punchihewa, Attorney-at-Law. No. 05, Aruna Mawatha, Nagoda Road, Kalutara South. RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-07-26	SC/MISC/2/2016	K. G. Keerthi Karangoda Amuthagoda, Panukerapitiya, Hidellana, Ratnapura. K. Sarath Gamini No. 79, Thembili Kadey Junction, Kandangoda, Higgashena, Kuruwita. Appellants Vs. National Gem and Jewellery Authority, No. 25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 03. Udaya R. Seneviratne, Secretary, Ministry of Mahaweli Development and Environment, ‘Sampathpaya’ No. 82, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 2A. Anura Dissanayake, Secretary, Ministry of Mahaweli Development and Environment, ‘Sampathpaya’ No. 82, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. And Others. View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2024-07-26	SC/CHC/Appeal/48/2013	Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Triad Advertising (Pvt) Ltd., 53/3, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 07. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2024-07-25	SC/FR/203/2020, SC/FR/204/2020, SC/FR/209/2020, SC/FR/210/2020, SC/FR/211/2020, SC/FR/212/2020	1. Wijayamuni Arachchilage Somarathna "Weerya", Ambokkagama, Ganewatta, Nikadalupotha. 2. Kodisinghe Arachchige Jagath Shantha Kodisinghe Kithalawalana, Mirigama. 3. Amadoruge Palitha Sesiri Amarathunga, Dangashena, Hatangalla, Narangoda. 4. Yositha Wansha Wanninayake, No. 43/5, Udawalpola Road, Kurunegala. 5. Basnayake Ralalage Dammika Dananjava Bandara Aruna Shantha Basnayake No. 95/A, Katana Road, Hakurukumbura, Mirigama. 6. Kottage Samantha Sisira Kumara Jayawardena No. 38/1, Palugama, Dompe. 7. Ambasinghe Arachchilage Pragathi Lakmini No. 137, Raigama, Bandaragama. 8. Rammandage Anura Kumara Premarathne No. 184/B, Weedagama, Bandaragama. 9. Mahendra Nalin Hettiarachchi No. 354/B, Galle Road, Angagoda, Bentota. 10. Jayaweera Patabendige Salinda Samarakoon No. A8/2/1, Elvitigala Mawatha, Mangala Road, Colombo 08. 11. Maharamba Walpita Gamage Chandana No.65, Meda para, Cheena Koratuwa, Galle. And Others. View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-07-24	SC/CHC APPEAL/11/2004	Southern Group Team Holdings (Pvt) Ltd., No. 155/5, Castle Street, Colombo 08. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Ceylon Comany Group (Pvt) Ltd., Level 4, Millenium House, Nawam Mawatha, Colombo 02. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2024-07-23	SC/APPEAL/181/2010	R. Malkanthi Silva, 40/8, Perera Mawatha, Pelawatta. 2nd Party Respondent - Petitioner – Appellant – Petitioner/Appellant Vs. L.G.R.N.Perera 555, Niranja, Athurugiriya Road, Kottawa. (deceased) 1st Party Respondent- Respondent- Respondent- Respondent 1a. Abeykoon Don Sunil Silva 1b. Warakapitiyage Don Wohara Kavindi Abeykoon 1c. Warakaptityage Don Sachithra Erandi Abeykoon All of 555, Niranja, Athurugiriya Road, Kottawa. Substituted 1st Party Respondent- Respondent- Respondent- Respondents Officer in Charge, Police Station, Thalangama. Plaintiff- Respondent- Respondent- Respondent The Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent-Respondent- Respondent View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC. J			Download
2024-07-19	SC/APPEAL/124/2014	Paliyapitiyage Chandradasa (Deceased). Thubha Pittaniya, Hapugala, Wackwella. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT 1A. Palihapitiya Gamage Geethika Priyadarshani. 1B. Palihapitiya Gamage Darshana Pathum Kumara. 1C. Palihapitiya Gamage Yamuna Niroshani. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANTS Vs. Chandani Jayanthi Jayasundara. Hapugala, Wackwella. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-07-18	SC/APPEAL/183/2011	Multiform Chemicals Limited, No. 659, Alwitigala Mawatha, Colombo 05. And Presently, Multiform Chemicals (Private) Limited, No. 659, Alwitigala Mawatha, Colombo 05. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Adrian Machado, Rianda Paint and Chemical Industries, No. 131/14, Thimbirigasyaya Road, Colombo 05. Defendant-Petitioner-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2024-07-18	SC/APPEAL/28/2016	Madduma Liyanage Bandumathee No. 247/75, Chandana Uyana, Parakandeniya. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER Vs. Ajith Priyankara No. 163/134, Bangalawatta, Kirillawala, Kadawata. APPELLANT DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-07-18	SC/APPEAL/11/2006	Women and Child, Technology and Investment Promotion, Ministry of Finance, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. Substituted 1a Respondent- Respondent Neville Nanayakkara, Government Printer, Government Printing Department, 118, Dr. Danister de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 08. 4th Respondent-Respondent Ananda Chandrasiri, Proof Reading Division, Government Printing Department, 118, Dr. Danister de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 08. 5th Respondent-Respondent O. Jansen, Documentation Officer, Government Publication Bureau, No. 32, Lotus Road, Colombo 01. 6th Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. M. Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-07-17	SC/SPL LA/43/2023	Albaradura Rumesh De Silva. Angunakolapelessa Prison, Angunakolapelessa. ACCUSED-APPELLANT-PETITIONER Vs. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-07-17	SC/FR/248/2016	1. U.W.Karunasena Madurupitiya, Algama. 2. T.M.M. Tennakoon 191/G, Sri Dhammaloka Mawatha, Kurunduwatta. 3. K.G. Sunali Bandara 54/92, Bovila Road, PahalaBoiriya, Kaduwela. 4. W.A.J. Kulasinghe 57, Sri JeewanandaNahimiMawatha, Hapugoda, Kandana. 5. P.K.S. Priyangani 148, Pinkella Road, Hirana, Panadura. 6. T.M.C. Bandara Sumanasewana, Aruppola, Tuntota. 7. H.G.U.R. Wickramasinghe No 97, Sudu Kanda, BothaleMedagama, Ambepussa. 8. K.B.D.K Priyadarshani 176/11, Maligaspe, SarantisaMawatha, Bope, Galle. 9. J.S.P. Mangalika No. 41, Ruksewana, Udawattawa, Metikumbura. 10. A.M.N.B.Alahakoon 509/2C, Sanhidawatta, Moragollagama, Knattewewa. 11. W.M. Inoka Kumari PolaPitupasa Para, Galapitiyagama, Nikaweratiya. 12. U.A. Santha. Meegahaena, Kahapathwala. 13. Sugath Hatharasinghe 354/5/3, IsuruPiyasa, Gammana Para, Watareka. 14. D.A. Sujatha 217/3/1, SudarshanaMawatha, Malabe. 15. T.M. Champa Kumari SenarathSewana, Seepukulama. 16. K.A.M. Anula Kumarihami WewaLagaNiwasa, Withikuliya. Moragahawewa, And others. View More	Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe			Download
2024-07-17	SC/APPEAL/91/2023	D. R. P. Abeysinghe, No. 80/6, Temples Road, Mount Lavinia. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT vs Canwill Holdings Private Limited, No. 116, Galle Road, Colombo 3. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J.			Download
2024-07-17	SC/CHC APPEAL/5/2013	1. Printcare Group No.77, Nungamugoda Road, Kelaniya. 2. Printcare Packaging (Pvt) Ltd, No.21, Pushmarama Mawatha, Pahala Biyanwila, Kadawatha. 3. Niranjan Aluvihare, Publisher, Printcare Packaging (Pvt) Ltd, No.21, Pushmarama Mawatha, Pahala Biyanwila, Kadawatha. DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS VS. 1. Mudali Peruge Manel Rupa Ranjani Kulatunga, No.50, Dambagola Road, Galewela. 2. Gamini Dharmabandu Sudasinghe, No.458/2, Kumarawatta Mawatha, New Town, Mulleriyawa. PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2024-07-16	SC/APPEAL/245/2014	Edirisinghe Arachchige Chandrasiri Edirisinghe, Polwatte Clinic, Debathgama, Kegalle. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Edirisinghe Arachchige Saumya Subashini Edirisinghe of G 134/2/A, Thalewela, Hettimulla. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. Edirisinghege Dayawathie Edirisinghe of B 238/1, Debathgama, Kegalle. 1st Defendant-Appellant-Respondent 1a. Thushara Dilrushki of B 238/1, Debathgama, Kegalle. Substituted 1st Defendant-Appellant-Respondent 2. Medagoda Durayalage Gunasena of B 238, Debathgama, Kegalle. 2a. Medagoda Durayalage Wasantha Manel Rajkumar of B 238/1, Debathgama, Kegalle. 2b. Thushara Dilrushki of B 238/1, Debathgama, Kegalle. 3. Edirisinghe Pedige Hemadasa of Polwatte, Debathgama, Kegalle. 4. Edirisinghe Pedige Gunathileke, C/O E.D. Hemadasa of Polwatte, Debathgama, Kegalle. 4a. Priyantha Edirisinghe Edirisinghe of C/O E.D. Hemadasa of Polwatte, Debathgama, Kegalle. 5. Edirisinghe Pedige Nimal Chandrasiri of Polwatte, Debathgama, Kegalle. And Others. View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-07-16	SC/APPEAL/20/2012	M. Razeen Salih, No. 5, Palmyrah Avenue, Colombo 3 and 1107, Silam Road, Bangkok, Thailand. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Chandana Ukwatta, No. 28, Ward Place, Colombo 07. (legal representative of the late Mr. U.K. Edmond) 2. McCallum Breweries (Ceylon) Limited, No. 299, Union Place, Colombo 02. Defendants AND M. Razeen Salih, No. 5, Palmyrah Avenue, Colombo 3 and 1107, Silam Road, Bangkok, Thailand. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Chandana Ukwatta, No. 28, Ward Place, Colombo 07. (legal representative of the late Mr. U.K. Edmond) 2. McCallum Breweries (Ceylon) Limited, No. 299, Union Place, Colombo 02. Defendant-Respondents AND BETWEEN M. Razeen Salih, No. 5, Palmyrah Avenue, Colombo 3 and 1107, Silam Road, Bangkok, Thailand. And presently of A1 Nadera Jewelry and Watches Company Limited, P.O. Box 295799, Riyadh. No. 11351, Saudi Arabia. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Chandana Ukwatta, No. 28, Ward Place, Colombo 07. (legal representative of the late Mr. U.K. Edmond) 2. McCallum Breweries (Ceylon) Limited, No. 299, Union Place, Colombo 02. View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2024-07-11	SC/MISC/4/2012	1. P.L. Dumindarathna No. 50, Balangoda Road, Pelmadulla. 2. P.L. Nishapathi Jayawardena Dharmapala Mawatha, Pelmadulla. 3. Amarasiri Pathirana Dharmapala Mawatha, Pelmadulla. Applicant – Appellant – Appellants Vs. 1. Ven. Bengamuwe Dhammadinna Thero Chief Incumbent of Sri Padasthanaya, Rajamaha Viharaya, Pelmadulla. 2. National Gem and Jewellery Authority No. 25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 3. 3. Prasad Galhena Chairman, National Gem and Jewellery Authority, No. 25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 3. 4. B.M.U.D. Basnayake The Secretary, Ministry of Mahaweli Development and Environment, ‘Sampathpaya’, No. 82, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 4A. Udaya Seneviratne The Secretary, Ministry of Environment, ‘Sampathpaya’, No. 82, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 5. P.A.K. Gunawardene Chairman, National Gem and Jewellery Authority, No. 25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 3. And others. View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J.			Download
2024-07-10	SC/APPEAL/16/2013	1. A. Rohini Hemalatha De Silva, 2. H.M. Dilip Aminda, 3. H.M. Nishadi Maduwanthie, All of at Wellankarai, Palliwasalthure. Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioners Vs. 1. Rajapakshe Kanakasekera Mudiyanselage Menikhamy, 2. Uswatte Liyanage Nihal Jayasinghe, 3. Hitihamy Appuhamylage Banduwathie, All of at Siyambalagaswela, Kakkapalliya Defendant-Appellant-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2024-07-05	SC/SD/82/2024	Dinidu de Alwis, Molawatta Road, Ihala Mahawewa, Mahawewa. Petitioner Vs. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent View More				Download
2024-07-04	SC/APPEAL/30/2016	Athukoralalage Don Chandrasekera, Kosgahahena, Uggalla, Padukka. And presently of No. 08/02, Kosgahahena, Uggalla, Padukka. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Athukoralalage Don Sarathchandra, Kosgahahena, Uggalla, Padukka. 3rd Defendant-Appellant-Respondent 1. Athukoralalage Lionel Harischandra 2. Ranawaka Arachchige Susilin Nona Both of Kosgahahena, Uggalla, Padukka. 1st and 2nd Defendant-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-07-01	SC/APPEAL/89/2020	1. Kelani Valley Plantations PLC No.400, Deans Road, Colombo 10. 1st Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. H.A.P. Amarasena No.16, Edinburg Estate, Nanuoya. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent 2. Anura Senanayaka Estate Superintendent Edinburg Estate, Nanuoya. 2nd Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 3. Dudley Ananda Subhasinghe (Former Estate Superintendent of Edinburg Estate) Human Resource Manager Noritake Company Mathale. 3rd Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2024-07-01	SC/APPEAL/124/2015	1. Reparamadu Crispilatha. Devinigoda, Rathgama. 2. Wimalasooriya Wickramanayake Adigama Mudalige Chandrapala. Devinigoda, Rathgama. 2nd and 4th DEFENDANT-PETITIONER-APPELLANTS Vs. Koralage Tharalis. No. 03, Pettiwatta, Gammeddegoda, Rathgama. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT Kande Dayawathi De Silva Kulasekara. No. 03, Pettiwatta, Gammeddegoda, Rathgama. (Presently at, No. 77/81, Dawatagahawatte, Polgasowita.) SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT 2. Thotagamuwage Uvaneris. Palliyampitiya, Rathgama 3. Wimalasooriya Wickramanayake Adigama Mudalige Premawathi (Deceased). Devinigoda, Rathgama. 5. Wimalasooriya Wickramanayake Adigama Mudalige Danapala (Deceased) Batadandugoda, Katudampe, Rathgama. 6. Koralage Soloman. Devinigoda, Rathgama. 7. Abeysekara Gunawardana Sirisena (Deceased). Pitiduwa, Habaraduwa. 8. Kamalawathi Thuppahi Gunawardana alias Jane (Deceased). Pitiduwa, Habaraduwa. 9. P. H. Lional De Silva Anandigoda, Rathgama. 10. Manimeldura Padamawathi ‘Kokila’. Devinigoda, Rathgama. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-06-27	SC/FR/412/2015	Aththanayake Mudiyanselage Kelum Aththanayake, No. 02, Lumbini Pedesa, Akarangaha, Badalgama. PETITIONER Vs. 1. H. W. S. Udayakumara, (Inspector of Police) Officer in Charge, Police Station, Kotadeniyawa. And others View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-06-26	SC/SPL LA/61/2023	Kalahe Palliya Guruge Laksri Kumara Dias Gunasekara Pinikahana, Kahaduwa. PETITIONER-PETITIONER Vs. 1. Harin Fernando, Minister of Tourism and Lands, Mihikata Medura, Rajmal Watte Road, Battaramulla. 1. Shantha Weerasinghe, District Secretary of Galle District, District secretariat, Galle. 2. Chathuranga Gunasekara, Land Acquisition Officer, Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Elpitiya. 3. Ranjith Yapa, Secretary, Department of Provincial Education (Southern Province), Dakshinapaya, Labuduwa, Galle. 4. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-06-20	SC/APPEAL/155/2012	1B. i) Kalid Ahmed Abu Baker Abdullah Baeshen ii) Osama Ahmed Abu Baker Abdullah Baeshen iii) Sumaya Ahmed Abu Baker Abdullah Baeshen iv) Sahar Ahmed Abu Baker Abdullah Baeshen 1C. Mohamed Abdul Kader Baeshen 1D. Ahamed Abdul Kader Baeshen All partners of Ahmed Mohamed Saleh Baeshen and Company, a limited liability partnership existing under the laws of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia of PO Box 18, Al Dahab Street, Jeddah 21411, Saudi Arabia. Substituted Applicant-Respondent-Defendant-Respondent-Appellants Vs. 1. Stassen Exports Ltd., No. 833, Sirimavo Bandaranaike Mawatha, Colombo 14. Opponent-Appellant-Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent 2. Director General of Intellectual Property of Sri Lanka, National Intellectual Property Office, No. 400, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. Formerly designated as and for the successor to the Registrar of Patents and Trade Marks, No. 267, Union Place, Colombo 02. Respondent-Defendant-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena			Download
2024-06-18	SC/APPEAL/110/2021	Vocational Training Authority of Sri Lanka, No. 354/2, 4th Floor, Nipunatha Piyasa, Elvitigala Mawatha, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. S.A.D.J. Chandrakumara, No. 22, Suhada Mawatha, Nagoda, Kalutara. Applicant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2024-06-14	SC/CHC APPEAL/3/2009	Sri Lanka Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. Co-operative Square, No. 127, Grandpass Road, Colombo 14. Defendant-Appellant Vs. The State Trading Corporation of India, Jawahar Vypar Bhawan, 1-Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi 110 001, India and of Chennai House, 4th Floor, 7 Esplanade, Chennai 600 108, India. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2024-06-14	SC/APPEAL/200/2018	Narendra Thillainathan, 29, Hillcrest Road, Purely, Surrey CR8 2JF, United Kingdom. Presently of; 271, Maddison House, 226, High Street, Croydon CR9 1DF, United Kingdom. Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Mohomed Khan, No. 02, Exeforde Ave, Ashford TW15 2EF, Middlesex, United Kingdom. And also of; P.O. Box 31720, United Arab Emirates. Claimant-Petitioner-Respondent 2. Spencer Services Limited, 19-20 Bourne Court, Southend Road, Woodford Green, Essex IG8 8HD, United Kingdom Formerly of; 29, Hillcrest Road, Purely, Surrey CR8 2JF, United Kingdom. Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2024-06-14	SC/CHC APPEAL/37/2006	Francis Raymond, Proprietor, El Shaddai Enterprises, 4C/3, Mani Nagar, Tuticorin, 628002, Tamil Nadu, India. Presently No. 164 G, North Beach Road, Tuticorin, 628001, Tamil Nadu, India. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Sathasiwam Vincendrajan, No. 320 1/3, Galle Road, Colombo - 03. 2. Sumathi Vincendrajan, No. 320 1/3, Galle Road, Colombo - 03. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J.			Download
2024-06-14	SC/CHC APPEAL/25/2011	Lakshman De Fonseka, No. 180B, Koswatta Road, Nawala, Rajagiriya. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs. Eagle Insurance Co Ltd, No. 75, Kumaran Ratnam Road, Colombo 2. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT A I A Insurance Lanka PLC, No. 75, Kumaran Ratnam Road, Colombo 2. ADDED DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J.			Download
2024-06-12	SC/WRIT/3/2024	01. Helambage Sajith Kelum No. 201, Richmond Hill, S.H. Dahanayaka Mawatha, Galle. And another Petitioners Vs. 01. Rohana Wasantha Kumara Grama Niladhari, 96 – South Kumbalwella, Galle. And others Respondents View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J.			Download
2024-06-12	SC/APPEAL/49/2013	1. Benthara Mapalagama Acharige Shahikala Lakmini Kumari. 2. Benthara Mapalagama Acharige Pawani Perera. (Minor) 3. Benthara Mapalagama Acharige Nethranjali Perera. (Minor) 2/16, 2nd Lane, Batewela, Ranala. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANTS -Vs- 1. Attanayakage Kanthi Violet Perera, Alpitiya Mawatha, Betawela, Ranala. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-06-11	SC/APPEAL/50/2018	Miriyagalla Kankanamlage Vincent, No: 1195/6, Daluptiya Road, Hunupitiya, Wattala. Presently at No. 46/17, Mosque Lane, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya. Plaintiff–Appellant-Petitioner/Appellant Vs Miriyagalla Kankanamlage Gunapala, No: 1195/5, Daluptiya Road, Hunupitiya, Wattala. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC, J.			Download
2024-06-07	SC/APPEAL/74/2020	Anjalidevi Thangavel, Thotagamuwa, Matale. SUBSTITUTED 2A DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT–APPELLANT -Vs- Welhena Rajapakse Appuhamilage Don Podi Ralahamy Rajapakse, No. 15, Viduhal Pedesa, Matale. PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT–RESPONDENT Rajaguru Rajakaruna Gane Bandararalage Manel Padma Kanthi Hulangamuwa Weragama, Kaikawala, Matale. 1ST DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2024-06-06	SC/FR/446/2019	Women & Media Collective No. 56/1, Sarasavi Lane, Castle Street, Colombo 08. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. and others Respondents View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J.			Download
2024-06-06	SC/HC CALA/35/2020	The Land Reform Commission, 475, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER -VS Kandy Plantations Limited, 69, Sri Jinarathana Road, Colombo 02, 4th DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER-RESPONDENT 1. Gnanapoo De Croos 2. Vijyanthi Johnpillai 3. Devayani De Croos, All at, No. 47, Wijeyapala Mendis Mawatha, Negombo. 1st to 3rd DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2024-06-05	SC/APPEAL/111/2018	Nishashanka Arachchige Mahesh Chaminda Priyantha Kumara, No.140/C, Megoda Thammita, Makewita. Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Officer In Charge, Special Crime Investigating Branch, Gampaha Complainant-Respondent-Respondent Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe			Download
2024-06-05	SC/FR/87/2012, SC/FR/255/2013	1. C.J. Wickramasinghe, 75/3, Miriswatta, Mudungoda. And others PETITIONERS 1. B.K.S. Ravindra Acting Commissioner of Community Based Corrections, Department of Community Based Corrections, No. 35A, 1st Floor, N.M. Perera Mawatha, Borella, Colombo 08 And others RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe			Download
2024-06-05	SC/APPEAL/27/2019	1. U.G. Sunil, No. 11/02, Pansalwatta Road, Kundasale. And others Accused-Appellants-Appellants Vs. 1. Officer-In-Charge, Police Station, Udu Dumbara And another Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe			Download
2024-06-05	SC/APPEAL/12/2019	1. Royal Hospital (Pvt.) Ltd., No. 62, W.A de Silva Mawatha, Wellawatte, Colombo 06 and others Accused-Petitioner-Petitioner-Appellants Vs. 1. The Officer in Charge, Police Station, Wellawatte. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent 2. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2024-06-03	SC/APPEAL/6/2022	Commissioner General of Inland Revenue, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Respondent-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Herbal Holiday Resorts (Private) Limited, Ayurveda Walauwa, Warahena, Bentota. Appellant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-05-31	SC/APPEAL/89/2022	1. Rajapaksha Gamaralalage Chathuranga Harshana, No. 132A, Andurapotha, Devalagama. ACCUSED-APPELLANT-APPELLANT Vs. 1. The Officer in Charge Police Station, Kegalle. COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT 2. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-05-31	SC/HCLA/89/2022	1. Rajapaksha Gamaralalage Chathuranga Harshana, No. 132A, Andurapotha, Devalagama. ACCUSED-APPELLANT-APPELLANT Vs. 1. The Officer in Charge Police Station, Kegalle. COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT 2. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-05-31	SC/FR/505/2019	R.H. Iresha Lakmali, No. 57B, Palleliyaddewatte, Ampe, Imaduwa, Galle. PETITIONER vs. 1. Major General Kamal Gunarathne, The Secretary to the Defence, The Ministry of Defence, 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo. and others Respondents View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J.			Download
2024-05-30	SC/APPEAL/136/2014	Nagaratnam Ratnakumara, 50, Yodayakanatta Road, Alwis Town, Hendala, Wattala. Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs. W.M.W.P.K. Amarasekera, Public Health Inspector, Nayakakanda, Hendala, Wattala. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney Generals Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2024-05-28	SC/FR/417/2016	Hettiarachchige Gemunu Tissa, No. 361/18H, Nagalingam Street, Colombo 14. PETITIONER Vs. 1. W. Lionel Jayaratne, Sub Inspector of Police, Police Narcotics Bureau, Colombo 01. and others RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2024-05-28	SC/APPEAL/46/2020	1. Arpico Homes Ltd 2. Richard Peiris & Company PLC Both of No. 310, High Level Road, Nawinna, Maharagama. RESPONDENTS–APPELLANTS–APPELLANTS vs. Arangalage Sandya Damayanthi, No. 189, Madelgamuwa, Gampaha. APPLICANT–RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2024-05-22	SC/FR/34/2017, SC/FR/125/2017	Kanagarathnam Selvaharan No.425/5, Himbutana Lane, Angoda. Petitioner Vs. 01. Idippully Mudiyanselage Ranjith Kumarasinghe Officer-Unit 03 Frauds Investigation Bureau No.532/7, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 08. Presently BMICH Police Station, Colombo 07. And others Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC			Download
2024-05-16	SC/APPEAL/133/2019	Mrs. Ranjithamalar Santhiraseharan, Patrol Station Road, Kaluwanchikudy. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Mr. Arumugam Pushpakaran, Mariyamman Kovil Road, Kaluwanchikudy. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe			Download
2024-05-15	SC/FR/272/2016	B.H.D.H. Tilakaratne, No. 153/4, Kandewatta, Suwasewa Road, Maha Heenatiyangala, Kalutara South Petitioner Vs. 1. Mr. B.A.P. Ariyarathna, General Manager of Railways, General Manager of Railway’s Office, Colombo 10. 2. Hon Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC, J.			Download
2024-05-15	SC/FR/209/2022	D. Pravesha Wickamasuriya, No. 45, Wikramapura, Kokwaththa, Habaraduwa. On behalf of Abeyhtunga Kankanam Gamachchige Sasadara (Minor) Petitioner Vs. 1. Mr. Sumeda Kariyawasam, Principal, Southland College, Galle. And others Respondents View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC, J.			Download
2024-05-15	SC/CHC APPEAL/12/2015	2. Arumugam Sivan No. F 180/2/111, People’s Park Shopping Complex, Colombo 11. 3. Arumugam Thiru Chelvam No. 4C, 2/1, Ebert Place, Dickmans Road, Colombo. 2ND & 3RD DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS -Vs- People’s Leasing Company Limited No. 67, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-05-13	SC/APPEAL/171/2016	1. Mohamed Haniffa Mohamed Iqbal 2. Mohamed Haniffa Mohamed Rauf Both of No. 76/1/1, Abdul Hameed Street, Colombo 12. DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-APPELLANTS Vs. Sulpatul Kairia Abdul Carder No. 70/2, Green Lane, Colombo 13. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-05-10	SC/APPEAL/47/2017	Sirimewan Maha Mudalige Kalyani Sirimewan, Udukekulawala, Bujjomuwa. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Herath Mudiyanselage Gunarath Menike, Hemudawa, Sadalankawa. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-05-10	SC/APPEAL/48/2017	Sirimewan Maha Mudalige Kalyani Sirimewan, Udakekulawala, Bujjomuwa. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Herath Mudiyanselage Gunarath Manike, 2. Herath Mudiyanselage Ranil Suriya Bandara (Minor), 3. Registrar, District Court, Kuliyapitiya. All of Hemudawa, Sadalankawa. Defendants-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-05-10	SC/APPEAL/31/2018	Rathugamage Ancy Fernando, Hiriwewa, Kobeigane. Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Ranasinghe Mudiyanselage Susantha Ranasinghe, Alahenegama, Alahenegama. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-05-10	SC/APPEAL/218/2012	Kanapathi Ravindran, 420, Old Moors Street, Colombo 01200. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Govindan Prathaban, 146, Templers Road, Mount Lavinia. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent Kankanage Nelun Perera, 146, Templers Road, Mount Lavinia. Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-05-10	SC/APPEAL/102/2013	1. Velapody Maheswaran 2. Pasupathy Rasaletchumy Both of Kallady, Uppodai. Defendant-Respondent-Appellants Vs. Thevarasa Thavamany, Kallady, Uppodai. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-05-08	SC/FR/12/2010	Kankanan Arachchige Hemasiri, Mahagedara Watta, Wepatha-Ira, Hakmana. Petitioner Vs. 1. Kamal Amarasinghe, Inspector of Police, Officer in Charge, Police Station, Hakmana. and others Respondents View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC, J.			Download
2024-05-08	SC/APPEAL/11/2024	Hitihamilage Don Oshala Lakmal Anil Herath, No. 22, Wata Mawatha, Piliyandala. Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Hon. Diana Gamage, State Minister of Tourism, No. 537/21, Country Glade Bungalow, Amaragoda Road, Hokandara North And others Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2024-05-03	SC/APPEAL/10/2024	Subeya Hakuru Susilrathne, No. 1/35, 16th Mile Post, Ihala Siyambalawa, Eppawala. ACCUSED-PETITIONER-APPELLANT -Vs- 01. Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, No. 36, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. 02. Director General, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, No. 36, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-04-05	SC/FR/413/2021	1. Edirisinghe Muhandiram Appuhamilage Uresh Tharanga, No. 527, Thambakanda, Sandakalawa. and others PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Geological Survey and Mines Bureau, 569, Epitamulla Road, Pitakotte. 1A. Sajjana De Silva Director General, Geological Survey and Mines Bureau, 569, Epitamulla Road, Pitakotte. and others RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe			Download
2024-04-05	SC/APPEAL/240/2014	Wickramaarachchige Mallika Ranatunga of Udawatte, Batuwana, Niyandurupola Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1.Wahumpurage Wimalatissa of Kumburegama, Palambure, Niyandurupola 1(iii). Substituted Defendant-Appellant-Respondent 2. Dewalayage Emalin of Kumburegama Palambure, Niyandurupola 1(i). Substituted Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 3. Wahumpurage Sunil Premathilake, Kumburegama Palambure, Niyandurupola 1(ii).Substituted Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 4.Wahumpurage Lional Wickramaratne of Kumburegama Palambure, Niyandurupola 1(iv).Substituted Defendant View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2024-04-05	SC/APPEAL/139/2019	The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. View More	Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena			Download
2024-04-05	SC/APPEAL/53/2019	1.Munasinghe Arachchige Theja Renuka No. 127/30, Vinayalankara Mawatha, Maradana, Colombo 10 2.Thanthirige Dona Mallika Swarnalatha No. 127/3, Vinayalankara Mawatha, Maradana, Colombo 10 Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellants Vs. W.K. Jagath alias Mangala No. 127/34, Vinayalankara Mawatha, Maradana, Colombo 10. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2024-04-04	SC/APPEAL/144/2012	Haputhantrige Wimalarathne, Meepe, Habaraduwa. 1st Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Gajaba Mohotti Ajantha of “Mohotti Nivasa”, Meepe, Habaraduwa. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 2. Thusitha Dias Jayasundara 3. Udayapala Dias Abegundawardena 2nd and 3rd Defendant-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-04-04	SC/APPEAL/179/2018	Dr. Noel Pratheepan Somasundaram No.72111, Birds park Residencies, Madinnagoda, Rajagiriya. PARTY NOTICED - APPELLANT 1. G.K. Sudath Kumara, Chartered Accountant, 3rd Floor, yathama Building, Galle Road, Colombo 03. LIQUIDATOR - RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT 2. Kurukula Arachchige Don Lenard priyanka Nanayakkara, No. 39615, Koswatte Rd, Kalapaluwewa, Rajagiriya. PETITIONER - RESPONDENT 3. Maddumage Dona Chandani Amarathunga, Commissioner of Labour Department of Labour Narahenpita, Colombo-05 INTERVENIENT - PETITIONER - RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT 4. Mr. Don Raja Elmo Jayamaha "The Next", N-104, Niwasipura, Ekala PARTY NOTICED - RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-04-04	SC/APPEAL/181/2015, SC/APPEAL/182/2015	Kekulandala Liyanage Siriyawathi alias Silawathi, (Deceased) Palliyagoda South, Mathugama 2nd DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT A. Gunarathne Withanage Hemachandra Dias and others SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANTS Vs. Kekulandala Liyanage Don Jayasena No. 164/27, Arawa Road, Aluthgama Road, Mathugama. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT and others View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-04-04	SC/RULE/15/2023	Negombo Magistrate’s Court Lawyers’ Welfare Association, Ms. Nilmini Madonza, The President, Negombo Magistrate’s Court Lawyers’ Welfare Association, Mr. Nelson Kumaranayake, The Secretary, Negombo Magistrate’s Court Lawyers’ Welfare Association, All at Negombo Magistrate’s Court Lawyers’ Welfare Association, First Floor, Court Complex, Negombo. COMPLAINANTS Against Mr. R. A. S. Sampath Karunathilaka, Attorney-at-Law, No. 10/B, Palawa, Muruthalawa, Kandy. RESPONDENT View More	Hon. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.			Download
2024-04-03	SC/APPEAL/162/2018	Walgama Wilage Don Sanath Nandana, Winsant Lane, Wellawatta. Petitioner Vs. Mohomed Rilvan Rizar Rafeek, No. 24/10, Fedrica Road, Wellawatta, Colombo 06. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena			Download
2024-04-03	SC/APPEAL/63/2023	Andra Hannadige Sarathchandra, No. 56, Horakandamulla Road, Matugama. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. Ceylon Electricity Board, Sri Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 2. Wijesuriya Gunawardena Mahawaduge Teeman Perera 3. Wanigatungage Tudor 4. Lalith Silva 5. Mahanama Abeywickrama All of Ceylon Electricity Board, Sri Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 6. Galhandi Deepal Wanigaratne Regional Electrical Engineer, Ceylon Electricity Board, Kalutara District Office, Kalutara North. Defendant-Appellant-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena			Download
2024-04-03	SC/APPEAL/70/2015	Nuwara Eliya District Housing Development Co-operative Society Ltd., No. 10, National Housing Scheme, Bogawanthalawa. 2nd Respondent-Appellant Vs. Kelani Valley Plantations PLC (formerly Kelani Valley Plantations Limited), 400, Deans Road, Colombo 10. Petitioner-Respondent The Chairman, National Housing Development Authority, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 1st Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2024-04-03	SC/CHC APPEAL/20/2015	LOLC Factors Limited, 100/1, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha, Rajagiriya. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Airtouch International (Private) Limited, No. 290/2, Torrington Avenue, Colombo 05. 2. Horagampitagamage Panduka Nihal Attygalle, No. 03, Dharmapala Mawatha, Rajagiriya Road, Rajagiriya. 3. Jayaweera Arachchige Dhanushka Malinda Perera 4. Dharshinee Suneetha Kumari Peries Both of No. 290/2, Torrington Avenue, Colombo 05. Defendant-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena			Download
2024-04-02	SC/APPEAL/98/2019	Paragoda Gamage Indrasiri Poddala, Mepawala, Panideniya. Vs. 1. Poddiwala Marage Chandrapala Poddala, Walpita South, Kandagahaduwa. 2. Don Dharmadasa Kalansuriya (Deceased) Poddala, Mepawala. 2a. Haththotuwa Gamage Somawathi 3. Don Chandra Kalansuriya 4. Don Alekxander Kalansuriya 5. Don Sugathadasa Kalansuriya (Deceased) No. 26, E. N. Fernando Road, Wellawatte. 5a. Chanaka Kalansuriya. 6. Don Ariyadasa Kalansuriya (Deceased) “Suriya Sewana” Poddala, Mepawala, Panideniya. 6a. Lasitha Hemantha Kalansuriya Defendants AND BETWEEN Paragoda Gamage Indrasiri Poddala, Mepwala, Panideniya Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Poddiwala Marage Chandrapala Poddala, Walpita South, Kandagahaduwa. 2. Don Dharmadasa Kalansuriya (Deceased) Poddala, Mepawala. 2a. Haththotuwa Gamage Somawathi 3. Don Chandra Kalansuriya 4. Don Alekxander Kalansuriya 5. Don Sugathadasa Kalansuriya (Deceased) No. 26, E. N. Fernando Road, Wellawatte. 5a. Chanaka Kalansuriya. 6. Don Ariyadasa Kalansuriya (Deceased) “Suriya Sewana” Poddala, Mepawala, Panideniya View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2024-04-01	SC/FR/281/2022	Dr. Abdul Razak Jawzeek No. 41/2, Pole’s Road, Puttalam. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Dr. R.M.S. Dinusha Fernando Regional Director of Health Services, Office of the Regional Health Services Puttlam, Hospital Building, Madambe. And others RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-03-28	SC/FR/57/2019	Kariyawasam Atukoralage Don Peter Hayasinth No. 61/1, Pahalawela, Pamunuwatte, Meergama. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Lalith Sandasiri, Officer in Charge, Police Station, Weeragula. and others RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J.			Download
2024-03-28	SC/FR/337/2016	S. Junaideen 337, Dampillawa, Kal-Eliya. PETITIONER Vs. 1B. Sri Lanka Customs, Customs House, 40, Main Street, Colombo 11. The Director General of Customs Sri Lanka Customs, Customs House, 40, Main Street, Colombo 11. 1B. The Director General of Customs View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J.			Download
2024-03-27	SC/APPEAL/179/2016	Hettiarachchilage Ariyadasa “Tharanga”, Katuwana Road, Middeniya. 2nd Defendant-Respondent-Appellant . Ruhunu Development Bank, Head office No. 382A, Anagarika Dharmapala Mawatha, Pamburana, Matara. 1A Pradeshiya Sanwardena Bank Head Office No. 933, Kandy Road, Wedamulla, Kelaniya. 1B Pradeshiya Sanwardena Bank Circular Road, Uyanwatte, Matara. 1st Defendant-Respondent-Respondents 2. Thelikorale Arachchige Pemadasa No. 295, In front of Bus Depot. Embilipitiya. 1st Plaintiff-Respondent 3. Thelikorale Arachchige Susara Dhammika “Sithumina” Uswewa Tangalle 2nd Plaintiff-Apellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC			Download
2024-03-26	SC/APPEAL/30/2018	R. A. S. Kulawardena, No. 58, Sisikirana, Hopton. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Hapugastenna Plantations Limited Palm Garden, Ratnapura. 6th Defendant-Appellant-Respondent Logiah Narayanasamy Balakrishnan Thawalampelessa Road, Lunugala. 1st Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 1. Selvalakshmi 2. Logiah Sivasubramanium Andawatta, Lunugala. Substituted 1st Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2024-03-20	SC/FR/105/2017	1. Weerakkodi Appuhamilage Chamila Priyadarshani Weerakkodi, Naagama, Welpalla. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Nihal Somaweera, Secretary, Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, 7th Floor, Sethsiripaya, Stage II, Battaramulla. and others RESPONDENTS And others ADDED RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-03-20	SC/FR/14/2017	1. N.C. Gajaweera, No. 366/15A, 3rd Lane, Dharmapala Road, Pamburana, Matara and others PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Prof. Siri Hettige 1A. P.H. Manatunga 1B. K.W.E. Karaliyadda 1st, 1A & 1B Respondents – Chairman, National Police Commission and others RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2024-03-20	SC/APPEAL/9/2022	Naipanichchi Gamage Rathnayaka Indiketiya, Pelmadulla. 2nd Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Upul Nanda Kumara Kodagoda, Indiketiya, Pelmadulla. And now : Sarvodaya Road, Rilhena, Pelmadulla. Substituted-Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent 3 1. Naipanichchi Gamage Nimal 2. Naipanichchi Gamage Senarathna All of Indiketiya, Pelmadulla. 1st and 3rd Defendants-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2024-03-19	SC/APPEAL/21/2023	1. Mahaarachchige Janaka Pushpa Kumara 36/2, Kiripola, Hanwella. ACCUSED-APPELLANT-APPELLANT -Vs- Officer - in - charge Police Station, Panadura. COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-03-15	SC/RULE/6/2023	Nishan Chandima Abeywardena, Acting Head of Air Navigation Services, Airport and Aviation Services Sri Lanka (Pvt) Ltd., Bandaranaike International Airport, Katunayake. Complainant -Vs- Aruna Deepada De Silva, 145/3A, Park Road, Colombo 05. Respondent View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-03-14	SC/FR/287/2023	1. B. G. T. G. D. K. Bopitiya Chairman. 2. R. M. Jayasena Secretary. 3. N. A. U. Buddika Treasurer. 4. K. M. D. Mangala Malinda Vice President. 5. W. M. N. Deshapriya Executive Committee Member. 6. W. A. L. S. Wickramarathne Executive Committee Member. 7. K. Kantha Ruban Executive Committee Member. 8. D. R. S. C. Dabaliyadda Executive Committee Member. 9. P. G. R. D. Bandara Executive Committee Member, Technical Education Demonstrator Union, College of Technology, Ratnapura. PETITIONERS -Vs- 1. S. C. Jagath Director General, Department of Technical Education and Training, P. O. Box 557, Olcott Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. Dr. Susil Premajayantha Minister, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 3. M. N. Ranasinghe Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 4. Sanath J. Ediriweera Chairman, Public Service Commission. 5. Mrs. S. M. Mohamed Member. 6. N. H. M. Chithrananda Member. 7. Prof. N. Selvakkumaran Member. 8. M. B. R. Pushpakumara Member. 9. Dr. A. D. N. De Zoysa Member. 10. Mrs. R. Na View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-03-13	SC/APPEAL/105/2020	V. Watumal (Private) Limited No. 21, 2nd Cross Street, Colombo 11. Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. LOLC Finance PLC Registered Office No. 100/1, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha, Rajagiriya. 1st Respondent-Respondent 2. LOLC Factors Limited Registered Office No. 100/1, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha, Rajagiriya. Principal Business Office No. 504, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya. 2nd Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2024-03-12	SC/HC CALA/184/2023	Believers Church No. 54, Jayasooriya Mawatha, Kandana. Plaintiff–Petitioner–Petitioner–Petitioner Vs. Paneer Selvam Jenita Enriya No. 5B, Dekinda Road, Bawwagama, Nawalapitiya Substituted Defendant–Respondent–Respondent–Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2024-03-12	SC/APPEAL/3/2019, SC/APPEAL/3A/2019, SC/APPEAL/3B/2019, SC/APPEAL/3C/2019	Stitches Private Limited, Kahagallawaththa, Udawelakotuwa, Diyathalawa Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant-Appellant Vs, Assistant Commissioner of Labour District Labour Office, Haputhale Complainant-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent The Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J.			Download
2024-03-12	SC/APPEAL/64/2021	Geekiyanage Kamalananda Sanath Prasanna Pathma Kumara Fernando No.71/A1, Carvial Waththa, Kadawala, Dunugaha. (Presently at Welikada Prison) 1ST ACCUSED-APPELLANT-APPELLANT -Vs- Hon. Attorney-General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-03-12	SC/APPEAL/135/2016	Jayalathge Srimathi Mangalika Jayasinghe, (Deceased) 1. Sunil Jayantha Amarasinghe 2. Iresha Nayomi Amarasinghe Amunuwatta, Henamulla, Kurunegala. Substituted Defendant–Respondent-Petitioner Vs, R.P. Wijeratne, No. 16/1, Amunuwatta, Henamulla, Kurunegala. Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda, PC, J.			Download
2024-03-12	SC/APPEAL/129/2017	Arumugam Sebesthiyan Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs, The Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC, J.			Download
2024-03-07	SC/APPEAL/190/2011	Karunawathi Palith Liyanage, No. 283, Pasyala, Meerigama. Petitioner-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Ratna Lakshmi Jayakodi (nee Yatawara), “Rajagaha” Balagalla, Divulapitiya. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 1. Handunweerage Babynona, No. 283, Pasyala, Meerigama. (Deceased) 1A. Palith Liyanage Ariyadasa (Deceased) 2. Palith Liyanage Ariyadasa, No. 283, Pasyala, Meerigama. (Deceased) 2A. Yaspali Liyanage, 2B. Chalinda Palitha Liyanage, Both of No. 45, Sri Sugathawansa Mawatha, 2nd Division, Maradana, Colombo 10. Defendant-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-03-07	SC/APPEAL/132/2015	9. Mannalage Rosana (Deceased) Kandangoda, Pugoda. 9A. Pasimahaduragesede Chandrawathie 9B. Jayakody Premasinghe 9C. Sunethra Premasinghe All of Kandangoda, Pugoda. Substituted 9th Defendant-Appellant-Appellants Vs. 8. Kuda Kompayalage Simo (Deceased) 8A. Kuda Kompayalage Simon Wickramarathna, Kandangoda, Pugoda. 8th Defendant-Appellant-Respondent 1. Wewegedarage Lilli and others Defendant-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-03-07	SC/APPEAL/131/2019	Deputy Chief Security Officer, Bank of Ceylon, Kalutara Branch, Kalutara. 2nd Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Sunil Sirimanne, Koratuhena Road, Badugama, Matugama. Applicant-Respondent-Respondent Manager, Brave Guard Security and Investigations Services, No. 194, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha, Welikada, Rajagiriya. 1st Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-03-07	SC/APPEAL/219/2016	DFCC Bank PLC, No. 73/5, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 1st Defendant-Appellant Vs. 1. Aqua World Private Limited, Suduwella New Road, Wennappuwa. 2. Kuranage Marian Stella Rose Perera, Suduwella New Road, Wennappuwa. Plaintiff-Respondents 3. Navinda Samarawickrama 4. Anuja Samarawickrama (Partners of Shockman and Samarawickrama Auctioneer) of 290, Havelock Road, Colombo 05. Defendant-Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-02-29	SC/APPEAL/101/2009	Sherman Sons (Private) Limited. (formerly known as Sherman Sons Limited.) No.23, Sri Sangaraja Mawatha, Colombo 10. Presently of No. 194F, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs Thuraiappah Nithyanandan No. 12902/1, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2024-02-29	SC/APPEAL/25/2021	Mahawaduge Priyanga Lakshitha Prasad Perera No. 60, Kandawala, Katana. Carrying on business as a sole proprietor under the name and ‘Trading Engineering Manufacturing Company’ Plaintiff-Petitioner Vs. China National Technical Import and Export Corporation No. 90, Xi San Huan Zhong Lu Genertec Plaza Beijing, China Having its local representative office at No. 445A, 3rd Floor, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Defendant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2024-02-29	SC/FR/502/2012	Nanayakkara Gamage Don Kashyapa Sathyapriya De Silva No. 6B, Silvan Lane, Panadura. Petitioner Vs. 1. Manoj, Police Constable (P.C. 5778), Traffic Police, Mt. Lavinia Traffic Division, Mount Lavinia and others Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC	Articles 11, 17, 126	Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2024-02-29	SC/FR/498/2012	Punchi Hewage Ajithsena Silva, Kutukende Estate Nikadalupotha, Kurunegala. Presently, No. 22/A Mahaviara Road, Lakshapathiya, Moratuwa. Petitioner Vs. 1. Bank of Ceylon, No 4, Lanka Banku Mawatha, Colombo 01. and others Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2024-02-29	SC/FR/449/2019	1. Centre for Policy Alternatives (Guarantee) Limited, No. 6/5, Layards Road, Colombo 5. 2. Dr. Paikiasothy Saravananmuttu No. 3, Ascot Avenue, Colombo 5. Petitioners Vs 1. Hon. Attorney General (in terms of the requirements of Article 35 of the Constitution) 1A. Maithripala Sirisena (former President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka) No. 61, Mahagama Sekara Mawatha, Colombo 7. and others Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC	Article 35	Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2024-02-29	SC/FR/37/2024	Mathiparanan Abraham Sumanthiran 3/1, Daya Road, Colombo 00600 Petitioner Vs. 1. Honourable Mahinda Yapa Abeywardana Speaker of Parliament, Parliament of Sri Lanka, Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte 2. Honourable Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 01200 Respondents View More	Hon.			Download
2024-02-29	SC/FR/264/2015	K. G. I. Krishantha Kapugama No. 94/4, Kobbekaduwa, Yahlathanna Petitioner Vs. 1. I. P. Anura Krishantha, Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Irrataperiyakulam 2. CI. Channa Abeyratne, Head Quarters Inspector, 3. SI. Wanninayake 4. SI Somaratne 5. Sergeant Seneviratne (31978) 6. PC J.M.S. Jayawardene (5786) The 2nd to 6th Respondents, of Police Station, Vauniya. 7. Inspector General of Police; Sri Lanka Police Department, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01 8. Hon. The Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp Colombo 12 Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2024-02-29	SC/FR/181/2014	Wijetunge Mudiyanselage Lalith Kumara Wijetunge, No.426, Uyanwatte, Pologolla. Now at: No. 29B, Sirimalwatte West, Gunnepana, Kandy. Petitioner vs. 1. M. A. S. Weerasinghe, Commissioner General of Agrarian Development, Department of Agrarian Development, No.42, Marcus Fernando Mawatha, Colombo 07. and others View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J.			Download
2024-02-29	SC/FR/160/2014	Poorna Mayura Kankanige, ‘Jaliya Sevana’ No 363 Udupila, Delgoda Petitioner Vs 1. Police Sergeant No. 24141 Senadheera, Police Station, Bandaranaike Memorial International Conference Centre, Colombo 07. and others Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2024-02-29	SC/EXPULSION/02/2022	Safiul Muthunabeen Mohamed Muszhaaraff Lake View, 418, Vaathiya Road, RM Nagar, Pottuvil-27 Petitioner vs 1. S. Suairdeen Secretary General, All Ceylon Makkal Congress 2. Rishad Bathiudeen, Leader, All Ceylon Makkal Congress and others Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2024-02-29	SC/APPEAL/83/2013	Delkadura Danapala Mudiyanselage Sarathchandra Bandara, 17, Hospital Road Ratnapura. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1(a) Omanthage Malkanthi Fernando, 22/28, Hospital Road Ratnapura. 1(b) Pathberiya Ranasinghege Kasun Irosha Ranasinghe, 1(c) Pathberiya Ranasinghege Kavidu Ashan Ranasinghe, Substituted Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz			Download
2024-02-29	SC/APPEAL/72/2018, SC/APPEAL/73/2018	Nanayakkarawasam Halloluwage Sisil Dias, No. 360/1, Poddalawatta, Wakwella Road, Galle. Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner Vs Wewelwala Hewage Hemathi, No. 362, Poddalawatta, Wakwella Road, Galle. 2nd Defendant-Petitioner-Respondent Kirinda Liyanarachchige Premadasa, No. 359/1, Wakwella Road, Galle. 1st Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2024-02-29	SC/APPEAL/102/2017	1. A. M. Newton Kulasuriya Chairman, Urban Council, Minuwangoda 2. L. N. A. P. Kumarasinghe Superintendent of Works Urban Council, Minuwangoda Defendants-Appellants-Appellants Vs. P. V. Munasinghe No. 248, Old Road, Minuwangoda. Currently No. 248, Pathaha Road, Veediyawatta, Udugampola Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2024-02-29	SC/APPEAL/36/2019	U. Don Reginold Felix De Silva No. 146/32/A, Salmal Place, Mattegoda. Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner Madduma Arachchilage Sadimenike, No. 146/32/A, Salmal Place, Mattegoda. Substituted Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Director (Land) Acquisition Officer, Road Development Authority, 9th Floor, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2024-02-29	SC/APPEAL/35/2016	K. I. Mohamed Marzook of No. 50/1, Railway Station Road, Haputale. 1st Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Dr. Mackinsley Gamini Dassanayake of No. 24, Aloe Avenue, Colombo 03. (Deceased) 2nd Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent 2A. Thamara Kumari Ramani Dassanayake, nee Tennekoon, No. 24, Aloe Avenue, Colombo 03 2AA. Mackingsley Kushan Dassanayake, No. 24, Aloe Avenue, Colombo 03 Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents Jailabdeen Jaleel of No. 9, Thambipilliai Avenue, Haputale (Deceased) 2nd Defendant-Respondent Mrs. Hyacinth Sita Seneviratne of 24 Aloe Avenue, Colombo 3 (a Trustee of “The Dassanayake Trust” (Deceased) 1st Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent Sarathchandra Bandara Ehelepola Seneviratne of 4420, Hawthrone Street, Washington D. C United States of America, 3rd Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 3. Nageswary Arumugam 4. Miss N. Krishasamy 5. N. Kumaresmoorthy all of No. 9, Thambipilliai Avenue, Haputale Defendants-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2024-02-29	SC/RULE/3/2017	Nagananda Kodituwakku Attorney-at-Law 99, Subadrarama Road, Nugegoda Respondent View More		Section 42(2)	Judicature Act No. 2 of 1978	Download
2024-02-29	SC/APPEAL/183/2017	No. 420/1 Lansiyawatta Road, Pathegama, Balapitiya. Applicant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 4. W. T. Ellawala Chairman, Sinhalese Sports Club 35, Maitland Place, Colombo 07 5. A. D. H. Samaranayake, Secretary, Sinhalese Sports Club, 35, Maitland Place, Colombo 07. 6. S. Gunawardena, Treasurer, Sinhalese Sports Club, 35, Maitland Place, Colombo 07 Respondents-Appellants-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2024-02-29	SC/APPEAL/133/2012	Kanangara Koralage Dona Anurushhika, No. 09, Siddhamulla, Piliyandala Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner Kanangara Koralage Don Lessly Kanangara. (Deceased) Vs Bank of Ceylon, Head Office, New Building, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2024-02-29	SC/APPEAL/141/2012	Abekoon Mudiyanselage Seelawathie Kumarihamy of Yapa Niwasa, Millawana, Matale. Through her Power of Attorney Holder Yapa Mudiyanselage Chandana Yapa Bandara of Yapa Niwasa, Millawana, Matale. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Galakumburegedara Wijerathna of Madagama, Millawana, Matale. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J.			Download
2024-02-29	SC/APPEAL/156/2012	1. Withanage Don Ariyarathne (Deceased) 1A. Vithanage Don Charith Jithendra 1B. Vithanage Dona Nethmi 1C. Vithanage Dona Sanduni All of No. 39/22A, Hospital Road, Waththawa, Matugama. 2. Opatha Kankanamge Don Neetha Ranjani (Deceased) 2A. Vithanage Don Charith Jithendra 2B. Vithanage Dona Nethmi 2C. Vithanage Dona Sanduni All of No. 39/22A, Hospital Road, Waththawa, Matugama. 1A To 1C and 2A to 2C Substituted Defendants-Respondents-Appellants Vs. Kodithuwakku Arachchilage Don Mithrasena (Deceased) Temple Junction, Welipanna Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent 1A. Tharindu Madushan Kodithuwakku 1B. Kodithuwakku Arachchige Don Sajith Madhusanka 1C. Randika Madushashi Kodithuwakku All of Temple Junction, Welipanna. 1A to 1C Substituted Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2024-02-28	SC/APPEAL/153/2019	Warnakulasuriya Ludgar Leo Kamal Thamel, ‘Rebeka’, Play Ground Road, Wennappuwa. Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Nawarathna Tirani Deepika Damayanthi Nawarathne, ‘Rebeka’, Play Ground Road, Wennapuwa. Defendant-Petitioner-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-02-28	SC/APPEAL/23/2014	T. Leslie De Silva, No. 39, Gurudeniya Road, Ampitiya. 4A and 5th Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 3. Jayathge Dharmasena All of Alugolla, Hewadeewala. Defendant-Respondents NOW BETWEEN 2. Jayathge Somawathy 3. Jayathge Dharmasena Both of Alugolla, Hewadeewala 2nd and 3rd Defendant-Respondent-Appellants Vs. 1. Jalathge Rathnawathy of Alugolla, Hewadeewala. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent 2. Jayathge Leelawathy of Alugolla, Hewadeewala. 1st Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-02-28	SC/APPEAL/179/2019	1. Sembukutti Arachchige Shanthi Siriwardena, Ingaradaula, Narangoda. (Deceased) 1A. Sembukutti Arachchige Radhika Siriwardena, Ingaradaula, Narangoda. 2. Sembukutti Arachchige Premaratne, Dambagahagedera, Yakwila. 3. Sembukutti Arachchige Piyathilaka, Ingaradaula, Narangoda. 4. Sembukutti Arachchige Dharmasena, Ambalangoda. (Deceased) 4A. Gange Lalitha De Silva (Deceased) 4B. Sembukutti Arachchige Sisira Priyankara 4C. Sembukutti Arachchige Sisira Sanoja Dilhani All of No. 5, Polwatta Municipal Houses, Ambalangoda. 5. Sembukutti Arachchige Leelawati Manike, Ingaradaula, Narangoda. 6. Sembukutti Arachchige Paulu Appuhamy, Munamaldeniya, Akaravatta. 1A, 2nd, 3rd, 4B, 4C, 4D, 5th and 6th Respondent-Respondent-Appellants Vs. Sooriya Pahtirennehelage Piyalka Weerakanthi, Ingaradaula, Narangoda. Petitioner–Appellant–Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-02-28	SC/CHC APPEAL/81/2014	Nirmala Anura Fernando, No. 233/8, Cotta Road, Colombo 08. Presently at: No. 65/09, Wickramasinghe Mawatha, Battaramulla. 2nd Defendant-Appellant Vs. 01. Sri Lanka Savings Bank Limited, No. 110, D.S. Senanayake Mawatha, Colombo 08. Plaintiff-Respondent 02. Globe Investments (Private) Limited, No. 233/8, Cotta Road, Colombo 08. Presently at: No. 65/09, Wickramasinghe Mawatha, Battaramulla. 1st Defendant-Respondent 03. Estelita Rozobelle Dolores Fernando, No. 233/8, Cotta Road, Colombo 08. Presently at: No. 65/09, Wickramasinghe Mawatha, Battaramulla. 3rd Defendant-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-02-28	SC/APPEAL/173/2018	Ceylinco Insurance PLC 4th Floor Ceylinco House No. 69, Janadhipathi Mawatha Colombo 1 Respondent-Petitioner-Petitioner Vs. Z. O. A [Formerly Z.O.A Refugee Care Netherlands] No. 34, Gower Street Colombo 05. Claimant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2024-02-28	SC/CHC APPEAL/45/2014	1. Abdul Cader Mohomed Faizer, 2. Seyyed Khan Azad Khan, Both carrying on business in Partnership under the name, style and firm of “Regal Tyre House” at No. 149, Jayantha Weerasekara Mawatha, Colombo 10. Defendant-Appellants Vs. Seylan Bank PLC, No. 69, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01. Presently at “Ceylinco-Seylan Towers”, No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2024-02-28	SC/CHC APPEAL/26/2003	Dehigaspe Patabendige Nishantha Nanayakkara, No. 34/1, First Lane, Egodawatta Road, Boralesgamuwa. Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Ceylon MKN Eco Power (Pvt) Ltd., No. 202, Moratuwa Road, Piliyandala. 2. Yukinori Kyuma, No. 11A, Queen’s Terrace, Colombo 03. 3. Norika Kyuma, No. 11A, Queen’s Terrace, Colombo 03. Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-02-27	SC/CHC APPEAL/23/2016	2. Gopalan Kamalanathan, Visnu Kovil Road, Kiran. 3. Gopalan Padma Yogan, Kumaralaya Veethi Kiran. 2nd and 3rd Defendant-Petitioner-Appellants Vs. Lanka Orix Leasing Company Plc. 100/1, Sri Jayawardenapura Mwatha, Rajagiriya. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 1. Meera Mohideen Mohammadu Azar No.329, Jumma Mosque, Meerauwodai, Oddamawaddi. 1st Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2024-02-27	SC/APPEAL/82/2019	Beminahennadige Krishantha Ranmal Pieris No. 41, Mahavidana Mawatha, Koralawella, Moratuwa. Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Officer-in-Charge Police Station, Wellawatta. 2. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2024-02-27	SC/APPEAL/74/2016	Dissanayaka Mudiyanselage Senarath Bandara Dissanayaka, 16, Uplands, Kandy. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Muthukuda Wijesuriya Arachchige Jayantha Nishantha Wijesuriya, 103, Polgolla, Kandy. Now at 16, Uplands, Kandy. Defendant-Petitioner-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-02-27	SC/APPEAL/144/2022	DFCC Bank PLC, No. 73/5, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 1st Defendant-Appellant Vs. Laththuwa Handi Harindu Dharshana, No. 35, Kandy Road, Kiribathgoda, Kelaniya. Plaintiff-Respondent Schokman & Samerawickreme, No. 290, Havelock Road, Colombo 05. 2nd Defendant-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-02-27	SC/APPEAL/147/2014	S.U. Dungi, No.26F, Dodanwela Passage, Kandy. 3rd Defendant-Petitioner-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Anita George Carey, Hunts House, West Lavington, NR, Devizes, Wiltshire, England. By her Attorney A.L.B. Britto Muthunayagam, No.50, Rosmead Place, Colombo 07. 2. William George Carey 3. Rhiannon George Carey 4. Angharad George Carey 5. Catrin George Carey 6. David George Carey All of Hunt House, West Lavington, NR, Devizes, Wiltshire, England appearing by their next friend A.L.B. Britto Muthunayagam. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondents 1. G.H.G.Elizabeth, No.100, Peddler Street, Galle. 2. Mirissa Gallappathige Eric Piyadarshana Udaya Kumara, ‘Somagiri’, Goviyapana, Ahangama. 4. Mohamed Ali Mubarak, No. 65D, Akuressa Road, Katugoda, Galle. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Murdu N.B.Fernando, PC. J.			Download
2024-02-27	SC/APPEAL/54/2019	1A. Sriya Sepalika Suludagoda of No:60/10 M, Templers Road, Mount Lavinia. 1B 1. Luwis Widanelage Gimhani Thilini Suludagoda 1B 2. Luwis Widanelage Emil Thilanga Suludagoda 1B 3. Luwis Widanelage Eshan Thiwanka Suludagoda 1B 4. Luwis Widanelage Udaya Bhathiya Suludagoda (Minor) Appearing by his next friend; Luwis Widanelage Emil Thilanga Suludagoda All of No. 60/10K, Tempers Road, Mount Lavinia. 1C. Neetha Karmani Suludagoda of No: 60/10 J, Templers Road, Mount Lavinia. 1D. Geetha Chandani Suludagoda of No: 60/10 H, Templers Road, Mount Lavinia. Substituted Plaintiffs-Respondents-Petitioners-Appellants Vs. 1. Kotagoda Mudiyanselage Seneviratne Yatigammana, 2. Kotagoda Mudiyanselage Swarnamali Yatigammana, 3. Kotagoda Mudiyanselage Yashodara Srima Kumari Yatigammana, All of No: 53/4, Sri Gunarathana Mawatha, Mount Lavinia. Defendants-Appellants-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2024-02-26	SC/APPEAL/33/2019	DFCC Bank, No. 73/5, Galle Road, Colombo 01. Petitioner-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Warnakulasuriya Chandima Prasad Rajitha Fernando, ‘Sarani Aquarium’ No. 297, Kolinjadiya West, Wennappuwa. Respondent-Petitioner-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-02-22	SC/APPEAL/91/2020	Muthuthantrige Rienzie alias Riyenze Jagath Cooray, No. 10, Uyana Road, Moratuwa. Plaintiff-Judgment Creditor Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1.Sellapperumage Anne Elizabeth Fernando, No. 78/1, Koralawella North, Moratuwa. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 1. Mahamendige Ranjan Mendis 2. Werahennedige Mary Claris Shyamalie both of No.550, 3rd Lane, Koralawella, Moratuwa Petitioners-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe			Download
2024-02-22	SC/FR/325/2013	Shreemath Muthukumara Algawatte, No.154/1, Anagiyawatte, Gabadagoda, Payagala Petitioner Vs. 1. Chamika Kulasiri, Inspector of Police, Officer-in-Charge, Payagala Police Station. and others Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2024-02-21	SC/APPEAL/68/2014	1. Paranirupasingham Arulrajasingham, No. 22, Govt. Quarters, Bambalapitiya. 1st Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. 2. Vadivelu Anandasiva. Vigneshwary Anandasiva. Both of No. 15, Alexandra Road, Colombo 6. Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents 1. Subramaniam Shanmuganathan, No. 56, Vaverset Place, Colombo 6. 2nd Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2024-02-21	SC/FR/457/2011	Priyankara Kamalanath Kodithuwakku, ‘Wanniarachchi Janaudanagama,’ Borala, Pelmadulla. Petitioner vs. 1. B.V. Wijeratne, Assistant Superintendent of Police (Retired), Isuru Place, Paradise, Kuruwita. 2. E. Dhanapala, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Office of the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Ratnapura and others Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2024-02-20	SC/APPEAL/249/2017	W.M Piyal Senadheera, Kanthoruwatta, Thalawa South, Kariyamadiththa. Registered Owner Claimant Petitioner Petitioner V. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2024-02-19	SC/APPEAL/106/2016	Waduge Vijih Vishvanath Fernando “Gimhana” Nalluruwa, Panadura 1A(C) and 2 Defendant-Respondent-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Waduge Buddhini Manel Fernando No. 24, Dibbede Road , Nalluruwa, Panadura 1A and 2A Substituted Plaintiff-Petitioner-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC			Download
2024-02-19	SC/APPEAL/12/2023	Heinken Lanka Limited, (formerly Asia Pacific Brewery (Lanka) Limited) Green House, No. 260, Nawala Road, Nawala. Petitioner-Appellant Ajith Putha Distributors (Pvt) Ltd, Galahitiyawa, Madampe. Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2024-02-16	SC/SPL LA/246/2022	Ms Kayleigh Frazer 972/4, Kekunagahawatta Road, Akuregoda Battaramulla Petitioner–Petitioner 1. Controller General of Immigration Department of Immigration and Emigration Suhurupaya, Sri Subhuthipura, Battaramulla 2. The Attorney General The Attorney General’s Office Colombo 12 Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2024-02-15	SC/APPEAL/121/2021	Hatton National Bank PLC., No. 479, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. Petitioner–Appellant–Appellant - Vs - 1. Kodikara Gedara Seetha Sriyani Kumari 2. Attanayake Mudiyanselage Malki Sumudu Attanayake 3. Attanayake Mudiyanselage Malshan Nethsarani Attanayake 4. Attanayake Mudiyanselage Hirusha Deshan Adithya Attanayake All are at, 2nd Mile Post, Morayaya, Minipe. Respondents–Respondents–Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2024-02-15	SC/APPEAL/29/2023	1. P.P. Gunawardena. Sarath Gunawardena Mawatha, Wewala, Hikkaduwa. 2. Sidath Charuka Gunawardena. Sarath Gunawardena Mawatha, Wewala, Hikkaduwa. (Appearing through his Power of Attorney holder Buddhika Nilushan Ukwatta at C/FO 03 98/62, Richmmond Hill Residencies, Wekunagoda, Galle.) Respondents-Appellants-Appellants Vs Balage Padmarupa. Near the Rail Gate, Welhengoda, Ahangama. Applicant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J.			Download
2024-02-15	SC/APPEAL/69/2013	1. (A) Sumanasiri Harischandra 2. (B) Susila Mukthalatha 3. (C) Chithra Dharmalatha 4. (D) Liliat Chandrawathie 5. (E) Piyaseli Sarathchandra 6. (F) Jayasiri Nimalchandra 7. (G) M. Aratchilage Ariyaseeli 8. (H) Gayani Fonseka 9. (I) Pradeep Premachandra 10. (J) Dilhani Fonseka All of Keppetiwalana, Alawwa. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellants Vs Amarapathy Mudiyanselage M.J. Amarapathy, Ihala Keppitiwalana, Alawwa. 1(D) Substituted Defendant-Appellant 1. (A) Lucy Nona 2. (B) Amarapathy M. Senarathne (Deceased) 3. 1(B) Amarapathy Mudiyanselage Priyantha Padmakumari Senarathne 4. 2(B) Amarapathy Mudiyanselage Piyumi Pushpa Amarapathy 5. (C) A. M. Indra Amarapathy (Deceased) 6. 1(C) Amarapathy Mudiyanselage Jane Nona 7. 2(C) Amarapathy Mudiyanselage Premawathie 8. 3(C) Amarapathy Mudiyanselage Anulawathie 9. 4(C) Amarapathy Mudiyanselage Chandrawathie 10. 5(C) Amarapathy Mudiyanselage Wijeratne 11. (D) A.M.M.J. Amarapathy And Others. View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.			Download
2024-02-15	SC/SPL LA/38/2020	Sunbee Ready-mix (Pvt.) Limited, Suncity Mezzanine Floor, No. 18, St. Anthony’s Road, Colombo 3. Respondent–Respondent-Petitioner 1. 2. 3. K.R.A. Kusumsiri, No. 54/4, Rukmale, Pannipitiya. R.D.D. Sanath Priyantha, No. 467/1, Korathota, Kaduwela. P.M.A. Saminda Jayashantha Siriwardena, No. 111/1, Kalapaluwawa, Kalagedihena. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. K.K. Nimal Gunasiri, No. 596/3, Jayanthi Road, Athurugiriya. M.B.A. Gamini Ariyasinghe, No. 49, Aranayaka Janapadaya, Aranayaka. S.D.W.K.S. Gunasekera, No. 131/10, Nidahas Uyana, Madulawa North, Padukka. M.S. Gunapala, No. E/7/A, Hathgampola West, Aranayake. W.A. Athula Indika Weerasuriya, No. 21/148, 1/1, Dadagama East, Veyangoda. P.A.C. Sanath Kumara, No. 1/50, Ellamulla. Pasyala. 10. L.G. Jeevendra Sanjeewa Danapala, No. 201/2, Vihara Mawatha, Radawadunna. 11. H.P. Sirisena, No. 80, Anandagama, Buruthagama, Akaravita, Avissawella. 12. Vithanage Janaka Sampath Vithanage, Panawattagama, Meegasthenna, Yatiyanthota. And Others View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2024-02-13	SC/APPEAL/107/2023	Wille Arachchige Madushani Perera or Mille Arachchige Madushani Perera, No. 231/2, School Lane, Wedamulla, Kelaniya. Plaintiff Vs. Indrani Silva, No. 99, Naramminiya Road, Kelaniya. Defendant AND Indrani Silva, No. 99, Naramminiya Road, Kelaniya. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Wille Arachchige Madushani Perera or Mille Arachchige Madushani Perera, No. 231/2, School Lane, Wedamulla, Kelaniya. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Wille Arachchige Madushani Perera or Mille Arachchige Madushani Perera, No. 231/2, School Lane, Wedamulla, Kelaniya. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Indrani Silva, No. 99, Naramminiya Road, Kelaniya. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena			Download
2024-02-13	SC/APPEAL/4/2023	Bulathgama Wedalage Nirasha, No. 106, Ranwala, Kegalle. By way of her Power of Attorney Holder Bulathgama Wedalage Shamith Shiwantha Bulathgama Weerasinghe, 68/3, Attanagalla Road, Dangolla Watta, Nittambuwa. Petitioner-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Rathna Bhushana Acharige Wimalasena, No. 290, Ranwala, Kegalle. 1st Defendant-Petitioner-Respondent Bulathgama Wedalage Piyasena, No. 106, Ranwala, Kegalle. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent Seylan Bank Limited, Ceylon Seylan Towers, No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 2nd Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena			Download
2024-02-12	SC/CHC APPEAL/3/2012	1. Chelliah Ramachandran and 2. Manohari Ramachandran Both of 49, Collingwood Place, Colombo 06. 2nd to 3rd Defendant-Appellants 3. Llyod Rajaratnam Devarajah 49, 6/2 Collingwood Place, Colombo 06. 4. Vadivelu Anandasiva (Deceased) 49, 1/2 Collingwood Place, Colombo 06. 5. Mrs. Karthiga Senthuran and 6. Shanmugavadivel Senthuran both of 49, 1/4 Collingwood Place, Colombo 06 and presently of P.O. Box 52, PC, 111 CPO FEEB, Oman. 7. Thuraippa Viswalingam 49, 2/1 Collingwood Place, Colombo 06. 8. Yogeswary Raveendiran 49, 2/3 Collingwood Place, Colombo 06. 9. Sabapathy Arunasalam Arumugan 49, 3/1 Collingwood Place, Colombo 06. 10. Anthonypillai Mary Joseph 49, 3/2 Collingwood Place, Colombo 06. 11. Nagalingam Santhasoruban 49, 3/3 Collingwood Place, Colombo 06. 12. Velupillai Arulanantham 49, 3/4 Collingwood Place, Colombo 06. 13. Thanabalasingham Krishnamohan 49, 4/4 Collingwood Place, Colombo 06. And Others View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-02-12	SC/APPEAL/75/2017	2A. M.D. Rohan Nishantha No. 64/16, Templers Road, Mt. Lavinia. 2(a) Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Maddumage Don Somaratne No. 64/15, Templers Road, Mt. Lavinia. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent Maddumage Don Somapala (Deceased) No. 64/15, Templers Road, Mt. Lavinia. 1st Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 1A. M.D. Swarnaseeli, No. 64/15, Templers Road, Mt. Lavinia. 1(a) Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-02-12	SC/APPEAL/92/2014	1. Abdul Fareed Mohamed Malikge Nawaz 2. Abdul Fareed Mohamed Malikge Riyaz 3. Abdul Fareed Mohamed Malikge Farees All of New Lanka Stores, Trincomalee Road, Kadavediya, Horawpathana Defendant-Respondent-Appellants Vs. Indrani Bopage, Kadaveediya, Horawpathana Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-02-09	SC/APPEAL/124/2022	Bothalayage Athula Sumanasekara Alawala, Thunthota. Plaintiff Vs 1. Mananalage Sumathipala 2. Dissanayake Ralalage Ajith Munaweera 3. A. Rapiel Singho (deceased) 3a. Ganthota Karagalage Nandawathie All at: Alawala, Thunthota 4. Galigamuwa Pradeshiya Sabhawa Pitagaldeniya Defendants AND THEN BETWEEN Bothalayage Athula Sumanasekara Alawala, Thunthota Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Mananalage Sumathipala 2. Dissanayake Ralalage Ajith Munaweera 3a. Ganthota Karagalage Nandawathie 4. Galigamuwa Pradeshiya Sabhawa Pitagaldeniya Defendant-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Mananalage Sumathipala Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Bothalayage Athula Sumanasekara Alawala, Thunthota Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent 1. Dissanayake Ralalage Ajith Munaweera 2. A Rapiel Singho 3. Ganthota Karagalage Nandawathie All at: Alawala, Thunthota. 4. Galigamuwa Pradeshiya Sabhawa Pitagaldeniya Defendant-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-02-09	SC/APPEAL/14/2019	Kalanchidewage Suresh Nandana Presently at Remond Prison Welikada, Boralla, Colombo 08. 3rd Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant—Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2024-02-07	SC/APPEAL/49/2016	Dasanayake Achchilage Dammika Kumara Dasanayake, Otharakiruwanpola, Keppitiwalana. Respondent–Respondent-Appellant Vs Pilawala Pathirennehelage Upeksha Erandathi, Otharakiruwanpola, Keppitiwalana. Applicant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J.			Download
2024-02-02	SC/FR/38/2017	1. Jayasinghe Herath Mudiyanselage Kusum Indika Jayasinghe, No. 14, 3rd Lane, Dharmasoka Mawatha, Aruppola, Kandy. 2. Jayasinghe Herath Mudiyanselage Swetha Arundathi Jayasinghe, No. 14, 3rd Lane, Dharmasoka Mawatha, Aruppola, Kandy. Petitioners Vs. 1. Secretary, Ministry of Education, ‘Isurupaya’, Battaramulla. and others Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2024-02-02	SC/APPEAL/91/2017	Sri Lankan Airlines Limited, Level 19-22, East Tower, World Trade Center, Echelon Square, Colombo 1. (also of Bandaranaike International Airport, Katunayake) Respondent-Appellant-Appellant Vs. P. R. S. E. Corea, No. 343/14, Ranwala, Kegalle. Applicant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2024-02-01	SC/APPEAL/80/2022	Sudath Sugeeshwara Bamunu-Arachchi, No.28/B, Napagoda, Nittambuwa. Plaintiff Vs. Mahinda Dematagolla, No. 68/10, Kimbulhenawatta, Nittambuwa. Defendant AND BETWEEN Mahinda Dematagolla, No. 68/10, Kimbulhenawatta, Nittambuwa. Defendant-Appellant Sudath Sugeeshwara Bamunu-Arachchi, No. 28/B, Napagoda, Nittambuwa. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Sudath Sugeeshwara Bamunu-Arachchi, No. 28/B, Napagoda, Nittambuwa. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Mahinda Dematagolla, No. 68/10, Kimbulhenawatta, Nittambuwa. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2024-02-01	SC/APPEAL/70/2022	Textile, Garment and Clothing Workers’ Union (For Kurukulasuriya Sunil Fonseka) 465/3, New Kandy Road, Peragas Junction, Biyagama. Applicant–Respondent–Appellant Vs. Diamond Cutters Limited Panadura. Respondent–Appellant–Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2024-02-01	SC/APPEAL/202/2016	Jalathge Rathnawathy of Alugolla, Hewadeewala. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Jayathge Leelawathy 2. Jayathge Somawathy 3. Jayathge Dharmasena All of Alugolla, Hewadeewala. Defendants AND Jalathge Rathnawathy of Alugolla, Hewadeewala. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Jayathge Leelawathy 2. Jayathge Somawathy 3. Jayathge Dharmasena All of Alugolla, Hewadeewala. Defendant-Respondents NOW BETWEEN 2. Jayathge Somawathy 3. Jayathge Dharmasena Both of Alugolla, Hewadeewala 2nd and 3rd Defendant-Respondent-Appellants Vs. 1. Jalathge Rathnawathy of Alugolla, Hewadeewala. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent 2. Jayathge Leelawathy of Alugolla, Hewadeewala. 1st Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena			Download
2024-02-01	SC/SPL LA/4/2024	01. Lieutenant General H.L.V.M. Liyanage Commander of the Army Army Headquarters, Akuregoda, Baththaramulla. 02. General G.D.H. Kamal Gunaratne Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Defence Headquarters, Complex, Sri Jayawardenepura, Kotte and others Respondent-Petitioners-Appellants Vs. Brigadier Chandana Ranaweera, 280/139, Garden City, Katubedda, Moratuwa. Petitioner-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J.			Download
2024-01-31	SC/FR/136/2022	1. P. D. A. Panapitiya, No. 36/2, Kaduboda, Delgoda. 2. H. L. H. Gayathri Hewawasam, No. 36/2, Kaduboda, Delgoda. Petitioners Vs. 1. Mangala De Soyza Amarasekara, Chief Inspector of Police, Officer in Charge, Police Station, Kosgoda. 2. Asela Premanath De Silva, Inspector of Police, Officer in Charge, Crimes Division, Police Station, Kosgoda. 3. Wickrama Dilan Indika De Silva, Police Sergeant (9476), Police Station, Kosgoda. 4. U. M. Amarasiri, Assistant Superintendent of Police I, Officer of Assistant Superintendent of Police, Ambalangoda. 5. Y. L. Leelawansa, Senior Superintendent of Police, SSP’s Office, Elpitiya. 5A. Mahesh Kumarasinghe, Superintendent of Police, SSP’s Office, Elpitiya. 6. D. S. Wickramasinghe, Senior Superintendent of Police, Special Investigation Unit (SIU), Technical Junction, Colombo 10. 7. M. D. R. S. Daminda, Senior DIG Southern Province, Senior DIG’s Office, Anagarika Dharmapala Mawatha, Matara. 7A. Ajith Rohana, Senior DIG Southern Province, Senior DIG’s Office, Anagarika Dharmapa View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2024-01-31	SC/APPEAL/46/2019, SC/APPEAL/47/2019, SC/APPEAL/48/2019, SC/APPEAL/49/2019, SC/APPEAL/50/2019	1. Sri Lanka Transport Board, Head Office, No. 200, Kirula Road, Narahenpitiya, Colombo 05. 2. Inquiry Officer, Sri Lanka Transport Board, Kondavil (N), Jaffna. 3. Chairman Appeal Board, Sri Lanka Transport Board, Kondavil, Jaffna Respondents-Appellants-Appellants 1. A. Arunthavam, No. 112, Mill Road, Uklangulam, Vavuniya. 2. V. Tharsigan, Putthur East, Sorkathidal. 3. P. Gajamugan, Egatiyan, Karaveffy East, Karaveddy. 4. D. Noyal, 4th Cross Street, Kurthar Kovil Veethy, Keeri Mannar. 5. P. Ranjan, Kovinthapuram, Elavaalai. Applicants-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2024-01-31	SC/APPEAL/30/2022	1. Rev. E.H. Palitha Mission House, Liyanwala, Padukka. 1A. Rev. Ranjan Karunaratne Maithri Christ Church, Preeman Mawatha, Anuradhapura. 2. Raja Uswetakeiyawa No.10/1, Kotugodella Street, Kandy. 3. Cyril Piyasena Wijayahewa No.646/1 A, Henawatte Road, Gonawala, Kelaniya. 4. Dharmadasa Kumarage, No.306/47, Thalawathugoda Road, Madiwela, Kotte. 5. Munisami Nesamani Danibar Mawatha, Hatton. The Trustees of Christian Labour Brotherhood of No.39, YMBA Building, Bristol Street, Colombo 01. Plaintiff-Respondents-Appellants Vs. Kurugamage Kingsley Perera, No.10/1, Attidiya Road, Ratmalana. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-01-30	SC/HC CALA/351/2022	1. Nelundeniyalage Godwin Samarasinghe Uraulla, Ambanpitiya. 3RD DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-PETITIONER Vs. Soma Weerasinghe 1/64, Polgahawela Road, Polgahawela. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT 1. Nelundeniyalage Kamalawathie Kaduradeniya, Gepala Gedara. 2. Nelundeniyalage Lesly Samarasinghe (deceased) Galigamuwa Town, Ambanpitiya, Suwashakthigama. 3. Nelundeniyalage Chandra Padmini Galigamuwa Town, Abanpitiya, Suwashakthigama. 4. Nelundeniyalage Pushpa Padmini Galigamuwa Town, Labugala, Dammala. 5. Nelundeniyalage Kusuma Weerasinghe Galigamuwa Town, Labugala, Dammala. 6. Nelundeniyalage Amaris 853/3, Ambanpitiya, Uraulla. 4th, 5th and 8th to 11th DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENTS 1. Leela Edirisinghe 1/64, Polgahawela Road, Polgahawela. 2. Karuna Edirisinghe “Somi Kalum”, Egoda Kuleepitiya, Polgahawela. 6. Nelundeniyalage Nandawathie Galigamuwa Town, Abanpitiya, Suwashakthigama. 7. Nelundeniyalage Samarasinghe Galigamuwa Town, Ambanpitiya. 1st, 2nd, 6th and 7th DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-01-30	SC/APPEAL/225/2014	Mohamadu Abu Sali Son of Adapelegedara Mohamed Hasim Lebbe, 25/2, Medillethanna, Ankumbura Vs. 1. Ummu Kaldun daughter of Mohomed Illas, 139, Kurunagala Road, Galewala 2. M.I.M. Falulla 13, Kalawewa Road, Galewela Defendants AND BETWEEN M.I.M. Falulla 13, Kalawewa Road, Galewela 2nd Defendant-Appellant Vs. Mohamadu Abu Sali Son of Adapelegedara Mohamed Hasim Lebbe 25/2, Medillethanna, Ankumbura Plaintiff-Respondent Ummu Kaldun Daughter of Mohomed Illas, 139, Kurunagala Road, Galewala 1st Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Mohamadu Abu Sali Son of Adapelegedara Mohamed Hasim Lebbe, 25/2, Medillethanna, Ankumbura Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. Ummu Kaldun Daughter of Mohomed Illas, 139, Kurunagala Road, Galewala And now M.F.M. Younis Stores, 64/A, 6/2, Waththagama Road, Madawala 1st Defendant-Respondent-Respondent M.I.M. Falulla 13, Kalawewa Road, Galewela 2nd Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2024-01-30	SC/APPEAL/172/2017	Madara Mahaliyanage Bandusena, C/O Mr. M.K. Swarnapala Yakdehiwatte, Nivitigala. Petitioner-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Don Alfred Weerasekera (Deceased) 1A. Don Dharmadasa Weerasekera, Yakdehiwatte, Labungederawatte, Nivitigala. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent AND 1. Gonakoladeniya Gamage Pantis Appuhamy (Deceased) 1A. Gonakoladeniya Gamage Gamini Premadasa (Deceased) 1B. Gonakoladeniya Gamage, Udayajeewa Premadasa, Kala Bhumi, Pathakada Road, Yakdehiwatte, .... View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2024-01-29	SC/APPEAL/137/2019	1. Thanippuli Achchige Seelawathie No. 127, Shantha Niwasa, Halpita, Polgasowita 2. Polgahawattage Upali Sigera No. 92, Kanatta Road, Nugegoda 3. Polgahawattage Swarna Sigera No. 92, Kanatta Road, Nugegoda 4. W.W.W.M. Shalika Prasadi No. 127, Shantha Niwasa, Halpita, Polgasowita 5. W.W.W.M. Sarika Krishadi No. 127, Shantha Niwasa, Halpita, Polgasowita 6. W.W.W.M. Chanaka No. 127, Shantha Niwasa, Halpita, Polgasowita Defendant-Respondent-Petitioners Vs. Wijesekera Weerawickrema Wickremasinghe Mudiyanselage Dharmapala 188/8, Pathiragoda Road, Navinna, Maharagama Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2024-01-26	SC/FR/171/2017	L. Saman Kumara, No. 04/3, Jaya Samarugama, Kandana. Petitioner Vs. 1. Rathnakumara Collure, District Medical Officer, District Hospital, Kandana. 2. U. L. Perera, Director, Colombo Teaching Hospital, Ragama. 3. S. K. Gamage, Administrative Officer, Medical Support Division, No. 357, Baddegama, Wimalawansa Mawatha, Colombo 10. 4. D. M. C. K. Dissanayake, Director (Control) 04. 5. J. M. W. Jayasundara Bandara, Director General of Health Services. 4th to 5th Respondents all of; Ministry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, “Sawsiripaya”, No. 385, Rev. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 6. The Honourable Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2024-01-24	SC/CHC/84/2014	Kanthi Fernando, No. 10, Wijesekara Place, Kalutara South. Petitioner-Appellant Vs. W. Leo Fernando (Maddagedara) Estates Company Limited, No. 01, Castle Terrace, Colombo 08. View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2024-01-23	SC/APPEAL/127/2013	Nilanthi Anula de Silva, No. 152, 6th Cross Lane, Borupana Road, Ratmalana. Presently at, No.21 A, Borupana Road, Ratmalana. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Weliketigedara Kemawathie, No. 32/1, Gamini Lane, Ratmalana. 8th Defendant-Appellant-Respondent 1. Hagodage Selpi, No.34/6, Gamini Lane, Cashiya Avenue, Ratmalana 1a. Urala Ralage Francis, No.34/7, 6th Cross Street, Borupana Road, Ratmalana. 2. Hettiarachchige Carolina Abeysekara (nee Pinto Jayawardene), No.18/3, Cashiya Mawatha, Ratmalana. 3. Hettiarachchige Newlia Thilakawathie Pinto Jayawardene, No.17, Cashiya Mawatha, Ratmalana. 4. Kuruppuge Dona Rosolin, No.32, Gamini Lane, Ratmalana, (Deceased) 4a. Mahapatiranage Gnanaratna, No. 127/B, Gammana Road, Aluthgama, Bandaragama. 5. Mahapathirage Ariyapala, No.32/A, Gamini Lane, Ratmalana. 6. S. Somawathie Jayaweera Bandara, No. 199, Hill Street, Dehiwala. 7. Sinhara Sam Silva, No.20/6, Gamini Lane, Ratmalana. 9. M.G.Hemawathi, No.67, St. Rita’s Road, Ratmalana. 10. Sooriya Arachchige Simon Singho, No. View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2024-01-23	SC/APPEAL/69/2020	Saraswathie Duraisamy, No. 22, Approach Road, Fruit Hill, Hatton. Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner S. Manickarasa, No. 47/8, Walls Lane, Mutual, Colombo 15. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2024-01-23	SC/APPEAL/48/2021	1. Saffany Chandrasekera also known as Sappany Chandrasekera 2. Nalini Natasha Chandrasekera Both of No. 66B/19, Sri Maha Vihara Road, Kalubowila, Dehiwala Carrying on business under the name, style and firm of Cambridge Traders at No. 22E, Quarry Road, Colombo 12. DEFENDANTS – APPELLANTS – APPELLANTS vs. Indian Overseas Bank, having its Central Office at No. 763 Anna salai, Madras (Chennai), India and having a branch at No.139, Main Street, Pe????ah, Colombo 11. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2024-01-17	SC/CHC APPEAL/48/2017	1. Loku Galappaththige Susantha, No. 77/5, Ranmal Place, Hewagama, Kaduwela. 2. Ariyawathi Galappaththi, No. 77/5, Ranmal Place, Hewagama, Kaduwela. Defendants-Appellants Vs. Kalutota Investment and Leasing Limited, No. 49, Hudson Road, Colombo 03. Presently at, No. 562/16, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2024-01-17	SC/FR/221/2021, SC/FR/225/2021, SC/FR/228/2021	View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-01-17	SC/CHC/APPEAL/46/2017	M.J.N.J. Fernando No. 290, Thoduwawa North, Thoduwawa. Carrying on registered business under the name, Style and firm of Deshan International Imports And Exports. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Freight Links International ( Private) Limited Level 07, Access Towers 278, Union Place, Colombo 02. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-01-17	SC/APPEAL/166/2012	Bandaragama Pradeshiya Sabhawa, Bandaragama INTERVENIENT PETITIONER-APPELLANT. VS (1) Chitra Weerakkoon No. 10, Swarnadisi Pedesa, Koswatte, Nawala. (2) D.M.W. Kannangara No.12, Waragodawatte, Waragoda, Kelaniya. PETITIONER-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS. (1) Hon. Jeewan Kumaratunga Minister of Lands, Ministry of Lands ‘Govijana Mandiraya’, No. 80/05, Rajamalwatte Road, Battaramulla. (1A) Hon. M.K.A.D.S. Gunawardene, Minister of Lands “Mihikatha Medura” , Land Secretariat No. 1200/6, Rajamalwatta Avenue Battaramulla. (1B) Hon. T.B. Ekanayake Minister of Lands and Land Development, “Mihikatha Medura”, Land Secretariat, No. 1200/6, Rajamalwatta Avenue Battaramulla. (1C) Hon. John Amarathunga Minister of Lands and Land Development, “Mihikatha Medura”, Land Secretariat, No. 1200/6, Rajamalwatta Avenue, Battaramulla. (2) Divisional Secretary Bandaragama Divisional Secretariat, Bandaragama. (3) Secretary Ministry of Lands, “Mihikatha Medura” , Land Secretariat, No. 1200/6, Rajamalwatta Avenue, Battaramulla. RESPONDENT-RESPON View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2024-01-16	SC/CHC APPEAL/06/2013	Farzana Clearing Agencies (Private) Ltd. No. F75, People’s Park Complex Gas Works Street Colombo 11. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Kala Traders (Private) Ltd. No. 151, Dam Street Colombo 12. Plaintiff-Petitioner-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC			Download
2024-01-12	SC/APPEAL/75/2014	Polwattage Bandusena Gomez of No. 19/3, Srigal Mawatha, Kohuwala, Nugegoda. Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Weerathunga Arachchige Samuel de Costa (Deceased) 1A. Weerathunga Arachchige Hema de Costa 2. Weerathunga Arachchige Albert de Costa (Deceased) 3. Weerathunga Arachchige Hema de Costa 4. Weerathunga Arachchige Violet de Costa (Deceased) 5. Weerathunga Arachchige Prema de Costa All of No. 31/2, Anderson Road, Kohuwala. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2024-01-09	SC/HC/CALA/367/2016	1.Yoganathan Ranjithkumar 2.Wife Venitta 3.Selvarani widow of Sinnatty Christo All of Maatha Kovilady, Point Pedro Road, Kopay South, Kopay PLAINTIFFS – APPELLANTS - PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Kidinan Rajah (deceased) 2. Wife Amalaranjini 3. Mary Vijitha daughter of Sinnathurai All of Semmankundu, Matha Kovil Lane, Kopay South, Kopay DEFENDANTS – RESPONDENTS - RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2024-01-08	SC/FR/50/2021	1. D. Wathsala Subhashini De Silva 78/E, Gangarama Road, Urawatte, Ambalangoda. 2. Menuwara Gedara Viheli Sehansa Devhari Samarathunga 78/E, Gangarama Road, Urawatte, Ambalangoda. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Hasitha Kesara Wettimuni Former Principal of Dharmasoka College, C/O, Principal, Dharmasoka College, Ambalangoda. 1A. Sanuja Jayawickrama Principal, Dharmasoka College, Ambalangoda. 2. B. Anthony Secretary, Interview Board, C/o Principal, Dharmasoka College, Ambalangoda. 3. T.M. Dayaratne Member, Interview Board, C/o Principal, Dharmasoka College, Ambalangoda. Appeals and Objections Investigation Board, C/o, Principal, Dharmasoka College, Ambalangoda. 11. Prof. Kapila C.K. Perera Former Secretary to the Ministry of Education, C/o Secretary, Ministry of Education, ‘Isurupaya’, Battaramulla. 11A. M. N. Ranasinghe Secretary, Ministry of Education, ‘Isurupaya’ 12. Sobanahandi Dilani No.77/B/1, Gangarama Road, Urawatte, Ambalangoda. 13. R.T. Dahamsara de Zoysa No.77/B/1, Gangarama Road, Urawatte, Ambalangoda. 14. Hon. View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2023-12-14	SC/FR/107/2011	Weheragedara Ranjith Sumangala, No. 137/2, Beliaththawila, Kindelpitiya, Millewa. PETITIONER vs. Bandara, Police Officer, Police Station, Mirihana. 1st RESPONDENT Inspector Bhathiya Jayasinghe, Officer-in-Charge – Emergency Unit, Police Station, Mirihana. 2nd RESPONDENT Egodawele, Chief Inspector, Head Quarters’ Inspector, Police Station, Mirihana. 3rd RESPONDENT Ajith Wanasundara, No. 255, Malagala, Padukka. 4th RESPONDENT M.W.D. Tennakone, Superintendent of Police, Nugegoda Division, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Nugegoda. 5th RESPONDENT Mahinda Balasuriya, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 6th RESPONDENT Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. 7th RESPONDENT View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J			Download
2023-12-14	SC/FR/298/2021	Keliduwa Madduama Liyanage Janaka Priya, “Shanthi”, Galagama North, Nakulugamuwa, Beliaththa. Petitioner Vs, 1. Mr. C.D. Wickramaratne, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 2. Hon Mohan Priyadarshana De Silva, Member of Parliament, Near the Railway Station Dodanduwa (80250). 3. Hon. Rear Admiral Dr. Sarath Weerasekara, Minister of Public Security, 4th Floor, “Suhurupaya”, Battaramulla. 3A. Hon. Tiran Alles, Minister of Public Security, 4th Floor, “Suhurupaya”, Battaramulla. 4. Major General (Retired) Jagath Alwis, Secretary to the Ministry of Public Security, 14th Floor, “Suhurupaya”, Battaramulla. 4A. Mr. S. Hettiarachchi, Secretary to the Ministry of Public Security, 14th Floor, “Suhurupaya”, Battaramulla. 5. Hon. Justice Jagath Balapatabendi, Chairman, Public Service Commission. 6. Mrs. Indrani Sugathadasa, Member, Public Service Commission. 7. Mr. Sundaram Arumainayagam, Member, Public Service Commission. 8. Dr. T.R.C. Ruberu, Member, Public Service Commission. 9. Mr. Ahamod Lebbe View More	HON. VIJITH K. MALALGODA PC, J			Download
2023-12-14	SC/FR/62/2020	M.D.S.A. Perera, No. 59, Pahala Kosgama, Kosgama. Petitioner Vs, 1. Dharmasena Dissanayake, Chairman, Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 1A. Jagath Balapatabendi Chairman, 2. Prof. Hussain Ismail, Member, 2A. Indrani Sugathadasa, Member, 3. Dr. Prathap Ramanujam, Member, 3A. V. Shivagnanasothy, Member, 4. V. Jegarasasingam, Member, 4A. Dr. T.R.C. Ruberu, Member, 5. S. Ranugge, Member, 5A. Ahamod Lebbe Mohamed Saleem, Member, 6. D. Laksiri Mendis, Member, 6A. Leelasena Liyanagama, Member, 7. Sarath Jayathilaka, Member, 7A. Dian Gomes, Member, 8. Sudarma Karunarathna, Member, 8A. Dilith Jayaweera, Member, 9. G.S.A. De Silva P.C., Member, 9A. W.H. Piyadasa, Member, The 2nd to 9th Respondents all of; Public Service Commission, No. 122/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 10. M.A.B. Daya Senarath, Secretary, Public Service Commission, No. 122/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 11. S. Hettiarachchi, Secretary to the Ministry of Public Administration, Home of Affairs, Provincial View More	HON. VIJITH K. MALALGODA PC, J			Download
2023-12-13	SC/APPEAL/16/2020	Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. COMPLAINANT VS Jayasinghe Mudiyanselage Roshan Bandaranayaka, 144/B, School Lane, Kumbalagamuwa, Walapone. ACCUSED AND Jayasinghe Mudiyanselage Roshan Bandaranayaka, 144/B, School Lane, Kumbalagamuwa, Walapone. ACCUSED-APPELLANT VS. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Jayasinghe Mudiyanselage Roshan Bandaranayaka, 144/B, School Lane, Kumbalagamuwa, Walapone. ACCUSED-APPELLANT-APPELLANT VS. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC		In the matter of an application for Special Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of Articles 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-12-13	SC/APPEAL/210/2017	Alawatthage Chularathne Anura De Silva, Batticaloa Road, Ambagolla Junction, Bibile. 2ND ACCUSED-APPELLANT-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Officer In Charge, Police Station, Bibile. COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT 2. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2023-12-05	SC/APPEAL/201/2017	W.P.R.P. Devanagala, No: 26/135, Kumudugama, Dadayamtalawa APPLICANT - VS - Sarvodaya Economic Enterprises Development Services (Guarantee) Ltd (SEEDS), No. 45, Rawatawatte Road, Moratuwa RESPONDENT AND W.P.R.P. Devanagala, No: 26/135, Kumudugama, Dadayamtalawa APPLICANT – APPELLANT - VS - Sarvodaya Economic Enterprises Development Services (Guarantee) Ltd (SEEDS), No. 45, Rawatawatte Road, Moratuwa RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Sarvodaya Economic Enterprises Development Services (Guarantee) Ltd (SEEDS), No. 45, Rawatawatte Road, Moratuwa RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT - APPELLANT - VS - W.P.R.P. Devanagala, No: 26/135, Kumudugama, Dadayamtalawa APPLICANT - APPELLANT - RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe		In the matter of an Appeal in terms of Article 154(P) of the Constitution read with Section 31 D D of the Industrial Disputes Act (as amended) and Section 9 of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990	Download
2023-12-01	SC/CHC APPEAL/68/2014	Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation, P.O. Box 2204, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 2ND DEFENDANT - RESPONDENT - APPELLANT vs. 1. Anthony Surendra, No. 251/42B, Kirula Road, Colombo 05. PLAINTIFF - PETITIONER - RESPONDENT 2. Sri Lankan Airlines, No.22, East Tower, World Trade Center, Echelon Square, Colombo 01. DEFENDANT - RESPONDENTS View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJ, PC, J		In the matter of an application under Section 5(1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No.10 of 1996 read together with Section 6 thereof and Section 88(2) read together with Section 754(1) read together with Section 755(3) and 758 of the Civil Procedure Code	Download
2023-11-27	SC/SPL LA/5/2020	Bopitiya Vidanagamage Sarath alias Sarath Michal Sander, No. 9/4, De Saram Road, Mount Lavinia. Accused-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. 1. Hon. Attorney-General, Attorney-General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent – Respondent 2. Officer-in-Charge, Colombo Fraud Investigation Bureau, Wellawatte, Colombo-06. Complainant – Respondent - Respondent View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda PC J			Download
2023-11-23	SC/CHC APPEAL/72/2013	1. Harankaha Arachchige Menaka Jayasankha, No. 49/6, Makola South, Makola. 2. Dewasinghe Hewage Kulawathi Minipura, No. 49/6, Makola South, Makola. Defendants–Appellants Vs. Standard Credit Lanka Limited, carrying on its business at No. 277, Union Place, Colombo 02 and registered at No. 97, Hyde Park Corner, Colombo 02 (formerly Ceylinco Investment and Realty Limited). Plaintiff–Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva		In the matter of an application for leave to appeal made under Section 5 (1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No.10 of 1996.	Download
2023-11-23	SC/APPEAL/118/2010	Jayaweera Mudiyanselage Gunathilaka, No.232/2, Badulla Road, Bandarawela. 3rd ACCUSED-APPELLANT-APPELLANT vs. 1. The Officer in Charge, Crimes Investigation Division, Police Station, Badulla. 2. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J		In the matter of an application for Special Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of Articles 128 and 154(p) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and Section 9 of the High Court of the Province (Special Provisions) Act No.19 of 1990.	Download
2023-11-22	SC/FR/335/2021	1. Sebastian Benadic 2. Aiiyasamy Sellanayagi 3. Eugenia Nova 4. Eron Cleture Nova 5. Evan Galena Nova, All of “Kanthi” Niwasa, Nagaraya, Lunugala. Petitioners Vs. 1. Kodithuwakku Arachchilage Nihal Chandrakantha, No. 170/04, Rukmalgama Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya and Ambalangoda Kotasa, Hopton, Lunugala. 2. Dissanayakalage Chandra Kumara, No.26/01, Siri Nithikarama Road, Dalupitiya, Kadawatha. 3. Mahambadu Ibrahim Ahmad Sajeer, Executive Engineer (Uva Province), Road Development Authority. 4. Gamasinghe Arachchilage Dilip Indunil Wimaladharama, (Badulla-Chenkaladi Road Development Project Engineer), Road Development Authority. 5. L. V. S. Weerakoon, The Director-General, Road Development Authority. 6. T. K. M. Galappaththi, Provincial Director (Uva), Road Development Authority. 7. Chandana Athuluwage, The Chairman, Road Development Authority. 8. Road Development Authority, All 3rd to 8th Respondents are of No.216, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Koswatta, Battaramulla. 9. R. W. R. Premasiri, The Secretary, Ministry of Highways, “Maganeguma Mahamedura”, No. 2 View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando		In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Articles 17, 126 and Chapter VI of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-11-22	SC/APPEAL/64/2019	Olympus Constructions (Private) Limited, No.445/1/2, Colombo Road, Pepiliyana. Formerly known as Daya Constructions (Private) Limited, No. 362, Colombo Road, Pepiliyana, Boralesgamuwa. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Hovael Constructions (Private) Limited, No. 245/55, Old Avissawella Road, Orugodawatta. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando		In the matter of an Appeal from the Judgment dated 3rd March 2015 of the High Court [Civil Appeal] of the Western Province (Holden in Colombo) made under and in terms of Section 5 (c) of High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006	Download
2023-11-16	SC/APPEAL/120/2013	Jayasundara Mudiyanselage Wimalawathie, Keppetipola, Thembahena. Substituted-Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. 1. H. G. Wijewardena Gunathilaka & Sons (Private) Limited, No.11, D. S. Senanayake Veediya, Kandy. 2. Hikkaduwa Gamage Wijewardena Gunathilake, No.11, D. S. Senanayake Veediya, Kandy. Defendants-Appellants-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando		In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal under Section 5 C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 54 of 2006	Download
2023-11-16	SC/CHC APPEAL/74/2013	1. N. S. Gunaratne & Company (Pvt) Ltd. of No. 101, Nawala Road, Nugegoda. 2. Udawattage Don Nalin Srilal Gunaratne of No. 20/1A, Moragasmulla Road, Rajagiriya. 3. Roshanie Ayoma Gunaratne of No. 20/1A, Moragasmulla Road, Rajagiriya. DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS Vs. Pan Asia Banking Corporation PLC, No. 450, Galle Road, Colombo 03 and having a branch office and/or a place of business called and known as the “Nugegoda Branch” at No.165A, High Level Road, Nugegoda. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2023-11-14	SC/CONT/2/2023, SC/CONT/3/2023	Herath Mudiyanselage Vijitha Herath, No. 464/20, Pannipitiya Road, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. Complainant-Petitioner Vs. K.M. Mahinda Siriwardana, Secretary to the Treasury, Ministry of Finance, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. Contemnor-Respondent AND Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Ranjith Madduma Bandara, No. 31/3, Kandawatte Terrace, Nugegoda. Complainant-Petitioner Vs. K.M. Mahinda Siriwardana, Secretary to the Treasury, Ministry of Finance, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. Contemnor-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC			Download
2023-11-14	SC/FR/135/2020	Mohamed Razik Mohamed Ramzy, No. 594/3, Polgasdeniya, Katugastota, Acting in terms of Article 126(2) of the Constitution, the above-named petitioned the Supreme Court by his Attorney-at-Law Musthafa Kamal Bacha Ramzeen, No. 42, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. Petitioner Vs. 1. B.M.A.S.K. Senaratne, Chief Inspector of Police, Officer-in-Charge, Computer and Forensic Training Unit, Criminal Investigation Department, Colombo 1. 2. W. Thilakaratne, Senior Superintendent of Police, Director, Criminal Investigation Department, Colombo 1. 2A. A.R.P.J. Alwis, Senior Superintendent of Police, Director, Criminal Investigation Department, Colombo 1. 2B. Kavinda Piyasekera, Senior Superintendent of Police, Director, Criminal Investigation Department, Colombo 1. 3. M.G.L.S. Hemachandra, Military Service Assistant of the Defence Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Colombo 1. 4. Major General Kamal Gunaratne, Secretary of the Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Defence, Colombo 1. 5. C.D. Wickramaratne, Inspector General of Police, Sri Lanka Police Headquarters, Colombo 1. 6. Honourable View More	HON. YASANTHA KODAGODA, P.C., J		In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Article 126 read with Article 17 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-11-14	SC/FR/195/2022, SC/FR/212/2022	1. Dr. Athulasiri Kumara Samarakoon, The Open University of Sri Lanka, P.O.Box 21, Nawala, Nugegoda. 2. Soosaiappu Neavis Morais, 49/7, Cyril Peiris Mawatha, Palliyawatte, Wattala. 3. Dr. Mahim Mendis, 301/1A, Kotte Road, Mirihana, Nugegoda. Petitioners Vs. 1. Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe, Minister of Finance 2022-Present. 2. Mahinda Rajapakse, Former Cabinet Minister of Finance 2019–2020. 2A. Basil Rajapakse, Former Cabinet Minister of Finance 2020–2022. 2B. M.U.M. Ali Sabri, PC, Former Cabinet Minister of Finance 2022. 3. Prof. G.L. Peiris. 4. Dinesh Gunawardena. 5. Douglas Devenanada. 6. Dr. Ramesh Pathirana. 7. Prasanna Ranathunga. 8. Rohitha Abeygunawardhana. 9. Dullas Alahapperuma. 10. Janaka Wakkumbura. 11. Mahindananda Aluthgamage. 12. Mahinda Amaraweera. 13. S.M. Chandrasena. 14. Nimal Siripala de Silva. 15. Johnston Fernando. 16. Udaya Gammanpila. 17. Bandula Gunawardana. 18. Gamini Lokuge. 19. Vasudeva Nanayakkara. 20. Chamal Rajapakse. 21. Namal Rajapakse. 22. Keheliya Rambukwella. 23. C.B. Ratnayake. 24. P View More				Download
2023-11-14	SC/APPEAL/35/2018	Serasinghe Vidanage Somalatha (Deceased), Kodikarage Murin, Withanagiri, Pokunugamuwa, Weligama. Substituted-Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1/8A. Aluthgamage Albert, 2. Aluthgamage Chitralatha, Both of Sri Pangnyaloka Mawatha, Welipitimodara, Ginthota. 1/8A and 2nd Defendant-Appellant-Respondent-Respondents 3. Serasinghe Widanage Somawathi, 7 Mahaneliya Road, Walliwala, Weligama. (Deceased) 3A. Serasinghe Widanage Pagngnyadasa, Mahaneliya Road, Walliwala, Weligama. 4. Serasinghe Widanage Karunadasa, Mahaneliya Road, Walliwala, Weligama. 4A. Serasinghe Widanage Somawathi, Mahaneliya Road, Walliwala, Weligama. 4B. Serasinghe Widanage Pagngnyadasa, Mahaneliya Road, Walliwala, Weligama. 5. Serasinghe Widanage Pagngnyadasa, Elabada, Ginthota. New Address: Mahaneliya Road, Walliwala, Weligama. 6. Kathaluwa Gamage Seetin, Neelagewaththa, Kathaluwa, Ahangama. (Deceased) 6A. Serasinghe Widanage Somawathi, Mahaneliya Road, Walliwala, Weligama. (Deceased) 6B. Serasinghe Widanage Pagngnyadasa, Mahaneliya Road, Walliwala, Weligama. View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal under and in terms of article 127 and 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka read with Section 5c of the High Court of Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No 54 of 2006.	Download
2023-11-14	SC/APPEAL/92/2018	Colombo Buddhist Theosophical Society, No. 203, Olcott Mawatha, Colombo 11. Plaintiff Vs. Meringahage Mangala Pushpakumara Fernando, No. 113, Kandy Road, Gampola. Defendant AND THEN BETWEEN Meringahage Mangala Pushpakumara Fernando, No. 113, Kandy Road, Gampola. Defendant-Petitioner Vs. Colombo Buddhist Theosophical Society, No. 203, Olcott Mawatha, Colombo 11. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Meringahage Mangala Pushpakumara Fernando, No. 113, Kandy Road, Gampola. Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Colombo Buddhist Theosophical Society, No. 203, Olcott Mawatha, Colombo 11. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2023-11-14	SC/APPEAL/158/2018	The Commissioner General of Inland Revenue, Department of Inland Revenue, Inland Revenue Building, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo –02. Petitioner–Petitioner–Appellant Vs. Classic Travels (Pvt) Limited, 379/4, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Respondent–Respondent–Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an Application for Special Leave to Appeal Under the Provisions of Article 128(2) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2023-11-13	SC/FR/374/2017	1. G.K.G.A.R.P.K. Nandana, Secretary, Chief Ministry and Ministry of Education, Central Provincial Council, Provincial Council Complex, Pallakele, Kundasale. 1A. K.G. Upali Ranawaka, Secretary, Chief Ministry and Ministry of Education, Central Provincial Council, Provincial Council Complex, Pallakele, Kundasale. 2. Sarath Ekanayake, Chief Minister and Minister of Education, Central Provincial Council, Provincial Council Complex, Pallakele, Kundasale. 2A. Gamini Rajaratne, Chief Minister and Minister of Education, Central Provincial Council, Provincial Council Complex, Pallakele, Kundasale. 3. Lalith U. Gamage, Governor of the Central Province, Governor’s Secretariat, Palace Square, Kandy. 4. P.D. Amarakoon, Chairman/ Member, Provincial Public Service Commission of the Central Provincial Council, No. 244, Katugastota Road, Kandy. 5. W.M.S.D. Weerakoon, Member, Provincial Public Service Commission of the Central Provincial Council, No. 244, Katugastota Road, Kandy. 6. A.M. Wais, Member, Provincial Public Service Commission of the Central Provincial Council View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka	Download
2023-11-13	SC/FR/710/2012	1. K.G. Dharmathilake, Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat Office, Colombo. 1(a). Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat Office, Colombo. 2. H.D. Anuruddhika, Accountant, Divisional Secretariat Office, Colombo. 2(a). Accountant, Divisional Secretariat Office, Colombo. 3. Pushpakumara De Silva, Assistant Commissioner of Excise, (Western Province), Excise Commissioner’s Office, D.R. Wijewardena MW, Colombo 02. 3(a). Assistant Commissioner of Excise, (Western Province), Excise Commissioner’s Office, D.R. Wijewardena MW, Colombo 02. 4. Prabhakaran Sandrew, 47 Lakshmi House, Chaply Colony, Wadigapitiya, (via Gampola). 5. D.G.M.V Hapuarachchi, Commissioner General of Excise, Excise Department, 34, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mw, Colombo 02. 5(a). Commissioner General of Excise, Excise Department, 34, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mw, Colombo 02. 6. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. View More	Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe		IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION IN TERMS OF ARTICLE 126 OF THE CONSTITUTION	Download
2023-11-13	SC/FR/91/2021	1. Centre for Policy Alternatives, No.6/5, Layards Road, Colombo 05. 2. Dr. Paikiasoothy Saravanamuttu, No.3, Ascot Avenue, Colombo 05. Petitioners in SC/FR/91/2021 AND Sithara Shreen Abdul Saroor, No. 202, W.A. Silva Mawatha, Colombo 06. Petitioner AND Ambika Satkunanathan, No.27, Rudra Mawatha, Colombo 06. Petitioner Vs. 1. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 2. Major General (retd) G.D.H. Kamal Gunaratne, Secretary, Ministry of Defence, No. 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 03. 3. C.D. Wickramaratne, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 1. 4. Major General Dharshana Hettiarachchi, Commissioner General of Rehabilitation, Bureau of Commissioner General of Rehabilitation, No. 462/2, Kaduwela Road, Ganahena, Battaramulla. Respondents AND 1. Dr. Malkanthi Hettiarachchi, 7A, De Soyza Mawatha, Mt. Lavania. 2. Al Haj Abdul Jawad Alim Ualiyallah Trust & Maulavee K.R.M. Sahlan Rabbane, B.J.M. Road, Kattankudy 05. Interveners View More	HON. MAHINDA SAMAYAWARDHENA, J			Download
2023-11-13	SC/APPEAL/113/2019	Liyana Mudiyanselage Munasinghe, Panukerapitiya, Hidellana. Mistakenly referred to as Liyana Kankamalage Munasinghe. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. Kandegedara Ralalage Podimanike. 2. Tepulangoda Mudiyanselage Sudesh Prasanna. 3. Tepulangoda Mudiyanselage Sujith Prasanna, All of Nugagahadeniya, Godella, Panukerapitiya, Hidellana. 1st to 3rd Defendant-Appellant-Respondents AND 1. A.G. Kusumawathie, Tepulangoda, Hidellana. 2. Sujith Lakshman Muthumala. 3. Indrani Muthumala. 4. Nilani Muthumala. 5. Pradeepa Muthumala, All of Tepulangoda, Hidellana. Defendant-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara		In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal in terms of Section 5(C )1 of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No.54 of 2006.	Download
2023-11-13	SC/APPEAL/11/2021	1. Sunpac Engineers (Private) Limited, Temple Burge Step 11, Industrial Zone, Panagoda, Homagama. 2. Ranath Jayaweera alias Sanath Jayaweera, No. 379/B, Temple Road, Thalawathugoda. Plaintiff-Appellants Vs. 1. DFCC Bank PLC, No. 73/5, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 2. Schokman and Samerawickreme Auctioneers, No. 6A, Fair field Garden, Colombo 08. Defendant-Respondents AND 1. Hatton National Bank PLC, No. 479, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. Seylan Bank PLC, Seylan Towers, No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 3. People’s Bank, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 4. Cargills Bank Limited, No. 696, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 5. National Development Bank PLC, P.O. Box 1825, No. 40, Nawam Mawatha. 6. Union Bank of Colombo PLC, No. 64, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 7. Nations Trust Bank PLC, No. 242, Union Place, Colombo 02. 8. Commercial Bank of Ceylon PLC, Commercial House, No. 21, Sir Razik Fareed Mawatha, Colombo 01. 9. Pan Asia Banking Corporation, No. 6A, Fair field Gardens, Colombo 8. 10. View More	HON. MAHINDA SAMAYAWARDHENA, J			Download
2023-11-13	SC/APPEAL/107/2015	Susangatha De Fonseka, No. 9, Gravets Road, Panadura. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Pussewalage Ashokalatha, Urala, Doowahena. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere		In the matter of an Appeal under Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990, as amended by Act No. 54 of 2006.	Download
2023-11-13	SC/APPEAL/82/2010	1. Madawatte Kammale Samel Sirisena, Madawatte, Malmeekanda, Opanayake. 2. Madawatte Kammale Magi Nona of Bodimalgoda, Pelmaduula. 3. Madawatte Kammale Manikhamy of Madawatte, Malmeekanda, Opanayake. 4. Madawatte Kammale Podi Nona of Madawatte, Malmeekanda, Opanayake. 5. Madawatte Kammale David Singho of Madawatte, Malmeekanda, Opanayake. 6. Madawatte Kammale Seelawathie of Midalladeniya, Opanayake. 7. Wijeratne Haluge Somapala of Bandarawatte, Malmeekanda, Opanayake. Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellants Vs. 1. Madawatte Kammale Matheshamy 2. Dombagammana Badalge Randohamy, Both of Medawatte, Malmeekanda. 3. Medawatte Kammale Karunaratne 4. Medawatte Kammale Dayaratne 5. Medawatte Kammale Malani Chandralatha 6. Medawatte Kammale Gamini Wijeratne, all of Malmeekanda, Madawatte, Opanayake. 7. Hunuwala Malawarage Nilupa Subhaseeli of Madawatte, Malmeekanda, Hunuwala, Opanayake. 8. Medawatte Kammale Ebert Piyasiri of Malmeekanda, Madawatte, Opanayake. 9. Pradeep Nilanga Dela Bandara, Basnayake Nilame, Ratnapura Maha Saman Devale. Defendants-Respondents View More	HON. MAHINDA SAMAYAWARDHENA, J			Download
2023-11-13	SC/SPL LA/40/2022	Nawalage Asanka Indrajith Cooray, No. 6/26, 3rd Lane, Nawala, Rajagiriya. Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner-Petitioner Vs. Mallikarachchige Terashma Rashmi Perera, No.6/4, 3rd Lane, Nawala, Rajagiriya. Applicant-Appellant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara		In the matter of an application seeking Special Leave to Appeal in terms of the provisions of Section 14(2) of the Maintenance Act No.37 of 1999.	Download
2023-11-10	SC/APPEAL/78/2014	1. Matarage Don Lorence Apppuhamy (deceased), No. 11, Huludagoda Lane, Mount Lavinia. Plaintiff 01A. Matarage Dona Sudharma, No. 142/29 Sekkuwatta, Dalupitiya Road, Mahara, Kadawatha. Substituted Plaintiff Vs. 01. Lucien Ivan Wilfred de Alwis (deceased) 1A. John de Alwis, No. 10, Quarry Road, Ratmalana. 02. Gerald Clerk Wilfred de Alwis, No. 22, Huludagoda Road, Mount Lavinia. 03. Wilfred Letman Eustus de Alwis, 2 Zoological Gardens, Dehiwela. 04. Wilfred Michael Neville de Alwis, No. 22, Huludagoda Road, Mount Lavinia. 05. Joyce Gladys Christobel Gunathilake nee de Alwis, (deceased), No. 30, Huludagoda Road, Mount Lavinia. 05A. E.P.T. Gunathilake 05B. Sriyani Gunathilake, both of No. 30, Huludagoda Road, Mount Lavinia. 06. Sheila Constance Milred Gunathilake nee De Alwis, No. 20, Huludagoda Road, Mount Lavinia. 07. Gunawathie Liyanage nee Wijeratne, “Manel Niwasa”, Padikara, Waluwatta, Veyangoda. 08. Kuda Liyanage Leslie 09. Kuda Liyanage Kusum Kanthi 10. Kuda Liyanage Iranganie 11. Kuda Liyanage Doreen 12. Kuda Liyanage Sandhya, All of “Manel Niwasa” View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC		In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Article 127 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2023-11-10	SC/APPEAL/192/2017	Wellage Wipulasena, 7th Accused-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an application for Special Leave to Appeal in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-11-10	SC/APPEAL/61/2008	Kotagala Plantations Limited of 760, Baseline Road, Colombo 09 (and presently of 53 1/1 Sir Baron Jayathilake Mawatha, Colombo 01) PETITIONER-PETITIONER Vs. 1. Land Reform Commission, 82 C, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 07 2. State Plantations Corporation, 55/77, Vauxhall Lane, Colombo 02 3. Hon. D.M Jayaratne, Minister of Plantation Industries, Ministry of Plantations Industries, 55/75, Vauxhall Lane, Colombo 02 4. Hon. Jeewan Kumaratunga, Minister of Land and Land Development, Ministry of Land and Land Development, 85/5 “Govijana Mandiraya”, Rajamalwatte, Battaramulla RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS 5. Hon. Mahinda Samarasinghe, Minister of Plantation Industries, Ministry of Plantation Industries, 55/75, Vauxhall Lane, Colombo 02 6. Hon. Janaka Bandara Tennakoon, Minister Land and Land Development, 85/5, “Govijana Mandiraya” Rajamalwatte, Battaramulla 7. Hon. P. Dayaratne, Minister of State Resources and Enterprise Development, No.561/3, Elivitigala Mawatha, Colombo 05 ADDED RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter for an application for Special Leave to Appeal under and in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution.	Download
2023-11-10	SC/APPEAL/150/2016	H.M. Tikiri Banda Herath, No. 53, Dehideniya, Peradeniya Defendant–Appellant–Appellant Vs. D.J.M.G. Kusumawathie, Rajasinghapura, Dodanwella NEW ADDRESS 94B, Godamuduna, Dodanwela, Murutalawa Plaintiff–Respondent–Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an Application to the Supreme Court for Leave to Appeal under Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Amendment Act No. 54 of 2006	Download
2023-11-09	SC/APPEAL/74/2014	Coca-Cola Beverages Sri Lanka Ltd., Tekkawatta, Biyagama. Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. W.G.S.L. Wasala, Public Health Officer, Mahasenpura Complainant-Respondent-Respondent 2. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an Application for Special Leave to Appeal from the Judgement pronounced on 08.05.2013 by the High Court of the North Central Province holden in Anuradhapura in High Court Appeal No. 44/201 under Section 9(a) of the High Court of Provinces (Special Provisions) Act, No. 19 of 1990 read with Article 154P of the Constitution and the Supreme Court Rules of 1990.	Download
2023-11-09	SC/APPEAL/65/2021	Joseph Kumar De Silva, 8-5/4, Golf Wing, Trillium Residencies, 153, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 08. Applicant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Etihad Airways PJSC, P.O. Box 35566, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. And also of 752, Dr. Danister De Silva Mawatha, Ground Floor, Rigel Building, Orion City, Colombo 09. 2. R.H. Douglas, Cluster General Manager, Etihad Airways PJSC, 752, Dr. Danister De Silva Mawatha, Ground Floor, Rigel Building, Orion City, Colombo 09. Respondent-Respondent-Respondents View More	HON. MAHINDA SAMAYAWARDHENA, J			Download
2023-11-09	SC/FR/178/2014	1. D. M. C. J. Dissanayaka, Officer’s Quarters, Water Treatment Plant, Mulleriyawa. 2. W. K. Karannagoda, 308/MC/B01, Quarters of Water Board, Mount Clifford Estate, Magammana, Homagama. 3. Hewa Balamullage Chandrathilaka, Officer’s Quarters, Water Treatment Plant, Mulleriyawa. Petitioners Vs. 1. National Water Supply and Drainage Board, Main Office, P. O. Box 14, Rathmalana. 2. B. W. R. Balasooriya, General Manager, National Water Supply and Drainage Board, Main Office, P. O. Box 14, Mt. Lavinia. 2A. Thilina Wijethunga, General Manager, National Water Supply and Drainage Board, Galle Road, PO Box 14, Mt. Lavinia 3. N. M. S. Kalinga, Deputy General Manager (Production), National Water Supply and Drainage Board, Main Office, P. O. Box 14, Mt. Lavinia. 3A. G.K Iddamalgoda, Deputy General Manager (HR), National Water Supply and Drainage Board, Main Office, P.O Box 14, Mt. Lavinia 3B. N.I.S Abeygunawardena, Additional General Manager, (Human Resources), National Water Supply and Drainage Board, Main Office, P.O Box 14 View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Republic	Download
2023-11-09	SC/APPEAL/55/2020	Weerawarnakulasuriya Boosabaduge Shamaline Fernando, Beruwala. 2nd Defendant–Respondent–Appellant Vs. Kusalanthi Fernando, Kandawala, Rathmalana. Plaintiff–Respondent–Respondent AND Weerasekara Hettiarachchige Gertrude Perera, No. 275, Ubayasenapura, Rajagiriya. 1st Defendant–Appellant-Respondent View More	HON. YASANTHA KODAGODA, PC, J		In the matter of an Appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal under Article 128 of the Constitution.	Download
2023-11-09	SC/FR/298/2013	1. Priyankara Witharanage Chandika Lalith Kulathunga, No. 68, Dela, Ratnapura 2. Jagath Warnaka Ranathunga, “Wasana”, Devalamulla, Puhulwella. 3. Hapuachchige Lalani Chandrakanthi, No.101, Pelpitigoda, Poruwadanda. 4. Hapurugala Gamladdalage Samantha Kumara Jayaratha, Suhadha Mawatha, Erathna Road, Eknaligoda, Kuruwita. 5. Weligamage Don Bandu Kumari Shiromani, No.327/7a, Moragala Road, Bulugahapitiya, Eheliyagoda. 6. Darmasri Pathirajage Sudath Madusanka, 17th Post, Suriyagoda, Bamunakotuwa. 7. Mahadurage Premakeerthi, Jamburegoda Road, Mudugamuwa, Weligama. 8. Agampodi Malani Mendis, Kadegedara, Thiyaduwa, Akurassa. 9. Anusha Niranjala Ranawaka, Mirissagedarawatta, Henegama, Akurassa. 10. Udagama Rankothgedara Vajira Nilanshani Wijerathna, 32nd Post, Hunganwela, Nalanda. 11. Medagam Medde Gedara Kanchana Geethamali Premachadra, No.235, Yatihalagala, Pallegama, Haloluwa. 12. Kahakotuwa Chitra Padma Kumari Kalinguarachchi, “Geethani”, 1 Ela Road, Polonnaruwa. 13. Aluthgedara Swarna Manel Aluthgedara View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli		In the matter of an application under Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-11-09	SC/APPEAL/166/2017	W. M. Dhanapala Menike, Galkorutuwa, Udahavupe, Kahawatte. Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Dayananda Colombage, Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Kahawatte. 1A. Gayani I. Karunarathna, Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Kahawatte. 2. R. P. R. Rajapakse, Commissioner General of Land, Land Commissioner General’s Department, No. 1200/6, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 3. P. Wasantha, Assistant Land Commissioner, Land Commissioner General’s Department, No. 1200/6, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 4. Provincial Commissioner General of Land, Sabaragamuwa Province, Office of Provincial Commissioner of Land, Provincial Council Building, New Town, Ratnapura. 5. Ven. Palmadulla Dhammagaweshi Thero, Athugalkanda Aaranya Senanasanaya, Lellopitiya Wehera, Godakawela. 6. Wellakkutti Mudiyanselage Wasantha Kumara, Welihindawatte, Indiketiya Road, Pelmadulla. 7. Registrar of Lands, Land Registry, Ratnapura. Respondent-Respondents View More	HON. MAHINDA SAMAYAWARDHENA, J			Download
2023-11-09	SC/APPEAL/128/2018, SC/APPEAL/129/2018	Badde Kankanamage Chinthaka Kumara Ruwan, 1st Accused-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Hon. Attorney-General, Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an application for Special Leave to Appeal in terms of Article 127 read with Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-11-09	SC/APPEAL/77/2018	Karunatilleka Jayasundera Wickramasekara Rajapakse Wahalanayake Nisi Mudiyanselage Mahen Susantha Madugalle, No.168/16, Siripura Gardens, Rajamaha Vihara Mawatha, Kotte PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs. 1. Land Reform Commission, C 82, Hector Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Colombo 07. INTERVENIENT-PETITIONER-PETITIONER-RESPONDENT 2. Karunatilleka Jayasundera Wickramasekara Rajapakse Wahalanayake Nisi Mudiyanselage Chula Swarna Madugalle, No. 185/1, Epitamulla Road, Pita-Kotte. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal under and in terms of Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act, No.1990 as amended by Act, No.54 of 2006 to set aside the judgment dated 27/07/2017 of the Provincial High Court of Civil Appeals of the North Western Province	Download
2023-11-03	SC/CHC APPEAL/44/2014	Lanka Orix Leasing Company PLC, 100/1, Sri Jayawardhanapura Mawatha, Rajagiriya. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs. Kaluarachhilage Osmond Bandula, 8L, Housing Scheme, Hanthana, Kandy. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena		In the matter of an appeal in terms of section 5(1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No.10 of 1996, against a judgment pronounced by the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under section 2 of the said Act.	Download
2023-11-03	SC/FR/63/2018	Darmaraja Nilithi Prasadi (Minor), Appearing by her Next friend Guardian ad litem Perumal Darmaraja, Both of No.55, Walpitawatta, Balgoda, Poddala. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Ms. Sandhya Airani Pathiranawasam, The principal, Southlands College, Galle. 2. Director of National Schools, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Battaramulla. 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Battaramulla. 4. C.C. Jayasinghe, Parent/Guardian of N.N. Jayasinghe, No. 130/C, Hakkanawatha, Kumme Baddegama. 5. J.V.P. Darshana, Parent/Guardian of J.V. Rishadhi, Dinlini, No. 124/3, Elliot Road, Galle. 6. H.M.N. Dhilrukshi, Parent/Guardian of H.T.S. Nethusara, Keenaduwa, Gonapura, Poddala. 7. K.M. Manimekala, Parent/Guardian of Isil Nethusadhi, No 70/12, Sri Panyaloka Mawatha, Ginthota, Galle. 8. The Hon Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J		In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2023-11-02	SC/APPEAL/77/2014	A.H. Alice Nona, Dolekade, Wabada-South. Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Chandra Warusapperuma, No. 280, Temple Road, Wabada. (Deceased) Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent AND 1(A). Abeysinghe Arachchige Chaminda Upul Shantha 1(B). Lakshman Sri Mangalika 1(C). Shrimathie Mangalika 1(D). Vikum Sri Jayantha, All of No. 280, Temple Road, Wabada. Substituted 1A, 1B, 1C & 1D Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne		In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal against the Judgment of the Provincial High Court of Western Province dated 26/08/2013 in the Case No. WP/HCCA/GPH/113/2008(F), DC Gampaha Case No. 39800/P.	Download
2023-10-31	SC/APPEAL/2/2021	Hettiarachchige Dominic Marx Perera No. 276/B/45/A, Morawake Watta, Pahalabomiriya, Kaduwela Plaintiff–Appellant-Petitioner–Appellant Vs. 1) Kuruwita Arachchige Mulin Perera (Deceased) 1A) Kuruwita Arachchige Jeramious Perera (Deceased), No. 542, Nungamugoda, Kalaniya 1A1) Jayasoorya Kuranage Mary Magilin Daisy Perera, No.542, Nungamugoda, Kalaniya 1B) Kuruwita Arachchige Violet Perera (Deceased). No. 184, Hospital Junction, Akaegama 1B1) Haputhanthige Don Thilitha Dorin, No.184, Hospital Junction. Akegama Party sought to be substituted as 1B1 substituted Defendant–Respondent–Respondent–Respondent 1C) Leela Thilakarathne, No.636, Sri Vijaya Mawatha, Arawwala, Pannipitiya 1D) Kuruwita Arachchige Sandya Chandani Perera, No.33 Maheshi Uyana, Kahathuduwa, Polgasowita 1E) Kuruwita Arachchige Thamara Dinadari Perera, No.708, Ambillawatta Road, Katuwawala Mawatha, Boralasgamuwa 1F) Kuruwita Arachchige Jayalatha Perera, No.638, Sri Vikaya Mawatha, Arawwala, Pannipitiya 1G) Kuruwita Arachchige Ranil Sanatha Kuamara Perera View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an Application in the Supreme Court of Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka for special leave under Article 128(2) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2023-10-31	SC/FR/192/2019	Jebarajes Krishnamoorthy nee Kumarasingam, 8B, Nalandarama Road, Nugegoda. Petitioner 1.Dharmasena Dissanayake, Chairman, Public Services Commission. 1a. Hon. Justice Jagath Balapatabendi, Chairman, Public Services Commission. 2.Prof. Hussain Ismail, Member, Public Services Commission. 2a. Indrani Sugathadasa, Member, Public Services Commission. 3.Sudharma Karunarathna, Member, Public Services Commission. 3a.V. Shivagnanasothy, Member, Public Services Commission. 4. Dr. Prathap Ramanujan, Member, Public Services Commission. 4a. T.R.C. Ruberu, Member, Public Service Commission. 5. V.Jegarasasingam, Member, Public Services Commission. 5a. Ahamod Lebbe Mohamed Saleem, Member, Public Services Commission. 6. G.S.A.De Silva, Member, Public Services Commission. 6a. Leelasena Liyanagama Member, Public Services Commission. 7. S. Ranugge, Member, Public Services Commission. 7a. Dian Gomes, Member, Public Services Commission. 8. D.Laksiri Mendis, Member, Public Services Commission. 8a. Dilith Jayaweera, Member, Public Services Commission. View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Articles 17 & 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka in respect of violation and/or imminent violation of Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(g) of the Constitution.	Download
2023-10-31	SC/FR/546/2012	Captain Ambawalage Dammika Senaratne De Silva, No.74, Jayasumanarama Road, Rathmalana. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Lieutenant General Jagath Jayasuriya, Commander of Sri Lanka Army, Sri Lanka Army Headquarters, Colombo 01 1A. A.W.J.C. De Silva (RWP.USP) Commander of Sri Lanka Army, Sri Lanka Army Headquarters, Colombo 01. 1B. Lieutenant General N.U.M.M.W. Senanayake RWP. RSP.USP.PSC Commander of Sri Lanka Army, Sri Lanka Army Headquarters Colombo 1C. Lieutenant General N.U.M.M.W. Senanayake RWP. RSP.USP.PSC Commander of Sri Lanka Army, Sri Lanka Army Headquarters Colombo 1.1D. Lieutenant General Shavendra Silva Commander of Sri Lanka Army, Sri Lanka Army Headquarters, Colombo 1.1E. Lieutenant General H.L.V.M Liyanage (RWP.RSP.ndu) Commander of Sri Lanka Army, Sri Lanka Army Headquarters, Colombo 1. 2. Lieutenant Colonel Ediriweera, Regimental Headquarters, 20th Sri Lanka Infantry, Panagoda. 3. Regimental Centre Commandant, 20th Sri Lanka Light Infantry, Regimental Headquarters, Panagoda 4. Major G.S.M. Perera, Chairman of the Court of Inquiry held against. View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Article 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2023-10-31	SC/APPEAL/50A/2013	Bank of Ceylon Formerly at No. 04, Bank of Ceylon Mawatha, Colombo 01 And presently at, ‘BOC Square’ No. 01, Bank of Ceylon Mawatha, Colombo 01 Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Jaqa Lanka International (Pvt) Ltd No. 46/1, Fife Road, Colombo 05. Petitioner-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka under and in terms of Article 128(2) of the Constitution read with the Supreme Court Rules of 1990 and Section 5(2) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act, No. 10 of 1996.	Download
2023-10-31	SC/APPEAL/144/2019	Ven. Aludeniye Subodhi Thero, Chief Incumbent, Seruwila Mangala Raja Maha Viharaya, Seruwila. Party sought to be substituted in place of the deceased 4th Defendant-Respondent-Respondent Ven. Munhene Meththarama Thero. PETITIONER Vs. 1.Ven. Kotapola Amarakiththi Thero, Seruwila Buddhist Center, Shanthi Foundation, Bauddhaloka Mw, Colombo 07. 1st DEFENDANT-PETITIONER-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT 2.R.P.Sooriyapperuma, Chairman, Seruwila Mangala Maha Chaithyawardena Samithiya, Seruwila And No.318/8, Shanthiwatta, Siyambalape. 3.G.P. Mataraarachchi, Secretary, Seruwila Mangala Maha Chaithyawardena Samithiya, Seruwila And No. 46, Madigodallawatta, Ruwanwella. 4.Liyanage Jayathunge Perera, Co-Secretary, Seruwila Mangala Maha Chaithyawardena Samithiya, Seruwila And No 330/30, Pulliadi, Trincomalee. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS 1.Kapugollewe Anandakiththi Thero, Seruwila Mangala Raja Maha Viharaya, Seruwila And Jayasumanaramaya, Trincomalee. 2.Kithalagama Dhammalankara Thero, Seruwila Mangala Raja Maha Viharaya, Seruwila View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal under Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 54 of 2006	Download
2023-10-31	SC/FR/338/2011	Colombage Dona Bandulani Basnayake, No. 128, Helweesiyawatte, Narammala. Petitioner Vs. 1.Sunil Hettiarachchi, Secretary, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Pannipitiya Road, Battaramulla. 1A.Prof. K. Kapila C. K. Perera, Secretary, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Pannipitiya Road, Battaramulla. 1B.Nihal Ranasinghe, Secretary, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Pannipitiya Road, Battaramulla. 2.Dharmasena Dissanayake, Chairman, Public Service Commission of Sri Lanka, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 2A.Jagath Balapatabendi, Chairman, Public Service Commission of Sri Lanka, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 3. A. Salam Abdul Waid, Member. 3A.Indrani Sugathadasa, Member. 4.D. Shirantha Wijetilake, Member. 4A.V. Shivagnanasothy, Member. 4B.Suntharam Arumainayaham, Member. 5.Dr. Prathap Ramanujam, Member. 5A.T. R. C. Ruberu, Member. 6.V. Jegarasasingam, Member. 6A.Ahamed Lebbe Mohamed Saleem, Member. 7.Santi Nihal Seneviratne, Member. 7A.Leelasena Liyanagama, Member. 8.S. Ranugge, Member. 8A.Dian View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Article 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-10-31	SC/APPEAL/45/2013	1A. Margaret Lokubadusuriya, No. 51, Spring Valley Road, Badulla. 1B. Tennakoon Mudiyanselage Shalika, No. 74, Badulusirigama, Badulla. 1C. Tennakoon Mudiyanselage Sujeewa, No. 70, Passara Road, Hindagoda, Badulla. 1D. Tennakoon Mudiyanselage Saman Wasantha Kumara, No 03, Spring Valley Road, Hindagoda, Badulla. Substituted-Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellants Vs. Nimal Dhammika Jayaweera, No. 05, Spring Valley Road, Hindagoda, Badulla. Plaintiff-Petitioner-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal under and in terms of Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006	Download
2023-10-30	SC/APPEAL/191/2017	1.M.H.Saman Wijesekera 2.V.Chithrani de Silva Jayasuriya All at No.190/3, Peter De Perera Mawatha, Dutugamunu Street, Kohuwala. 1st and 2nd Defendants-Appellants-Petitioners-Appellants Vs. The People’s Bank No.75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardier Mawatha, Colombo 02. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent And 3.Chamila Dilanthi Wijesekera No.29, Jambugasmulla Mawatha, Nugegoda. 3rd Defendant-Appellant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe		In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal under and in terms of the Provisions of Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No.19 of 1990 as amended, read with Article 154P of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2023-10-30	SC/FR/556/2009	Niluka Dissanayake, Attorney-at-Law, No. 218, Basement, Hulftsdorp Street, Colombo 12 On behalf of Captain Ambawalage Dammika, Senaratne de Silva of 74, Jayasumanarama Road, Ratmalana. Currently held at the Polhengoda Military Police Headquarters. Petitioner Vs. 1.Major Mahesh Kumara, Sri Lanka Military Police Corps, Military Police Headquarters, Sri Lanka Army, Polhengoda. 2.Colonel Etipola, SS, Commanding Officer, Military Police Headquarters, Sri Lanka Army, Polhengoda. 3.Fernando Officer of Sri Lanka Military Police Military Police Headquarters, Sri Lanka Army, Polhengoda. 4.Provost-Marshal Dias Officer of Sri Lanka Military Police Military Police Headquarters, Sri Lanka Army, Polhengoda. 5.Colonel Ediriweera, Commanding Officer, Sri Lanka Army, Alampilli Mulativu Camp, Mulativu. 6.Army Commander, Sri Lanka Army Headquarters, Colombo 01. 7.Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC		In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Article 126 of the Constitution.	Download
2023-10-27	SC/FR/237/2013	C.S. Niles 16 Village Drive, Quincy MA, 02169, USA. Petitioner Vs. 1.Commander of the Army Army Headquarters, Colombo 03. 1A General Shavendra Silva Commander of the Army Army Headquarters, Sri Jayawardenepura, Colombo. 2.Commanding Officer Security Forces, Jaffna Division, Palaly. 2A.Major General W.L.P.W. Perera Commanding Officer Security Forces, Jaffna Division, Palaly. 3.Chief Co-ordinator Civil Affairs Unit, Sri Lanka Security Forces, Hospital Road, Jaffna. 4.The Secretary-Ministry of Defence and Urban Development, No. 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 03. 4A.General G.D.H. Kamal Gunaratne (Retd.) The Secretary-Ministry of Defence and State Ministry of National Security, Home Affairs and Disaster Management, No. 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 03. 5.Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 6.Divisional Secretary-Jaffna Jaffna Town-West, G.S. Division J/73, Divisional Secretariat, Main Street, Chundikuli, Jaffna. (Opposite St. John’s College Jaffna). 6A.Mr. Kanapathipillai Mahesan Divisional Secretary View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Article 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2023-10-27	SC/FR/238/2013	Thevanayaki Kunanayagam No.25, 42nd Lane, Wellawatta. Petitioner Vs. 1.Commander of the Army Army Headquarters, Colombo 03. 1A General Shavendra Silva Commander of the Army Army Headquarters, Sri Jayawardenepura, Colombo. 2.Commanding Officer Security Forces, Jaffna Division, Palaly. 2A.Major General W.L.P.W. Perera Commanding Officer Security Forces, Jaffna Division, Palaly. 3.Chief Co-ordinator Civil Affairs Unit, Sri Lanka Security Forces, Hospital Road, Jaffna. 4.The Secretary-Ministry of Defence and Urban Development, No. 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 03. 4A.General G.D.H. Kamal Gunaratne (Retd.) The Secretary-Ministry of Defence and State Ministry of National Security, Home Affairs and Disaster Management, No. 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 03. 5.Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 6.Divisional Secretary-Jaffna Jaffna Town-West, G.S. Division J/73, Divisional Secretariat, Main Street, Chundikuli, Jaffna. (Opposite St. John’s College Jaffna). 6A.Mr. Kanapathipillai Mahesan Divisional Secretary View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Article 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-10-27	SC/FR/236/2013	S. Amirthanathan 60, Cascade St. Balwyn North, VIC 3104, Australia. Petitioner 1.Commander of the Army Army Headquarters, Colombo 03. 1A General Shavendra Silva Commander of the Army Army Headquarters, Sri Jayawardenepura, Colombo. 2.Commanding Officer Security Forces, Jaffna Division, Palaly. 2A.Major General W.L.P.W. Perera Commanding Officer Security Forces, Jaffna Division, Palaly. 3.Chief Co-ordinator, Civil Affairs Unit, Sri Lanka Security Forces, Hospital Road, Jaffna. 4.The Secretary-Ministry of Defence and Urban Development, No. 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 03. 4A.General G.D.H. Kamal Gunaratne (Retd.) The Secretary-Ministry of Defence and State Ministry of National Security, Home Affairs and Disaster Management, No. 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 03. 5.Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 6.Divisional Secretary-Jaffna Jaffna Town-West, G.S. Division J/73, Divisional Secretariat, Main Street, Chundikuli, Jaffna. (Opposite St. John’s College Jaffna). 6A.Mr. Kanapathipillai Mahesan View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2023-10-24	SC/APPEAL/69/2016	3.Charitha Samiddhi Dewapura, No. 34, 33rd Lane, Colombo 06. 4.Sumith Devapura, No. 41/1B, Kawdana Road, Attidiya Road, Dehiwela. DEFENDANT-PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS Vs. I.M.D. Bandara, No. 10/3B, ‘Amila’ Ranawakawatta Road, Kalalgoda, Pannipitiya. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal against the Judgement dated 10.10.2014 in Case No. WP/HCCA/COL/06/2014 under and in terms of Section 5(c)(1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act, No. 54 of 2006.	Download
2023-10-24	SC/FR/221/2015	Warnakuwatthawaduge Surani Lakshika Fernando, No 8/2, Mahajana Road, Kadalana, Moratuwa. Vs. 1. Police Sergeant Attapattu, Police Station, Mount Lavinia. 2. I.P Ramya Silva, Petitioner Officer-in-Charge Minor Offences Branch Police Station, Mount Lavinia. 3. C.I. Chanaka Iddamalgoda, Head Quarter Inspector of Police Police Station Mount Lavinia. 4.Deputy Inspector General of Police, Overseeing Mount Lavinia, Nugegoda, Moratuwa and Kalutara Divisions Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 5. N.K Illangakoon, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 5A. C.D Wickramaratne, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 6.Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2023-10-24	SC/FR/120/2019	Peduru Arachchige Tiuska Pushpa Weerasinghe, No. 107/A, Kanatta Road, Mirihana, Nugegoda. PETITIONER Vs. 1.Sirimewan Dias, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, No. 475, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. 1a. Nilantha Wijesinghe, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, No. 475, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. 2.K.AK. Ranjith Dharmapala, Acting Chairman, Land Reform Commission, No. 475, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. P.B. Ruwan Pathirana, Executive Director, Land Reform Commission, No. 475, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. 3a. Pathmika Mahanama Thilakarathne, Executive Director, Land Reform Commission, No. 475, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. 4.R.M.C.M Herath, Director General, Land Reform Commission, No. 475, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. 4a. W.M.W Weerakoon, Director General, Land Reform Commission, No. 475, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. 5.K.D.R Olga, Director General, Finance Department, Land Reform Commission, No. 475, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. 6.U.G Rathnasiri, Additional Secretary, Ministry of National Policies and View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Article 126 read with Article 17 of the Constitution of The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2023-10-24	SC/FR/91/2018	1.W.A.A.S. Darmasiri, No. 266/2, Kosgahagoda, Boralu Wewa. 2.H. R. Suranjith, No. 97 ½, Brukkwaththa, Hewagama, Kaduwela. 3.M.M.U. Maduranga, “Sellika”, Godauda, Kottegoda. Petitioners Vs. 1.Thusitha Kularathna, Chairman, Western Province Provincial Road Passenger Transport Authority, No, 89, “Ranmagapaya”, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. 1A. Prasanna Sanjeewa, Chairman, Western Province Provincial Road Passenger Transport Authority, No, 89, “Ranmagapaya”, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. 2.Prasanna Kumara Madawala, Acting Deputy General Manager (Finance), Western Province Provincial Road Passenger Transport Authority, No. 89, “Ranmagapaya”, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. 3.Jagath Perera, General Manager, Western Province Provincial Road Passenger Transport Authority, No. 89, “Ranmagapaya”, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. 4.Western Province Provincial Road Passenger Transport Authority, No. 89, “Ranmagapaya”, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. 5.Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Article 17 and Article 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-10-24	SC/FR/393/2010	Gunarathinam Manivannan Thiru Murikandi Pillayar Kovil, Thiru Murikandi More recently of No.20/10, Housing Scheme, Kanakambikai Kulam, Kilinochchi. PETITIONER Vs. 1.Honourable D.M.Jayaratne, M.P Prime Minister and Minister of Buddhist and Religious Affairs 135, Anagarika Dharmapala Mawatha, Colombo 00700. 1A. Honourable D.M.Swaminadan Minister of Resettlement, Reconstruction and Hindu Religious Affairs No.146, Galle Road, Colombo 00300. 2.Shanthi Thirunavukkarasu Director, Department of Hindu Cultural Affairs, No.248 1/1, Galle Road, Colombo 00400. 2A. A.Uma Mageshwaran Director, Department of Hindu Cultural Affairs, No.248 1/1, Galle Road, Colombo 00400. 3.Major General (Retd) M.A.Chandrasiri Governor-Northern Province, Jaffna. 3A. H M GS Palihakkara Governor-Northern Province, Jaffna. 3B. Mr. Reginold Cooray Governor-Northern Province, Jaffna. 4.Puthukudiruppu Pradeshya Sabha, Puthukkudiruppu Replacing, Mullaitivu Pradeshya Sabha, Mullaitivu 5.Emelda Sukumar Goverment Agent, Mullaitivu. 5A. N Vethanayagam Government Agent, Mullaitivu. 5B.Rup View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-10-24	SC/RULE/6/2021	H.M.B.P. Herath, Secretary, Presidential Commission of Inquiry to Investigate and Inquire into and Report or take Necessary Action on the Bomb Attacks on 21st April 2019, 1st Floor, Block No. 05, Bandaranaike Memorial International Conference Hall, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. COMPLAINANT Vs. Nizam Mohammad Shameem, Attorneys-at-Law, 104 C, Godawaththa Road, Godapitiya, Akuressa. RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of a Rule in terms of Section 42(2) of the Judicature Act No. 02 of 1978 against Mr. Nizam Mohammed Shameem, Attorney-at-Law.	Download
2023-10-24	SC/APPEAL/64/2023	The Director General, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, No. 36, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT vs. Chandana Chithral Kariyawasam, No. 494/4, Hirimbura Road, Kahaduruwawatte, Galle. ACCUSED-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2023-10-20	SC/FR/112/2017	Mohamed Hashim Mohamed Ziyard, 204, Waragashinna, Akurana. Petitioner Vs. 1.Mr. Anura Dissanayake, Director General, Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka, No.500, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. ADDED 1A.Subasinghe Mudiyanselage Gotabhaya Jayarathne, Director General. ADDED 1B.Rupasinghe Arachchilage Rohan Ratnasiri Acting Director General, ADDED 1C.Sarath Chandrasiri Vithana, Director General ADDED 1D.Dissanayake M. S. Dissanayake, Director General ADDED 1E.Bulathsinghaarachchilage Sunil Shantha Perera ADDED 1F.Keerthi Bandara Kotagama Director General, Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka, No.500, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2.D.A. Asantha Gunasekera, Director (Lands), Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka, No.500, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. ADDED 2A.Chistie Perera, Director (Lands) ADDED 2B.Eranthika W. Kualratne. Director (Lands), Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka, No.500, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3.I.M.U.K. Kumara, Resident Project Manager, Office of the Resident Project Manager System H, Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka, Tambuttegama. View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli		In the matter of an application under Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution	Download
2023-10-20	SC/APPEAL/67/2021	Inoka Uthpalani Kaluarachchie Ettiwatta, Hettimulla. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER vs. Abdul Kareem Nizar No.30/4Galkanda Lane, Aniwaththa, Kandy. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J		In the matter of an application for Appeal from an Order of the High Court of Civil Appeal of the Central Province Holden in Kandy dated 11th December 2020 in HCCA Kandy Case No. CP/HCCA/KAN/80/2017(FA), under the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006 and Article 128 read with Article 154P of the Constitution.	Download
2023-10-19	SC/APPEAL/97/2011	Matilda Herathge, of No. 1118F, Jayawardena Avenue, Matugama Road, Nagoda, Dodamgoda Plaintiff–Petitioner–Appellant Vs. Halowita Arachchige Dayananda, of No. 1118E, Jayawardena Avenue, Matugama Road, Nagoda, Dodamgoda Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara		In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal against Judgment dated 01/03/2011 delivered by the High Court of Western Province exercising civil appellate jurisdiction at Kalutara in WP/HCCA/Kalutara/02/2010 (Revision) D.C. Kalutara 5350/L.	Download
2023-10-16	SC/FR/349/2014	Wasana Niroshini Wickrama, School Road, Dodampapitiya, Uthumgama, Mathugama. Petitioner Vs. 1.Nalaka, Acting Officer-in-Charge. 2.A.A.K.S.Adhikari, Officer-in-Charge. Both of; Welipenna Police Station, Welipenna. 3.N.K. Illangakoon, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 3(A). Pujith Jayasundara, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 4.Hon. Attorney General, Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando		In the matter of an Application and in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-10-13	SC/EXP/2/2021	Ven. Athuraliye Rathana Thero, Sadaham Sewana, Gothami Road, Rajagiriya PETITIONER Vs. 01 Ape Janabala Pakshaya, No. 15/27, Adagala Watta, Wellava Road, Kurunegala 02.Nishantha Ratnayake, General Secretary, Ape Janabala Pakshaya, No. 15/27, Adagala Watta, Wellava Road, Kurunegala 03.Saman Perera, Chairman, Ape Janabala Pakshaya, No. 15/27, Adagala Watta, Wellava Road, Kurunegala 04.Samantha Keerthi Bandara, General Secretary, Wijaya Dharani National Council, Gothami Road, Rajagiriya 05.Nimal Punchihewa, Chairman, Election Secretariat, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya 06.G.S.B. Divaratne, Member, Election Secretariat, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya 07.M.M. Mohomed, Member, Election Secretariat, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya 08.K.P.P.Pathirana, Member, Election Secretariat, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya 09.Member, Election Secretariat, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya 10.Saman Sri Ratnayake, Commissioner General of Elections, Election Secretariat, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya 11.Dhammika Dasanayaka, Secretary General of Parliament, Parliament of Sri Lanka, Sri Jayawardenapura, Kotte View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an application under and in terms of the Proviso to Article 99(13)(a) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2023-10-13	SC/APPEAL/232/2016	Rambukkanage Lesman Fernando De Soyza Road, Molpe, Moratuwa. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. Lindamulage Paul Jesudasa De Silva, No. 508/1, De Soyza Road, Molpe, Moratuwa. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, read with Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 as amended by the Act, No. 54 of 2006.	Download
2023-10-13	SC/CHC APPEAL/37/2011	Pan Arch Architecture (Pvt) Limited, 19-D, Ocean Tower, Station Road, Colombo 4. Plaintiff–Appellant vs (1) Neat Lanka (Pvt) Limited, 47A Prince Street, Colombo 11. And also at No. 50 1/11, Colombo Plaza, Wellawatte. (2) Neat Property Developers (Pvt) Limited, 51, Vipulasena Mawatha, Colombo 10. Defendants–Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere		In the matter of an appeal under Section 5(1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 10 of 1996 read together with Section 6 thereof, Sections 754(1), 755(3) and 758 of the Civil Procedure Code and Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-10-12	SC/APPEAL/89/2019	1.DFCC Bank PLC, (Formerly DFCC Vardhana Bank Limited), No. 73, W.A.D Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 2ND DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. 1.Pepiliyanage Sriyani Manjula Perera alias Pepiliyane Sriyani Manjula Perera Tennakoon, No. 74/1/B, Bomaluwa Road, Watapuluwa, Kandy. 1ST DEFENDANT-PETITIONER-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT 2.Karawita Aarachchige Nihal, No. 22A, Dumindu Mawatha, Watapuluwa Housing Scheme, Kandy. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena		In the matter of an appeal in terms of section 5 C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 as amended by Act No. 54 of 2006.	Download
2023-10-11	SC/WRIT/7/2020	A.L.M. Athaullah, Secretary General, National Congress, South Road, Akkaraipattu 01 Petitioner, Mr. Mahinda Deshapriya, Chairman, Election Commission. 2.Mr. N. J. Abeysekara, Member, Election Commission. 3.Professor Ratnajeevan Hoole, Member, Election Commission. All of Election Commission, Election Secretariat, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya. 4.Mr. J. S. D. M. Asanka Abeywardana, Returning Officer, Electoral District of Trincomalee, District Secretariat, Trincomalee. 5.Mr. G. G. Ponnambalam, Secretary, Ahila Ilankai Thamil Congress, ‘Congress House’, No. 120, Main Street, Jaffna. 6.Mr. S. Arokkiyanayakam, Secretary, Akhila Ilankai Tamil Mahasabha, No. 53, Pulavu Road, Sampativu, Trincomalee. 7.Mr. K. Thurairasasingham, Secretary, Ilankai Thamil Arasu Katchi, No. 30, Martin Road, Jaffna. 8.Mr. Douglas Devananda, Secretary, Ealam People’s Democratic Party, No. 9/3, Station Road, Colombo 04. 9.Mr. Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, Secretary, United National Party, ‘Sirikotha’, No. 400, Kotte Road, Pitakotte. 10.Rev. Battaramulle Seelarathana Thero View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an Application for Writs in the nature of Certiorari and Mandamus under and in terms of Article 140 read with Article 104H of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2023-10-11	SC/APPEAL/96/2010	Akmeemana Mahanama Gamage Therabaya Gunasekara, of Mabotuwana Road, Wanduramba. Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. 1.Lokunarangodage David De Silva, of Pallewatte, Wanduramba. 2.Babynona Gunasekara, of Haputantrigewatte, Wanduramba. (Deceased) 2A. Akmeemana Gamage Maithreepala Gunasekara 3.Akmeemana Gamage Sriyalatha Gunasekara 4.Akmeemana Gamage Sunil Palitha Gunasekara 5.Akmeemana Gamage Gamini Gunasekara 6.Akmeemana Gamage Chandranee Gunasekara 7.Akmeemana Gamage Gnanatilaka Gunasekara (Deceased) 7A. Akmeemana Gamage Maithreepala Gunasekara 8.Akmeemana Gamage Maithreepala Gunasekara All of ‘Chitral’, Haputantrigewatte, Wanduramba. Defendant-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court against Judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 04/06/2010 in C. A. Appeal No. 1185/95 (F) D.C. Galle No. 9180/P.	Download
2023-10-11	SC/APPEAL/74/2021	1.Upul Chaminda Perera Kumarasinghe No. 3/C, Gangarama Road, Kovinna, Andiambalama. 2.Airport City Club Hotel Ltd., No. 3/C, Gangarama Road, Kovinna, Andiambalama. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS Vs. Pan Asia Banking Corporation PC, No. 450, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Having its Branch Office at No. 71, Negombo Road, Ja-Ela. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an Application for Special Leave to Appeal under Article 128(2) of the Constitution read with the provisions of the High Court of Provinces (Special Provisions) Act, No. 10 of 1996.	Download
2023-10-11	SC/APPEAL/85/2016, SC/APPEAL/86/2016	Vadivel Maheswaran No. 60/08, Sinna Uppodai, Batticaloa. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER VS. 3.Bank of Ceylon, Head Office, Colombo. 4.Bank of Ceylon, Batticaloa. RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an Application for Special Leave to Appeal and/or Leave to Appeal from an order of the Provincial High Court of the Eastern Province dated 6 June 2014, in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act and the High Court of the Provinces Act read with the Rules of the Supreme Court.	Download
2023-10-10	SC/APPEAL/131/2011	Illandari Devage Jayathilake, Ginihigama South, Pepiliyawala. Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner 1.Illandari Devage Karunawathie, 2.Batepolage Dayaratne, Both of No.205/2, Ginihigama South, Pepiliyawala Defendants-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando		In the matter of an application for leave to appeal under section 5 C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No.54 of 2006	Download
2023-10-06	SC/APPEAL/131/2017	Badulpe Ramani Sepalika Pathirange, No. 196/9, Millange Kumbura, Ranawana, Katugasthota. SUBSTITUTED-APPLICANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT vs. People’s Bank, No.75, Sri Chiththampalam A. Gardner Mw, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J		In the matter of an application for special leave to appeal in terms of Article 154(p) of the Constitution read with Section 31DD of the Industrial Disputes Act (as amended) and Section 9 of the High Court of the Province (Special Provisions) Act No.19 of 1990.	Download
2023-10-06	SC/EXP/1/2022	Zainul Abdeen Nazeer Ahamed No. 107, Railway Avenue, Kirulapone, Colombo 05 PETITIONER Vs. 1.The Sri Lanka Muslim Congress, Dharussalam No 51, Vauxhall Lane, Colombo 02. 2.Rauff Hakeem Leader, Sri Lanka Muslim Congress No 51, Vauxhall Lane, Colombo 02. 3.A. L. Abdul Majeed Chairman, Sri Lanka Muslim Congress No 51, Vauxhall Lane, Colombo 02. 4.A. C. Raawather Naina Mohamed Senior Deputy Leader, Sri Lanka Muslim Congress No 51, Vauxhall Lane, Colombo 02. 19.Br. M. Naeemullah Deputy Chairman, Sri Lanka Muslim Congress No 51, Vauxhall Lane, Colombo 02. 20.Br. Mansoor A. Cader Deputy Secretary, Sri Lanka Muslim Congress No 51, Vauxhall Lane, Colombo 02. 21.Br. Ziyadh Hamieedh Deputy President Majlis–e-Shoora, Sri Lanka Muslim Congress No 51, Vauxhall Lane, Colombo 02. 22.Br. Rahmath Mansoor Deputy National Coordinating Secretary, Sri Lanka Muslim Congress No 51, Vauxhall Lane, Colombo 02. 23.Seyed Alizahir Moulana Deputy National Propaganda Secretary, Sri Lanka Muslim Congress No 51, Vauxhall Lane, Colombo 02. 24.Br. M. Faizal Cassim Deputy National View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Article 99 (13) (a) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2023-10-06	SC/FR/100/2022	Rannula Sugath Mohana Mendis, Puwakwatta Road, Kithulampititya, Uluwitike, Galle. PETITIONER vs. 1.D. K. A. Sanath Kumara, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Embilipitiya. 2.M. N. S. Mendis, Senior Superintendent of Police, Embilipitiya. 3.J. S. Wirasekara, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rathnapura. 4.Mahinda Gunarathna, Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police, Sabaragamuwa Province. 5.C. D. Wickramaratne, Inspector General of Police, Sri Lanka Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 6.Justice Jagath Balapatabendi, Chairman, 7.Indrani Sugathadasa, Member, 8.Dr. T. R. C. Ruberu, Member, 9.Ahamod Lebbe Mohamed Saleem, Member, 10.Leelasena Liyanagama, Member, 11.Dian Gomes, Member, 12. Dilith Jayaweera, Member 13.W. H. Piyadasa, Member, 14.Suntharam Arumainayaham, Member, 15.M. A. B Daya Senarath, Secretary, The 7th to 15th respondents: all of: Public Service Commission, 1200/9, Rajamalwatha Road, Battaramulla. 16.Major General (retd). Jagath Alwis, Secretary to the Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of Public Security, 14th Floor View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-10-06	SC/FR/166/2017	1.J. P. Jayasena Halmillakulama, Nachchaduwa, Anuradhapura 2.M.M.M. Heerath Nallamudawa, Eppawala. 3.S.S.P. Weerasinghe Halmillakulama, Nachchaduwa, Anuradhapura. 4.P. Ranathunga No. 104, Pahala kuruvita, Hidogama. 5.A.R. Bandara Mawatha wewa, Eppawela. 6.G.W. Bandara Kusawa, Nachchaduwa. 7.H.P.S.K. Wickramasinghe Pansala laga Niwasa, Ihala wewa, Galkulama. 8.H.B. Udayarathna Selesthi Maduwa, Nachchaduwa. 9.H.M.A. Ananda No. 61, Mawatha Wewa, Eppawala. 10.D.J.B. Jayawardana Nachchaduwa wewa para, Ponimankulama, Galkulama. 11.H.P.D. Kaldera Ihala Katugampola, Hidogama. 12.P.G.B.U. Weerasinghe No-2 B, Nithulgollawa, Hurulunikawewa. 13.W.A.P.S. Wanniarachchi L.B. Janapadaya, Megoda Wewa. 14.D.M.U.P. Bandara No-487, C Yaya, Padavi-Parakramapura. 15.J.T. Kumara No-48, Nuwara Elliya Janapadaya, Padikara Maduwa. 16.W.K.G.P. Walpita No. 147, Kekirawa View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2023-10-05	SC/FR/169/2008	1.Balasooriya Arachchige Chandradasa 2.Rammuthu Purage Premawathi Suraweera 3.Samarathunge Arachchige Ranaseeli 4.Malalage Chandralatha Peiris 5.Pathiranage Niwanthi Perera 6.Dona Bandumathi Lokugamage 7.Udagedara Appuhamilage Chitra Gethanjali Wimaladasa 8.Sudathge Ravindra Athula Theja Hemanatha 9.Nandana Jayadasa 10.Mahabalage Don Aruni Manoja Jayawardana 11.Mestiya Don Jayantha Gunathilaka 12.Geethangani Jayathunga 13.Jayawardenage Champa Sriyani 14.Manathunge Subadhra Manathunga 15.Disanayake Mudiyanselage Pushpa Manel Disanayake 16.Mabulage Dhanapali Hemalatha 17.Kasthuri Mudiyanselage Uthpala Iresha Kasthuri 18.Dikkuburage Chandralatha De Silva 19.Ranasinghe Arachchige Nadeeka Ranasinghe 20.Wickramasinghe Athukoralage Shantha 21.Chandima Wijewardana 22.Werapurage Sitha Ranjani Fernando 23.Suriya Arachchilage Gayani Asanka 24.Don Rupasena Vithana 25.Adikari Mudiyanselage Thamara Kumari Gunathilaka 26.Pathirage Dona Seetha Gajanayake 27.Meemange Somawathie 28.Chandrani Mangalika Hapuarachchi 29.Hollu Pathirage Anura Ananda Caldera View More	HON. VIJITH K. MALALGODA, PC, J		In the matter of an application under Article 17 read with Article 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2023-10-04	SC/APPEAL/116/2015	Kumbukgolle Gedera Ashokamala, Ihala Arawwala, Dambulla. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. Patadendi Gedara Ratnayake, Alias Kumbukgolle Gedera Ratnayake, No. 37A, Ihala Arawwala, Dambulla. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC		In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal under section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act, No. 19 of 1990 as amended by Act No. 54 of 2006.	Download
2023-10-04	SC/APPEAL/60/2013	The Attorney General of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. Vs. 1. Pettiyawattege Anurudha Perera Samarasinghe 2. Panagoda Liyanage Don Tissa Seneviratne alias Lal 3. Priyantha Anura Siriwardena alias Kotiya 4. Samasundara Mohotti Arachchige Nimal alias Kaluwa 5. Egodawattege Kamal Perera 6. Samasundara Hettiarachchige Hemachandra alias Dayananda alias Sudha ACCUSED AND 1. Pettiyawattege Anurudha Perera Samarasinghe 2. Panagoda Liyanage Don Tissa Seneviratne alias Lal 3. Priyantha Anura Siriwardena alias Kotiya 4. Samasundara Mohotti Arachchige Nimal alias Kaluwa 5. Egodawattege Kamal Perera 6. Samasundara Hettiarachchige Hemachandra alias Dayananda alias Sudha ACCUSED-APPELLANTS Vs. The Attorney General of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Samasundara Mohotti Arachchige Nimal alias Kaluwa 4th ACCUSED-APPELLANT-APPELLANT Vs. The Attorney General of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2023-10-04	SC/FR/233/18	Warnakuwatthawaduge Surani Lakshika Fernando, No 8/2, Mahajana Road, Kadalana, Moratuwa. Petitioner Vs. 1. Police Sergeant Attapattu, Police Station, Mount Lavinia. 2. I.P Ramya Silva, Officer-in-Charge Minor Offences Branch Police Station, Mount Lavinia. 3. C.I. Chanaka Iddamalgoda, Head Quarter Inspector of Police Police Station Mount Lavinia. 4.Deputy Inspector General of Police, Overseeing Mount Lavinia, Nugegoda, Moratuwa and Kalutara Divisions Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 5. N.K Illangakoon, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 5A. C.D Wickramaratne, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 6.Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an application under Article 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2023-10-04	SC/APPEAL/47/2020	Koruwage Lalith Fernando, Bogalla, Beruwala. 3rd Defendant–Appellant–Appellant vs. Lellupitiyagama Ethige Roslin Hemalatha, Karandagoda, Beruwala. Plaintiff–Respondent–Respondent 1.Ihalahewage Don Lionel Ranasinghe, Mahagederawatta, Karandagoda, Beruwala. 2.Jagath Investment (Private) Limited, Owitigala, Matugama. 1st and 2nd Defendants–Respondents–Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere		In the matter of an appeal under and in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka read with Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act, No. 19 of 1990, as amended by Act No. 54 of 2006.	Download
2023-10-04	SC/APPEAL/174/2011	1. Ahamed Lebbe Assanar 2. Aliyar Thangamma All of Udanga, Sammanthurai Defendants-Appellants-Appellants Kose Mohamed Sulaiha Umma of Udanga, Summanthurai Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC		In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal in terms of section 5(C)(1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006 read together with Article 127 of the Constitution.	Download
2023-10-04	SC/APPEAL/121/2011	Amarasinghe Arachchige Sriyani Manel de Silva nee Amarasinghe, No. 74, Charles Place, Lunawa, Moratuwa. 3rd PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTSPETITIONER Vs. 1. Mahara Mohottalalage Upali Gunarathna Bandara, Badullewa, Narammala. 2. Dasanayaka Achchilage Dasanayaka, Badullewa, Narammala 3. Mahara Mohottalalage Herath Banda, Badullewa, Narammala. (Now deceased) 3A. Mahara Mohotthalalage Upali Gunarathna Bandara, Badullewa, Narammala. DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTSRESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2023-10-03	SC/APPEAL/30/2013	Manthree Aludeniya, Karalliadde Walawwa, Teldeniya PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT PETITIONER Vs. Ekanayake Mudiyanselage Kande Walawwe Jayantha Karalliadde, Karalliadde, Teldeniya. 6th DEFENDANT APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1.Pearl Karalliadde, No. 74/2, Jaya Road, Udahamulla, Nugegoda. 2.Saddathissa Bandara Karalliadde, No. 71, Rajapihilla Mawatha, Kandy. 3.Kawan Tissa Bandara Karalliadde, Madapola, Karalliadde, Teldeniya. 4.Karalliadde Walawwe Anula Karalliadde, Karalliadde, Teldeniya. 5.Swarna Kumarihamy Karalliadde, Karalliadde, Teldeniya. 7.Ekanayake Mudiyanselage Kande Walawwe Ranjith Karalliadde, Karalliadde, Teldeniya. 8.Ekanayake Mudiyanselage Kande Walawwe Sarath Karalliadde, Karalliadde, Teldeniya. 9.Ekanayake Mudiyanselage Kande Walawwe Lalinda Karalliadde, Karalliadde, Teldeniya 10.Sriyani Kularatne 11.Sarath Kularatne Both of Teldeniya, Karalliadde 1st to 5th and 7th to 11th DEFENDANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara		In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal in terms of Sec:5(c)(1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Amendment Act No. 54 of 2006	Download
2023-10-03	SC/APPEAL/75/2015	1A.D.A. Kaluarachchi, 2A.H.G. Piyadasa, Both of “Singhagiri”, Kandurupokuna, Tangalle Substituted Complainant-Petitioner-Respondent-Petitioners Vs. 1.Hatharasinghe Arachchige Ranjith Premalal, 2.Hatharasinghe Arachchige Gnanasiri, 3.Hatharasinghe Arachchige Amitha Kanthi, Respondent-Respondent-Appellant-Respondents Commissioner of Agrarian Services, Office of the Agrarian Services, Hambantota. 4th Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne		In the matter of an application for Special Leave to Appeal.	Download
2023-10-02	SC/APPEAL/190/2016	Liyana Athukoralalage Indrawathie, 1/418, Madugashandiya, Mandawala. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1.Galolu Kankanamalage Dharmasena, Mee Ambawatte, Mandawala. 2.Gunarathna Arachchilage Don Linton Gunarathna, No. 208/A, Mahamera Road, Ihala Lunugama, Mandawala. Defendant-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva		In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal under Article 128 of the Constitution read along with Section 5(1)(C) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 54 of 2006	Download
2023-09-27	SC/FR/52/2015	1.K.L.I.Amarasekera, No.2, KuruppuMullaRoad, Panadura. 2.JayasumanaMunasinghe, No.315/6, VidyalaMawatha, Makol-South, Makola. 3.E.M.Premaratne, 673/21, BluemendalRoad, Colombo15. 4.D.M.AnuraJayaweera, 20B, Liyanage-wagura, Kandy. 5.K.U.R.Upali, KanthiNiwasa, Aladeniya, Werellagala. PETITIONERS 1.SriLankaPortsAuthority, No.19, ChaithyaRoad, Colombo01. 2.Dr.LakdasPanagoda(Chairman) 3.Capt.AsithaWijesekera(ViceChairman) 4.Mr.JagathP.Wijeweera(Director) 5.Mr.SaliyaSenanayake(Director) 6.SureshEdirisinghe(Director) 7.Mr.AthulaBandaraHerath(Director) 8.Capt.NihalKeppetipola(ManagingDirector) The2ndto8thRespondentsof;BoardofDirector, SriLankaPortsAuthority, No.19, ChaithyaRoad, Colombo01. 9.L.H.R.Sepala, ChiefHumanResourceManager, SriLankaPortsAuthority, Kochchikade, Colombo13. 10.Hon.AttorneyGeneral, AttorneyGeneral’sDepartment, Hulftsdorp, Colombo12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe		In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Republic.	Download
2023-09-27	SC/APPEAL/21/2021	Andawalage Nimal Sarath Kumara 2nd ACCUSED APPELLANT-APPELLANT Vs. Hon. Attorney-General, Attorney-General’s Department Colombo 12 COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT Poththegodage Anula Chandralatha 1ST ACCUSED-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe		In the matter of an Appeal under Article 128(2) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-09-25	SC/APPEAL/42/2015 AND SC/APPEAL/46/2015	Orient Financial Services Corporation Limited, No. 46, 48, Dr. N. M. Perera Mawatha, Kota Road, Borella. Presently known as Orient Finance PLC, No. 75, Arnold Rathnayake Mawatha, Colombo 10 Petitioner-Appellant Vs 1.Ranepuradewage Upathissa, No. 272/4, Himbutana Patugama, Mulleriyawa, Angoda. 2.Ranepuradewage Bandula No. 37/11, Chappell Lane, Nugegoda. No. 23A, Chappell Lane, Nugegoda. 3.Kalinga Gamini Silva, No. 105, Mahinda Mawatha, Wellampitiya. 4.Nakalandage Marvin Perera, No. 138/10, Pamunuwila Road, Gonawila. Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC		In the matter of a Leave to Appeal Application against the refusal to enforce an Arbitral Award by the High Court under and in terms of section 31(1) of the Arbitration Act No. 11 of 1995	Download
2023-09-22	SC/RE/10/2016	Ajith Dissanayake No.156/30, Jayagath Uyana, Maligagodaella Road, Mulleriyawa New Town. COURT COMMISSIONER, LICENSED AUCTIONEER AND VALUER-PETITIONER Vs Sri Lanka Savings Bank Limited, No.110, D. S. Senanayake Mawatha, Colombo 08. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena		In the matter of an application for revision of order dated 8th August 2016.	Download
2023-09-22	SC/APPEAL/47/2015	M.Y. Jezeema Beebi, No. 166/8A, 166/8B, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 05. Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Gothanayagi, No. 166/8, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 05. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne		In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal under and in terms of Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006	Download
2023-09-22	SC/CHC APPEAL/25/2015	1.Mohomed Thawbeer Mohomed Haneez No. 142, Himbiliyagahamadiththa, Uwa 1ST DEFENDANT-PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs Sampath Leasing and Facturing Limited, No. 24A, Ward Place, Colombo 07. Previous Address No. 110, Sir James Peiris Mawatha, Colombo 02. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT AND 1.Arpin Mohomed Hameen No. 96, Mihindupura, Meepilimana, Nuwara-Eliya 2.Wahampurage Rukman Samaranayake, “Happy Inn”, No. 35, Unim View Road, Nuwara-Eliya DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J		In the matter of an appeal in terms of Section 5(A) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 as amended by Act No. 54 of 2006 read with Section 755 of the Civil Procedure Code.	Download
2023-09-22	SC/CHC APPEAL/69/2013	Shahla Cassim, No. 14, Suleiman Avenue, Colombo 05. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs. Sri Lanka Savings Bank, No.110, D.S. Senanayake Mawatha, Colombo 08. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena		In the matter of an appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of Sections 5 and 6 of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 10 of 1996 read with Chapter LVIII of the Civil Procedure Code.	Download
2023-09-20	SC/SPL LA/100/2019	Dr. Sena Yaddehige Level 22, Crescat Resdiencies, Colombo 03. Petitioner-Petitioner Vs. 1.Securities and Exchange Commission of Sri Lanka. 2.Dr. Tilak Karunaratne, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission of Sri Lanka. 2A. Ranel T. Wijesinha, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission of Sri Lanka. Substituted Respondent-Respondent 3.D. N. R. Siriwardena 4.Ranel T. Wijesinha 4A. Jayantha Fernando Substituted Respondent-Respondent 5.S. R. Attygalle 6.Marina Fernando 6A. Jagath Perera 7.Dilani Gayathri Wijemanne 7A. Manjula Hiranya de Silva Substituted Respondent-Respondent 8.Rajeev Amarasuriya 9.Suresh Shah 9A. Arjuna Herath Substituted Respondent-Respondent 10.C. J. P. Siriwardena Members, Securities and Exchange Commission of Sri Lanka. 11.Vajira Wijegunawardena Director General, Securities and Exchange Commission of Sri Lanka. All of Securities and Exchange Commission of Sri Lanka, Level 28 and 29, East Tower, World Trade Centre, Echeleon Square, Colombo 01. Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC		In the matter of an application for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under and in terms of Article 128(2) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-09-20	SC/FR/126/2022	Jayaweerage Sumedha Jayaweera, Principal’s Bungalow, St Paul’s Girls’ School, Milagiriya, Colombo 05. PETITIONER Vs. 1.Dinesh Gunawardana, Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 1.Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 1(B).Hon. Susil Premajayantha, Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 2.Prof. K. Kapila C.K. Perera The Secretary Ministry of Education, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 2(A). M.N. Ranasingha, The Secretary Ministry of Education, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 3.W.M.N.J. Pushpakumara, Additional Secretary Education Services, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 4.R.A.A.K. Ranawaka Secretary Ministry of Lands, Ministry of Lands, “Mihikatha Madura”, Land Secretariat, No.1200/6, Rajamalwatha Rd, Battaramulla. 5.E.W.L.K. Egodawela, Additional Secretary (School Affairs), Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. The 2nd, 4th and 5th Respondents, Members of Interview Panel. 6.H.M.C.K. Seneviratne 11/3, Samagi Mawatha, Depanama, Pannipitiya. 7.Hon. Jagath Balapatabendi View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Article 17 & 126 of the Constitution.	Download
2023-09-20	SC/MISC/2/2013	Sudu Hakuruge Sarath Kumara Pathkada, Kuruwita. APPELLANT-APPELLANT Vs. 1.National Gem and Jewellery Authority, No. 25, Galle Face Terrace. Colombo 03. 2.Prasad Galhena, 2a. Asanga Welegedera 2b. Aruna Gunawardena 2c. Amitha Gamage 2d. Thilak Weerasinghe Chairman, National Gem and Jewellery Authority, No. 25, Galle Face Terrace. Colombo 03. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS 3.B.M.U.D. Basnayake, 3a. Udaya Senevirathna 3b. Dr. Anil Jasinghe Secretary, Ministry of Environment, “Sampathpaya”. No. 82, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 4.M.M.S. Anushka Dharmasiri, Delgamuwa, Kuruwita. 5.A.B. Jayantha Rajapaksha, Kahangama, Kosgala. RESPONDENTS 6.Kamal Neel Sidantha Ratwatte 6A. Jayasundera Mudiyanselage Migara Jayasundera Basnayake Nilame, Saman Devalaya, Rathnapura. Intervenient-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an appeal under and in terms of Section 15(11) of the National Gem and Jewellery Authority Act No. 50 of 1993 and the Supreme Court Rules	Download
2023-09-20	SC/FR/405/2018	Ganeshan Samson Roy, No. 84./90, Nawala Road, Colombo 05 PETITIONER Vs. 1. M.M. Janaka Marasinghe Police Inspector Officer in Charge Special Investigation Unit 11 Criminal Investigation Department Colombo 01 2. A.S Sudasinghe Sub Inspector of Police Investigation Officer Criminal Investigation Department Colombo 01 3. H.G.C.P. Priyadharshana (87254) Police Constable Investigating Officer Criminal Investigation Department Colombo 01 4. Shani Abeysekera Senior Superintendent of Police Director Criminal Investigations Division Colombo 01 5. Pujith Jayasundara Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters Colombo 01 5A. C.D. Wickremaratne Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters Colombo 01 6.M.M Saveen Chathuranga Gunaratne No.259/14, Pamunuwa Gardens Pamunuwila Gonawila 7. Officer in Charge Remand Prison, Mahara 8. The Honourable Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Hulftsdorp Colombo 12 RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2023-09-20	SC/FR/172/2017	Vavuniya Solar Power (Private) Limited Level 04, Access Towers, No. 278, Union Place, Colombo 2. Petitioner View More	HON. Yasantha Kodagoda, P.C., J		In the matter of an Application in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka 1.Ceylon Electricity Board No. 50, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 2.Sri Lanka Sustainable Energy Authority Block 05, 1st Floor, 3G-17, BMICH, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7. 3.W.B. Ganegala Former Chairman, Ceylon Electricity Board 3A. Rakhitha Jayawardene Former Chairman, Ceylon Electricity Board 3B. Wijitha Herath Chairman, Ceylon Electricity Board 4.A.K. Samarasinghe Former General Manager Ceylon Electricity Board 4A. S.D.W. Gunawardena Former General Manager Ceylon Electricity Board 4B. Keerthi Karunaratne Former General Manager Ceylon Electricity Board 4C. N.W.K. Herath General Manager Ceylon Electricity Board 5.H.A. Vimal Nadeera Former Director General Sri Lanka Sustainable Energy Authority 5A. Labuna Hewage Ranjith Sepala Former Director General Sri Lanka Sustainable Energy Authority 5B	Download
2023-09-20	SC/APPEAL/74/2017	Thirimamuni Badra Wattegama Godakumbura, Beliatta. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Jasin Basthiyan Arachchige Karunawathie No. 5B, Palliya Road, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. 1st DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT RESPONDENT 2. Jasin Basthiyan Arachchige Gunawathie Wadumaduwa, Thalalle North, Kekanadura. 2nd DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT RESPONDENT 3A. Widana Pathiranage Seetha Egodahawatta, Kambussawela, Beliatta. 3A DEFENDANT-APPELLANT RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2023-09-19	SC/APPEAL/189/2014	D. A. Piyaseeli No. 29, New Road, Ambalangoda. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-APPELLANT -Vs- Iddamalgoda Dissanayakalage Winson Ranasinghe Magala South, Karandeniya. (Deceased) SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT 1B1. Ariyadasa Galappaththi 1B2. Deshika Nayomani Galappaththi 1B3. Lathika Ruwani Galappaththi 1B4. Sandali Bhagya Galappaththi All of, No. 45/1, Magala - South, Karandeniya. 1B5. Thennakoon Mudiyanselage Vijitha Nandani Udyana Mawatha, Uragasmansandiya. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2023-09-15	SC/APPEAL/66/2013	Neville Anthony Keil, 50, Jambugasmulla Mawatha, Nugegoda. PETITIONER Vs. 1.Maharagama Urban Council, Maharagama 2.Kanthi Kodikara, Chairman, Maharagama Urban Council, Maharagama RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN Neville Anthony Keil, 50, Jambugasmulla Mawatha, Nugegoda. PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs. 1.Maharagama Urban Council, Maharagama 2.Kanthi Kodikara, Chairman, Maharagama Urban Council, Maharagama RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena		In the matter of Appeal in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, against a judgment of the Court of Appeal.	Download
2023-09-14	SC/APPEAL/119/2021	Lushantha Karunarathna, No. 112, D.S. Wijesinha Mawatta, Katubadda, Moratuwa. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER vs. Asia Broadcasting Corporation (Pvt) Ltd, Level 35 and 37, East Tower World Trade Centre, Colombo 01. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J		In the matter of an application for special leave to appeal under and in terms of the High Court of the Province (Special Provisions) Act No.19 of 1990 as amended or the Industrial Disputes Act No. 32 of 1990 made in respect of Order dated 31st May 2019 of the High Court of the Western Province Holden in Colombo.	Download
2023-09-14	SC/APPEAL/237/2017	Fathima Meroza Jazeel, No 212/3, Galle Road, Mount Lavinia. Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant Dhammika Dahanayake (now deceased), No.34, Panchikawatte Road, Colombo 10. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent 1.Poorna Ranga Dahanayake, 2.Tharanga Dahanayake, Both of; No.32/7, Dharmadasa Weerarathne Mawatha, Kandy. Substituted Defendants-Respondents-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando		In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal from the Judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court Case No. WP/HCCA/COL/115/2011 [F] of the Act No. 54 of 2006.	Download
2023-09-13	SC/APPEAL/19/2021	Coca-Cola Beverages Sri Lanka Ltd Tekkawatta Biyagama 2nd Accused-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. M. Jagath Keerthi Bandara Public Health Inspector/Authorized Officer Nanneriya Complainant-Respondent-Respondent Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12 Respondent-Respondent Nilanthi Distributors Yapahuwa Junction Mahawa 1st Accused-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an Application for Special Leave to Appeal from the Judgement pronounced on 08.02.2018 by the High Court of the North Western Province Holden in Kurunegala in High Court Appeal No. 48/2012 in terms of Section 9 (a) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act, No.19 of 1990 read with Article 154P of the Constitution and the Supreme Court Rules 1990	Download
2023-09-13	SC/APPEAL/97/2012	Parana Liyanage Chaminda (Presently at the Welikada Prison, Colombo) ACCUSED-APPELLANT-PETITIONER Vs. The Honourable Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment dated 14th of February 2012, of the Court of Appeal in case No. CA Appeal No. 237/2007 under and in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-09-11	SC/APPEAL/57/2016	1A.Mihidukulasuriya Sudath Harison Pinto (also named as 1B1), Reinland Estate, Yagamwela, Dummalasuriya. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant 1B.Mihidukulasuriya Victor Pinto (Deceased), 1C.Mihidukulasuriya Sarath Asinas Pinto (also named as 1B2) (Deceased), 1C(a).Samarakoon Mudiyanselage Wimalawathi, 1C(b).Sawinda Pranith Mihindukulasuriya, Both of ‘Reinland Estate’, Yagamwela, Dummalasuriya. 1C(a), 1C(b) Substituted Defendant-Respondent-Appellants Vs. Weerappulige Piyaseeli Fernando, No. 37, Yagamwela, Dummalasooriya. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent 2.Chithranganee Ratnamali Merlin De Soyza, No. 9, Fonseka Place, Colombo 05. 3.Anusha Chithra Mawli Geetal De Soyza, No. 4A, Keenakele Watta, Marawila. 4.Francis Dilini Anusha De Silva, No. 50, Ele Bank Road, Colombo 05. 5.Ranil De Soyza, No. 50, Ele Bank Road, Colombo 05. 6.Malani De Soyza, No. 50, Ele Bank Road, Colombo 05. 7.Siri Nanayakkara, No. 798, Galle Road, Molligoda, Wadduwa. 2-7 Defendant-Respondent-Respondents View More	HON. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2023-09-08	SC/FR/479/2012	1. Kariyawasam Katukohila Gamage Chandrika, 139/A, Sudumetiya, Dodanduwa. 2. Hikkaduwa Liyanage Prashanthini, 984, 2nd Stage, Anuradhapura. 3. Pulukkutti Kankanamalage Jayarathna, 51, Gampola Gedara, Pugoda. 4. Kathaluwe Liyanage Thamara Nishanthi De Silva, 61, Irrigation Quarters, Air Port Road, Anuradhapura. 5. Aramudalige Chandrika Malkanthi Wakkumbura, Attapitiya, Ussapitiya. 6. Geeganage Dammika Lalani, 78/2, Nuwara Eliya Road, Katukithula. 7. Arampola Mudiyanselage Karunarathna Arampola, 2734, 3rd Stage Piyawara, Parakum Uyana, 7th Lane, Anuradapura. 8. Rajapaksha Mudiyanselage Lasanthi Inoka Kandemulla, 121, Madabawita, Danowita. 9. Das Mudiyanselage Herath Senevirathna Bandara, Molawatta, Wattegedara, Mahauswawe. 10. Oruwalage Lilani Manomani Perera, 47/8, Muwagama, Rathnapura. 11. Chandrika Pushpalatha Nawarathna, No.75, Sri Sumangala Patumaga, Polwatta, Katugastota. 12. Singappuli Arachchige Dayani Susantha, 45/D2, Gonagaha, Makewita. 13. Vijitha Badara Wasgewatta, 183B, Bulumulla, Kiribathkumbura. 14. Samanthi Shesha Amarasinghe, Udagama Road, Balawinna, Pallebedda. 15. Dissanayaka Jayaweera Gaspe Ralalage Nimalsiri Dissanayake, \"Senani\", Walpitamulla, Dewalapola. 16. Panakoora Gamaralalage Ajantha Kumari Wickramarathna, 286, Yaya 5, Rajanganaya. 17. Hettige Gangani Geethika Weerasekara, 152, Sarasavi Asapuwa, Hapugala, Wakwella. 18. Dilshi Geetha Elizebeth Fernando, 7B, Official Quarters, Institute of Surveying and Mapping, Diyathalawa. Petitioners Vs 1. P.B. Abeykoon, Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 1A. J. Dadallage, Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 1B. J.J. Ratnasiri, Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 07. AND OTHERS View More	HON. P. PADMAN SURASENA, J			Download
2023-09-05	SC/APPEAL/15/2021	Captain M.B.A. Dissanayake, No. 126/5A, Old Puttalam Road, Tisa Wewa, Anuradhapura. Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1.General Jagath Jayasooriya, Chief of Defence Staff, Block 05, BMICH, Colombo 07. 2.Lieutenant General R.M.D. Ratnayake, Army Headquarters, Colombo 03. 3.Brigadier D.D.U.K. Hettiarachchi, Army Headquarters, Colombo 03. 4.Colonel S.S. Waduge, Army Headquarters, Colombo 03. 5.Colonel H.G.P.M. Kariyawasam, Office of Chief of Defence Staff, Block 05, BMICH, Colombo 07. Respondent-Respondents View More	HON. Mahinda Samayawardhena J.			Download
2023-09-05	SC/APPEAL/75/2016	1.Ranthatidurage Selestina (Deceased) 1(a). Namminnage Mahathun, 1(b).Namminnage Saradiyel, 1(c).Namminnage Ariyasena, 2.Namminnage Babasingno (Deceased) 3.Namminnage Karunawathie (Deceased) 3(a). Namminnage Manjula Kumari, All of Udahena, Idama, Kolonna. Defendant-Appellant-Appellants Leelaratne Illesinghe (Deceased) Shanthi Sirima Illesinghe of No. 62, Kumbuka West, Gonapola Junction, Horana. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	HON. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2023-08-31	SC/SPL LA/280/2022	Alagar Arshakumar Welikada Prison, Colombo 08. Accused- Appellant- Petitioner. -Vs- Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent- Respondent View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda PC J			Download
2023-08-11	SC/FR/100/2016	Major Wengappuli Arachchige Samantha, No. 644, Thambiliyana, Kuruwita. Petitioner Vs. 1. Inspector Ranjan Samarasinghe Officer-in-Charge, Opanayake Police Station, Opanayake. 2. Hon. Duminda Mudunkotuwa Magistrate, Magistrate’s Court, Balangoda, 3. Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 4. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando		The matter of an application under and in terms of Article 126 read together with Article 17 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-08-11	SC/CONT/2/2022	Nagananda Kodithuwakku, The General Secretary, Vinivida Foundation, 99, Subadrarama Road, Nugegoda. petitioner Vs Jayantha Jayasuriya, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, Colombo 12. Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC		In the matter of an application for a ruling of contempt of the court under Article 105(3) of the Constitution	Download
2023-08-10	SC/APPEAL/107/2017	Arpico Finance Company Limited, No. 146, Havelock Road, Colombo 05. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Jayasinghe Chandrakeerthi Jayasinghe, No. 532/5, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 05. 2. Chrishani Renuka Jayasinghe, No. 532/5, Elwitigala Mawatha, Colombo 05. Defendants AND BETWEEN Arpico Finance Company Limited, No. 146, Havelock Road, Colombo 05. Presently known as, Associated Motor Finance Company PLC, No. 89, Hyde Park Corner, Colombo 02. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Jayasinghe Chandrakeerthi Jayasinghe, No. 532/5, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 05. 2. Chrishani Renuka Jayasinghe, No. 532/5, Elwitigala Mawatha, Colombo 05. Defendant-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Jayasinghe Chandrakeerthi Jayasinghe, No. 532/5, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 05. 2. Chrishani Renuka Jayasinghe, No. 532/5, Elwitigala Mawatha, Colombo 05. Defendant-Respondent-Appellants Vs. Associated Motor Finance Company PLC, No. 89, Hyde Park Corner, Colombo 02. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	HON. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2023-08-10	SC/APPEAL/151/2015	Manchanayake Arachchilage Dharmawathie, Doranagoda, Udugampola. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Keppetiwalana Ralalage Rohini Lanka 2. Keppetiwalana Ralalage Shayamalie Dharmadasa 3. Keppetiwalana Ralalage Lakshman Dharmadasa 4. Keppetiwalana Ralalage Sisira Kumara Dharmadasa 5. Keppetiwalana Ralalage Dharmapriya 6. Keppetiwalana Ralalage Kapila Nimal Ruwan 7. Keppetiwalana Ralalage Malanie Pushpakanthi 8. Keppetiwalana Ralalage Jayaratna 9. Thalahitiya Gamaralalage Podihamine All of Doranagoda, Udugampola. Defendants AND 1. Keppetiwalana Ralalage Rohini Lanka 2. Keppetiwalana Ralalage Shayamalie Dharmadasa 3. Keppetiwalana Ralalage Lakshman Dharmadasa 4. Keppetiwalana Ralalage Sisira Kumara Dharmadasa 9. Thalahitiya Gamaralalage Podihamine All of Doranagoda, Udugampola. 1st to 4th and 9th Defendant-Appellants Vs. Manchanayake Arachchilage Dharmawathie, Doranagoda, Udugampola. Plaintiff-Respondent 5. Keppetiwalana Ralalage Dharmapriya 6. Keppetiwalana Ralalage Kapila Nimal Ruwan 7. Keppetiwalana Ralalage Malanie Pushpakanthi View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva		In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal in terms of Section 5 (c) (1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 54 of 2006	Download
2023-08-10	SC/APPEAL/66/2020	1. Salinda Dissanayake CA (Writ) Application No. 87/2013 Hon. Minister of Indigenous Medicine, Ayurvedha Teaching Hospital complex No. 325, N.M. Perera Mawatha Colombo. 1A. Rajitha Senarathna Hon. Minister of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, Ministry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, No. 385, Baddegama Wimalawansa Himi Mawatha, Colombo 10. 1B. Keheliya Rambukwella, Minister of Health No. 385, Baddegama Wimalawansa Himi Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. Secretary Ayurvedha Teaching Hospital complex No. 235, N.M. Perera Mawatha Colombo. 2A. Secretary Ministry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, No. 385, Baddegama Wimalawansa Himi Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3. Homeopathy Council No. 94, Shelton Jayasinghe Mawatha Welisara, Ragama 4. Ahinsaka Perera Secretary Homeopathy Council No. 94, Shelton Jayasinghe Mawatha Welisara, Ragama. 5. Newton Peiris Advisor to the Minister of Indigenous Medicine, Ministry of Indigenous Medicine, Ayurvedha Teaching Hospital complex No. 235, N.M. Perera Mawatha Colombo View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC		In the Matter of an Appeal for Special Leave to Appeal from the judgement of the Court of Appeal of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka under and in terms of Article 128(2) of the Constitution.	Download
2023-08-10	SC/FR/360/2016	D. S. Fernando, No. 01, G. H. Perera Mawatha, Rattanapitiya. Petitioner Vs. 1. Hon. Laxman Kiriella, The Former Minister of Higher Education and Highways, The Ministry of Highways, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Koswatta, Battaramulla. 1(a). Hon. Johnston Fernando, The Former Minister of Roads and Highways, The Ministry of Roads and Highways, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Koswatta, Battaramulla. 1(b). Hon. Bandula Gunawardane, Minister of Mass Media, Transport and Highways, The Ministry of Highways, 9th Floor, Maganeguma Mahamedura, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. 2. Hon. John Amarathunga, The Former Minister of Lands, No. 1200/6, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 2(a). Hon. S. M. Chandrasena, The Minister of Lands and Land Development, The Ministry of Lands and Land Development, No. 1200/6, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 2(b). Hon. Harin Fernando, The Minister of Land and Tourism, No. 1200/6, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 3. The Secretary, The Ministry View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Article 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2023-08-10	SC/RULE/4/2022	H.A. Mahinda Ratnayake No. 26/13, Madarata Housing, Uplands, Aruppola Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC		In the matter of a Rule in terms of Section 42(2) of the Judicature Act No. 02 of 1978 against Mr. H.A. Ratnayake	Download
2023-08-09	SC/APPEAL/27/2018	Dayaratne Jayasuriya Debarawewa Tissamaharamaya Plaintiff Vs. 1. Warusha Hennadige Heen Nona (deceased) 1A. Indralatha Irene Jayasuriya Both of Debarawewa, Tissamaharamaya 2. Gamini Jayasruiya (deceased) Debarawewa, Tissamaharamaya 2A. Lekam Mudiyanselage Chandrawathi 3. Premalatha Jayasuriya 4. Indralatha Irene Jayasuriya 5. Chandraseeli Jayasuriya All of Debarawewa, Tissamaharamaya 6. A.H. Misinona (Deceased) “Paradise Cafe” Debarawewa, Tissamaharamaya 6A. Dayananda Jayasuriya, Debarawewa, Tissamaharamaya 7. Dayananda Jayasuriya, Debarawewa, Tissamaharamaya Defendants AND BETWEEN Buddhika Wickramasuriya, Coranel’s Land, Debarawewa, Tissamaharamaya Petitioner Vs. Premalatha Jayasuriya, Debarawewa, Tissamaharamaya 3rd Defendant/Respondent AND BETWEEN Premalatha Jayasuriya, Debarawewa, Tissamaharamaya 3rd Defendant/Respondent/Petitioner Vs. Buddhika Wickramasuriya, Coranel’s Land, Debarawewa, Tissamaharamaya Petitioner/Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Premalatha Jayasuriya, Debarawewa, Tissamaharamaya 3rd Defendant/Respondent/Petitioner/Appellant Vs. Buddhika Wickramasuriya, Coranel’s Land, Debarawewa, Tissamaharamaya Petitioner/Respondent/Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC		In the matter of an application under Articles 127 and 128 of the Constitution read with section 5(c) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 as amended by Act No. 54 of 2006, for Leave to Appeal against the judgment dated 24/07/2017 of the Civil Appellate High Court of the Southern Province holden in Tangalle in case No. WP/HCCA/04/2016	Download
2023-08-09	SC/APPEAL/80/2015, SC/APPEAL/81/2015, SC/APPEAL/82/2015	ABC Credit Card Company Limited, No: 117, Hunupitiya Lake Road, Colombo 02. 1st Defendant – Appellant Vs. 1. People’s Merchant PLC, Formerly known as People’s Merchant Bank PLC, No. 21, Nawam Mawatha, Colombo 02. Formerly at Level 2, Hemas Building, Baybrooke Place, Colombo 02. 2. PMB Financial Services (Private) Limited, Formerly known as PMB Credit Card Company Limited, No: 21, Nawam Mawatha, Colombo 02. Formerly at Level 2, Hemas Building, Baybrooke Place, Colombo 02. Plaintiffs-Respondents 3. Navigation Maritime Colombo (Private) Limited, 14th Floor, East Tower, World Trade Center, Echelon Square, Colombo 01. (Presently No: 117, Hunupitiya Lake Road, Colombo 02.) 2nd Defendant- Respondent 4.Tholkamudiyanselage John Shiran Indranath Dissanayake, No: 21, Simon Hewavitharana Road, Colombo 03. 3rd Defendant- Respondent AND OTHERS View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC		In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal under and in terms of Article 128 (4) of the Constitution against an Order of the High Court of the Western Province Sitting in Colombo in the exercise of its Civil Jurisdiction in terms of Section 5(2) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No: 10 of 1996 as amended from the Order dated 14.05.2013.	Download
2023-08-03	SC/FR/158/2013	Maligawa Tours and Exports (PVT) Ltd. No. 19, Race Course Avenue, Colombo 07. PETITIONER Vs. 1. The Land Reform Commission No. C82, Hector Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Colombo 07. 2. L.R.Sumanasena, Director, District Land Reform Board, I.R.D.P. Building, Udapussella Road, Nuwaraeliya. 3. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an application made in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-08-02	SC/FR/211/2016	1) Weerathunga Arachchige Michael Padmasiri, ‘Weerawansa’, Bolana, Ruhunu Ridiyagama. 2) Bala Manage Dayawathi, ‘Sirimuthu’, Mahawela Road, Dickwella. 3) Nanayakkara Wasam Goda Liyanage Sumiththa Dias, ‘Senehasa’, Mountain Hall Watta, Ambalanwatta, Galle. 4) Modara Gamage Dona Greta Maria Mallika, No. 105, Kaduru Pokuna East, Tangalle. 5) Ambagaha Duwage Pearly, Kadegederawatta, Ukwatta, Gintota. 6) Hewa Alankarage Misilin, No. 289, Mayurupura, Hambanthota. 7) Anurasiri Muthumala, ‘Baghya’, Aluthgoda, Dikwella. 8) Manik Purage Ariyadasa, ‘Asiri’, Gangoda, Kolawenigama. 9) Swarna Jayanthi Wedaarachchi, 4th Milepost, Hapugala, Wakwella. 10) Basnayaka Jagath Perera 11) Kimbeeyage Neelamani De Silva, Both of No. 19/1, Railway Station Road, Unawatuna. 12) Asmulla Kankanamge Kalyani Kusumlatha, ‘Senehasa’, Mountant Hall Watta, Ambalanwatta, Galle. 13) Wahideen Mohamed Razik, No. 306, Malay Kolaniya, Ambalanthota. 14) Preethi Wimalasuriya, No. 204, Tissa Road, Tangalle. 15) Pol Dhana View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere		In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(g) read with Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-08-02	SC/FR/41/2017	1. H. Sarath Wickramasinghe, Dangahawila, Karandeniya. 2. T.D.K. Ariyawansa, No. 60/7, Sri Rathanapala Mawatha, Matara. 3. A.A. Chandrasiri No. 1/1, Medagama, Netolpitiya. 4. Ariyasena Narasinghe, ‘Sampath,’ Palolpitiya, Thihagoda. 5. K.H. Piyasena, No. 21/5, Sri Sugathapala Mawatha, Karapitiya. 6. A.M.A. Chandra, ‘Rasangi,’ Ganegama South, Baddegama. 7. H.P. Premadasa, Sathsara, Kongala, Hakmana. PETITIONERS vs. 1. The Governor Southern Province, Governor’s Secretariat, Lower Dickson Road, Galle 2. The Chairman, Provincial Public Service Commission, Southern Province, 6th floor, District Secretariat Building Complex, Kaluwella, Galle. 3. K.K.G.J.K. Siriwardena 4. K.L.S. Marathons 5. Srimal Wijesekera 6. Samarapala Vithanage 2nd to 6th Respondents are members of the Provincial Public Service Commission, Southern Province, 6th Floor, District Secretariat Building, Kaluwella, Galle. 7. The Secretary, Provincial Public Service Commission, Southern Province, 6th floor, District Secretariat Building, Kaluwella, Galle. View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere		In the matter of an Application under Article 126 read with Article 17 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-07-26	SC/APPEAL/182/2019	B. K. M. Mahinda No. 106/D, Meegaha Uyana, Mabima, Heyyanthuduwa. APPLICANT Vs. Sri Lanka Ports Authority No. 19, Church Road, Colombo 1 RESPONDENT AND THEN BETWEEN Sri Lanka Ports Authority No. 19, Church Road, Colombo 1 RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs. B. K. M. Mahinda No. 106/D, Meegaha Uyana, Mabima, Heyyanthuduwa . APPLICANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN B. K. M. Mahinda No. 106/D, Meegaha Uyana, Mabima, Heyyanthuduwa APPLICANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. Sri Lanka Ports Authority No. 19, Church Road, Colombo 01. RESPONDENT-PETITIONER-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an Application for Special Leave to Appeal in terms of Article 128(2) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, read with section 9(A) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 and section 31DD (i) of the Industrial Disputes Act from a Judgement of the Provincial High Court of the Western Province (Holder in Colombo)	Download
2023-07-26	SC/APPEAL/170/2011	Mahapatabendige Edmund Piyasena, No. 11, Old Waidya Road, Dehiwala. (Deceased) Chula Subadra Dissanayake Mahawela, also known as Chula Piyasena, No. 11, Old Waidya Road, Dehiwala. Plaintiff Vs. R.M. Seelawathie Menike Piyasena, No. 44, Waidya Road, Dehiwala. Intervenient Petitioner AND BETWEEN Chula Subadra Dissanayake Mahawela, also known as Chula Piyasena, No. 11, Old Waidya Road, Dehiwala. Petitioner-Appellant Vs. R.M. Seelawathie Menike Piyasena, No. 44, Waidya Road, Dehiwala. Intervenient Petitioner-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN R.M. Seelawathie Menike Piyasena, No. 44, Waidya Road, Dehiwala. Intervenient Petitioner-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Chula Subadra Dissanayake Mahawela, also known as Chula Piyasena, No. 11, Old Waidya Road, Dehiwala. Petitioner-Appellant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2023-07-20	SC/APPEAL/104/2019 AND SC/APPEAL/105/2019	1. Kehelkaduvithanalage Don Dihan Ajantha Dias No. 114, Weththewa, Raddolugama. 2. M. M. Neil Priyantha No. 71, Sadasarana Mawatha, Rilaulla, Kandana. Applicants Vs. Blue Diamond Jewellery Worldwide PLC No. 49, Ring Road, Phase I, IPZ, Katunayake. Respondent AND BETWEEN Blue Diamond Jewellery Worldwide PLC No. 49, Ring Road, Phase I, IPZ, Katunayake. Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. Kehelkaduvithanalage Don Dihan Ajantha Dias No. 114, Weththewa, Raddolugama. 2. M. M. Neil Priyantha No. 71, Sadasarana Mawatha, Rilaulla, Kandana. Applicants-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Kehelkaduvithanalage Don Dihan Ajantha Dias No. 114, Weththewa, Raddolugama. (SC Appeal 104/2019) 2. M. M. Neil Priyantha No. 71, Sadasarana Mawatha, Rilaulla, Kandana. (SC Appeal 105/2019) Applicants-Respondents-Appellants Vs. Blue Diamond Jewellery Worldwide PLC No. 49, Ring Road, Phase I, IPZ, Katunayake. Respondent-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando		In the matter of an application for Special Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of Article 128(2) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-07-20	SC/FR/531/2011	1. Engineering Diplomates Association, National Water Supply and Drainage Board, Head Office, Ratmalana. 2. Technical Officer’s Union, National Water Supply and Drainage Board, Head Office, Ratmalana. 3. E. D. Subadra, Jayathilake Garden, Munagama, Horana. 4. M.W. Chandrani, 23/20, New Hospital Road, Pamunuwa, Maharagama. 5. R.M. Piyadasa, 48/1, Udabowala, Kandy. 6. R.G.A. Ranatunga, 483/11, Jeramius Fernando Mawatha, Rawathawatta, Moratuwa. 7. A.A.N. Dias, 58, Ganga Boda Road, Wewela, Piliyandala. 8. J.D.S.N. Karunathilake, Asiri Uyana, Paltota, Katubedda. Petitioner Vs, 1. Mr. A. Abeygunasekara, Secretary, Ministry of Water Supply and Drainage, “Lakdiya Medura”, New Parliament Road, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. 1A. Mr. Sarath Chandrasiri Vithana, Secretary, Ministry of Water Supply and Drainage. 1B. Mr. M.P.K. Mayadunne, Secretary, Secretary to the Ministry of City Planning, Water Supply, and Higher Education. 1C. Dr. Priyath Bandu Wickrama, Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Water Sup View More	Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J		In the matter of an application made in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2023-07-20	SC/FR/442/2016	1. Kegalle Plantation PLC No. 310, High Level Road, Nawinna, Maharagama. Appearing on behalf of; 2. Sriyan Eriagama, Director (Operations) Kegalle Plantation PLC, No. 310, High Level Road, Nawinna, Maharagama. 3. S.D. Munasinghe, The Superintendent, Etna Estate, Warakapola. Petitioners Vs, 1. L.D. Kumara Tennakoon, Divisional Secretary, Warakapola. 1A. Laxmendra Damayantha Kumara Tennakoon, Divisional Secretary, Warakapola. 2. W.M.A.Wanasuriya, Divisional Secretary- Kegalle District, Kegalle. 3. Hon. John Amaratunga, Minister of Lands, Ministry of Lands, Mihikathamedura, 1200/6, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 3A. Hon. Gayantha Karunathilala, Minister of Lands, Ministry of Lands, 1200/6, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 3B. Hon. S.M.Chandrasena, Minister of Lands, Ministry of Lands, Mihikatha Medura, 1200, Rajamalwatte Road, Battaramulla. 4. Commissioner of Lands, Land Commissioner’s Department, 1200/6, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 5. Upali Marasinghe, Secretary, Ministry of Lands, 11th F View More	Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J		In the matter of an application under Article 17 read with Article 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2023-07-20	SC/APPEAL/46/2017	Gothamadattawa Weerasinghe, of No.29, Jambugasmulla Road, Nugegoda [Deceased] Original 1st Plaintiff Vijitha Weerasinghe, of No. 29, Jambugasmulla Road, Nugegoda Substituted 1st Plaintiff and the 2nd Plaintiff Vs. 1. Epitawalage Eron Singho No. 32/2, Walana Road, Panadura 2. B.T.P Rajakaruna of No. 117, Kirillapone Road, Colombo 5 (Now residing at No. 117, Maya Avenue, Colombo 6) 1st and 2nd Defendants AND BETWEEN B.T.P. Rajakaruna of No. 177, Maya Avenue, Colombo 6 and No. 39/3, Auburnside, Dehiwela 2nd Defendant-Appellant Vs. Vijitha Weerasinghe of No. 29, Jambugasmulla Road, Nugegoda [Deceased] Substituted 1st Plaintiff-Respondent and Original 2nd Plaintiff-Respondent Gladys Augusta Weerasinghe nee of Boralessa of No. 29, Jambugasmulla Road, Nugegoda. Substituted 1st and 2nd Plaintiff-Respondent Epitawalage Eron Singho of No. 32/2, Walana Road, Panadura. [Deceased] 1st Defendant-Respondent Jayasinhage Anula of No. 43/2, Galle Road, Walana View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an Application for Special Leave to Appeal from the Judgment dated 17-06-2016 of the Court of Appeal in C.A. 509/97(F) in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution	Download
2023-07-20	SC/APPEAL/93/2019	The Ceylon Estate Staffs’ Union, No. 06, Aloe Avenue, Colombo 03. [On behalf of S.M.P.N. Samarakoon] Applicant Vs, 1. The Manager, Woodend Estate, Mahaoya Group, Dehiovita. 2. Lalan Rubbers (Pvt) Ltd, No. 198B, Gnanendra Mawatha, Nawala. Respondents And Between Ceylon Estate Staffs’ Union, No. 06, Aloe Avenue, Colombo 03. [On behalf of S.M.P.N. Samarakoon] Applicant-Appellant Vs, 1. The Manager, Woodend Estate, Mahaoya Group, Dehiovita. 2. Lalan Rubbers (Pvt) Ltd, No. 198B, Gnanendra Mawatha, Nawala. Respondents- Respondents And now between 1. The Manager, Woodend Estate, Mahaoya Group, Dehiovita. 2. Lalan Rubbers (Pvt) Ltd, No. 198B, Gnanendra Mawatha, Nawala. Respondents- Respondents-Appellants Vs, Ceylon Estate Staffs’ Union, No. 06, Aloe Avenue, Colombo 03. [On behalf of S.M.P.N. Samarakoon] Applicant-Appellant -Respondent View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J		In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal in terms of Article 154 P (3) (b) of the Constitution and Provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act No. 43 of 1950 (as Amended)	Download
2023-07-19	SC/APPEAL/81/2013	1. Weerawarnakurukulasooriya Boosabaduge Daisy Matilda Fernando, No. 8, Polkotuwa, Beruwala. 2. Weerawarnakurukulasooriya Boosabaduge Reeni Prasida Fernando, No. 8, Polkotuwa, Beruwala. Plaintiffs Vs. 1. Jusecooray Mohotti Gurunnanselage Veronica Josephine Fernando, Galle Road, Polkotuwa, Beruwala. 2. Mahabaduge Francis Fernando, Galle Road, Polkotuwa, Beruwala. 2A. Mahabaduge Katherine Fernando, Galle Road, Dhiyalagoda, Maggona 3. Mahabaduge Clara Fernando, Galle Road, Polkotuwa, Beruwala. Defendants AND BETWEEN Mahabaduge Clara Fernando, Galle Road, Polkotuwa, Beruwala. (Deceased) Pestheruwe Liyanararalage Robert Chrisanthus Cooray Wijewarnasooriya, No. 18/23, Walawwatte Road, Gangodawila, Nugegoda. Substituted 3rd Defendant-Appellant Vs. 1. Weerawarnakurukulasooriya Boosabaduge Reeni Prasida Fernando, No. 8, Polkotuwa, Beruwala. 2. Weerawarnakurukulasooriya Boosabaduge Reeni Prasida Fernando, No. 8, Polkotuwa, Beruwala. Plaintiff-Respondents 1. Jusecooray Mohotti Gurunnanselage Ve View More	Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2023-07-19	SC/APPEAL/144/2017	Ranaweera Kankanamge Premananda Kadegedara, Murungasyaya, Middeniya. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Hendrick Abeysiriwardane, Hendrick Stores, Hungama Road, Middeniya. 2. Ranaweera Kankanamge Indrani, Murungasyaya, Middeniya. Defendants AND BETWEEN Ranaweera Kankanamge Premananda Kadegedara, Murungasyaya, Middeniya. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs 1. Hendrick Abeysiriwardane, Hendrick Stores, Hungama Road, Middeniya. 2. Ranaweera Kankanamge Indrani, Murungasyaya, Middeniya. Defendant-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Hendrick Abeysiriwardane, Hendrick Stores, Hungama Road, Middeniya. 1st Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Ranaweera Kankanamge Premananda Kadegedara, Murungasyaya, Middeniya. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent Ranaweera Kankanamge Indrani, Murungasyaya, Middeniya. 2nd Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2023-07-19	SC/FR/204/2022	Pavithra Tharangi Illeperuma, No. 312/3/2, Orchid Apartment, Havelock Road, Colombo 05. On behalf of Ayurda Lithuli Ganapriyan (Minor) Plaintiff Vs. 1. Principal, Visakha Vidyalaya, Colombo. 2. President of the Appeal Board, Visakha Vidyalaya, Colombo. 3. Director of National Schools, Ministry of Education, “Isurapaya”, Battaramulla. 4. Secretary to the Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Battaramulla 5. Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Battaramulla. 6. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2023-07-19	SC/APPEAL/83/2021	1. Rajapaksha Mudiyanselage Jayathilaka Rajapaksha, 2. Risanga Nelka Riyensi Rajapaksha, Both of “Jayamani” Kehelwathugoda, Dewalegama. Petitioners Vs. 1. Mallawa Waduge Samantha, No. 167/12, Udambewatta, Olagama, Kegalle. 2. Maggoma Ralalage Upali Jayawansha, No. 08, Dharmapala Mawatha, Kegalle. Respondents AND BETWEEN Maggoma Ralalage Upali Jayawansha, No. 08, Dharmapala Mawatha, Kegalle. 2nd Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. Rajapaksha Mudiyanselage Jayathilaka Rajapaksha, 2. Risanga Nelka Riyensi Rajapaksha, Both of “Jayamani” Kehelwathugoda. Dewalegama. Petitioner-Respondents Mallawa Waduge Samantha, No. 167/12, Udambewatte, Olagama, Kegalle. 1st Respondent-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Maggoma Ralalage Upali Jayawansha, No. 08, Dharmapala Mawatha, Kegalle. 2nd Respondent-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Rajapakshe Mudiyanselage Jayathilaka Rajapaksha, 2. Risanga Nelka Riyensi Rajapaksha, Both of “Jayamani” Kehelwathugoda, Dewalegama. Petitioner-Respondent-Respondents Mallawa Waduge Samantha, No. 1 View More	Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2023-07-19	SC/APPEAL/58/2018	Don Premaratne Wijesinghe, No. 559, Peradeniya Road, Kandy. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Ekanayake Mudiyanselage Sarath Bandara Ekanayake, Pologolla. 2. District Land Registrar, Land Registry, Matale. Defendants AND BETWEEN Don Premaratne Wijesinghe, No. 559, Peradeniya Road, Kandy. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs 1. Ekanayake Mudiyanselage Sarath Bandara Ekanayake, No. B 2, Mahaweliniwasa, Polgolla. 2. District Land Registrar, Land Registry, Matale. Defendant-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Don Premaratne Wijesinghe, No. 559, Peradeniya Road, Kandy Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Ekanayake Mudiyanselage, Sarath Bandara Ekanayake, No. B 2, Mahaweliniwasa, Polgolla. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2023-07-18	SC/APPEAL/117/2019	Gunawardane Liyanage Sirisena, Dannangodawila, Thelikada, Ginimellagaha. Complainant -Vs K. G. Piyadasa (deceased), Medakeembiya, Podala. Respondent AND In the matter of an Appeal under and in terms of Section 42 of the Agrarian Development Act No. 46 of 2000 (as amended). Gunawardane Liyanage Sirisena, Dannangodawila, Thelikada, Ginimellagaha. Complainant-Appellant -Vs Naamulla Arachchige Premawathie, Medakeembiya, Podala. Substituted Respondent-Respondent AND In the matter of an Appeal under and in terms of Section 42B of Section 5c of the Agrarian Development Act No. 46 of 2000 (as amended) read with the High Court of Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 54 of 2006. Naamulla Arachchige Premawathie, Medakeembiya, Podala. Substituted Respondent-Respondent-Appellant -Vs Gunawardane Liyanage Sirisena, Dannangodawila, Thelikada, Ginimellagaha. Complainant-Appellant-Respondent AND NOW BY AND BETWEEN Naamulla Arachchige Premawathie, Medakeembiya, Podala. Substituted Respondent-Respondent-Appellant-Appellant View More	Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe		In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal under and in terms of Article 128(2) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka read with Section 9 of the High Court of Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990. In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Section 10(1) of the Agrarian Development Act No. 46 of 2000 as amended.	Download
2023-07-18	SC/APPEAL/160/2014	Gonayamalamage Titus Sri Lal Montany Aponsu, Upper Katuneriya, Katuneriya. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Gamage Nihal Yasendra Jayawardhana, 2. Warnakulasuriya Mary Bridget Thamel, Both of Jansa Road, Lower Katuneriya, Katuneriya. Defendants AND 1. Gamage Nihal Yasendra Jayawardhana, 2. Warnakulasuriya Mary Bridget Thamel, Both of Jansa Road, Lower Katuneriya, Katuneriya. Defendant-Appellants Gonayamalamage Titus Sri Lal Montany Aponsu, Upper Katuneriya, Katuneriya. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Warnakulasuriya Mary Bridget Thamel, Jansa Road, Lower Katuneriya, Katuneriya. 2nd Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner Gonayamalamage Titus Sri Lal Montany Aponsu, Upper Katuneriya, Katuneriya. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando		In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal in terms of Section 5 C (1) of High Court of the provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 an amended and read with Chapter L VIII of the Civil Procedure Code.	Download
2023-07-14	SC/APPEAL/52/2021	1. Wickremasinghage Francis Kulasooriya 2. Devamuni Lakshman De Silva Presently remanded at; Remand Prison, Mahara. Petitioners Vs, 1. Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Kirindiwela. 2. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 3. W. Aravinda Perera, The Magistrate of Pugoda, Magistrate’s Court of Pugoda, Pugoda. 3A. D. A. R. Pathirana, The Magistrate of Pugoda, Magistrate’s Court of Pugoda, Pugoda. 4. Amaraginghe Arachchige Simon Amarasinghe, 172B, Siyabalagahawatta, Pepiliyawala. Respondents And now Between 1. Wickremasinghage Francis Kulasooriya 49/1, Kathuruwatte, Mudungoda, Gampaha. 2. Devamuni Lakshman De Silva No. 246/A, Kudagoda, Horampella, Minuwangoda. Petitioner-Petitioners Vs, 1. Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Kirindiwela. 2. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 3. W. Aravinda Perera, The Magistrate of Pugoda, Magistrate’s Court of Pugoda, Pugoda. 3A. D. A. R. Pathirana, The Magistrate of Pugoda, Magistrate’s Court of Pugoda, Pugoda. 4. View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J	In the matter of an Application for Special Leave to Appeal under and in terms of Article 128 (2) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2023-07-11	SC/APPEAL/52/2016	Bakmeeange Gedara Sunil Ananda Senevirathne, No.35, Diyapalagoda, Muruthalawa Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Athula Amarasinghe, Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Hasalaka. Defendant-Petitioner-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2023-07-05	SC/APPEAL/54/2015	1. Muthu Jeewarathnam 2. Sellappan Mehaletchumi No. 14, Ebenzer Place, Dehiwela. Plaintiffs Vs Commercial Bank of Ceylon PLC Commercial House, No. 21, Bristol Street, Colombo 01. Defendant AND NOW Commercial Bank of Ceylon PLC Commercial House, No. 21, Bristol Street. Colombo 01. Defendant-Petitioner Vs 1. Muthu Jeewarathnam 2. Sellappan Mehaletchumi No. 14, Ebenzer Place, Dehiwela. Plaintiffs-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC		In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal under and in terms of Section 5(2) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 10 of 1996 read with Chapter LVIII of the Civil Procedure Code.	Download
2023-07-05	SC/APPEAL/101/2012	Officer-In-Charge, Police Station, Wennappuwa. Complainant Vs. Nishantha Gamage No. 34/A, Meda Katukenda, Dankotuwa. Accused Hetti Achchige Anton Sujeewa Perera No. 30/01, Bolawatta Road, Dankotuwa. Claimant And between Hetti Achchige Anton Sujeewa Perera No. 30/11, Bolawatta Road, Dankotuwa. Claimant-Appellant Vs. 1. Hon. The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent 2. Officer-In-Charge, Police Station, Wennappuwa. Complainant-Respondent 3. Nishantha Gamage No. 34/A, Meda Katukenda, Dankotuwa. Accused-Respondent And between Hetti Achchige Anton Sujeewa Perera No. 30/01, Bolawatta Road, Dankotuwa. Claimant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Hon. The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent 2. Officer-In-Charge, Police Station, Wennappuwa. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent 3. Nishantha Gamage No. 34/A, Meda Katukenda, Dankotuwa. Accused-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC		In the matter of an Appeal in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution read with Section 9(a) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990.	Download
2023-07-05	SC/CHC APPEAL/23/2008	Bank of Ceylon No. 4, Bank of Ceylon Mawatha, Colombo 01. DEFENDANT vs. AraliyaImpex (Pvt) Ltd. No. 69, Old Moor Street, Colombo 12. PLAINTIFF AND NOW BETWEEN AraliyaImpex (Pvt) Ltd. No. 69, Old Moor Street, Colombo 12 DEFENDANT – APPELLANT Bank of Ceylon No. 4, Bank of Ceylon Mawatha, Colombo 01 PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC		In the matter of an appeal under and in terms of Section 5(1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions Act) Act No. 10 of 1996.	Download
2023-07-05	SC/APPEAL/90/2021	Senanayake Arachchilage Chandana Sarath Kumararathna, No. 302/01, Aluthwela, Karalliyadda, Theldeniya. Plaintiff Vs. Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation, Rakshana Mandiraya, No. 21, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. Defendant AND BETWEEN Senanayake Arachchilage Chandana Sarath Kumararathna, No. 302/01, Aluthwela, Karalliyadda, Theldeniya. Plaintiff- Appellant Vs. Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation, Rakshana Mandiraya, No. 21, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. Defendant-Respondent AND NOW In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal in terms of Section 5C of High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006, against the Judgment of the High Court of the Central Province (Civil Appeal) dated 18/11/2020. Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation, Rakshana Mandiraya, No. 21, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Senanayake Arachchilage Chandana Sarath Kumararathna, No. 302/01, Aluthwela, Karalliyadda, Theldeniya. Plaintiff- Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2023-07-04	SC/APPEAL/40/2014	Bank of Ceylon, No. 04, Bank of Ceylon Mawatha, Colombo 01. Plaintiff Vs. A.C. Rajasingham, No. 03/C, Bandarawela Road, Badulla. Defendant AND BETWEEN Bank of Ceylon, No. 04, Bank of Ceylon Mawatha, Colombo 01. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. A.C. Rajasingham, No. 03/C, Bandarawela Road, Badulla. Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Bank of Ceylon, No. 04, Bank of Ceylon Mawatha, Colombo 01. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. A.C. Rajasingham, No. 03/C, Bandarawela Road, Badulla. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent (deceased) 1. Jenita Margret Swarnabai, Rajasingham nee Rajamoni, No. 03, Bandarawela Road, Badulla. 2. Amanda Priyadarshani Rajasingham, No. 03, Bandarawela Road, Badulla. 3. Aaron Dhayalan Rajasingham, Presently at Flat 16 Building 8, Al Kharaib, Street 920, Najma, Doha Qatar. Substituted Defendant-Respondent-Respondents View More	Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2023-07-04	SC/APPEAL/39/2014	Bank of Ceylon, No. 04, Bank of Ceylon Mawatha, Colombo 01. Plaintiff Vs. Anura Gamage, No. 03/A, Bandarawela Road, Badulla. Defendant AND BETWEEN Bank of Ceylon, No. 04, Bank of Ceylon Mawatha, Colombo 01. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. Anura Gamage, No. 03/A, Bandarawela Road, Badulla. Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Bank of Ceylon, No. 04, Bank of Ceylon Mawatha, Colombo 01. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Anura Gamage, No. 03/A, Bandarawela Road, Badulla. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2023-06-30	SC/APPEAL/2/2014	20(a). Hetti Achchi Arachchilage Karunaratne Pothuwatawana, Leehiriyagama. 31. A. M. Ekanayake 32. A. M. Lakshman 33. A. M. Dharmaratne All of: Hendiyagala, Sandalankawa 20(a), 31st, 32nd, 33rd Defendant/ Appellant / Appellants -Vs.- Edirisinghe Muhandiram Appuhamilage Amarasinghe Appuhamy (deceased) Lalitha Edirisinghe Hingurandamana Hingurakgoda. Substituted Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent 1. Hettiachchi Arachchilage Manchonona Watakayawa, Gonawila. 2. Hettiachchi Arachchilage Simonsingho Watakayawa, Gonawila 3. Hettiachchi Arachchilage Jangenoha Watakayawa, Gonawila. 4. Hettiachchi Arachchilage Pubilis Singho Watakayawa, Gonawila. 5. Hettiachchi Arachchilage William Singho Watakayawa, Gonawila. 6. Herath Pathirannahelage Punchi Banda (Deceased) 6(a) Herath Pathiranahelage Jayasiri Herath Pathirana Hendiyagala, Sandalankawa. 7. Herath Pathiranahelage Ukkubanda (Deceased) 7(a). Herath Pathiranahelage Upali Nandasiri Watakayawa, Gonawila. 8. Herath Pathiranahelage Amarasiri Hendiyagala, Mokelewatta, View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara		In the matter of an Appeal where leave was granted on an application for Leave to appeal under and in terms of Article 127 (2) of the Constitution read with section 5(c) of the High Court of the Provinces (special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No.54/2006	Download
2023-06-28	SC/FR/38/2018	A.M. Sanjaya Nayanaka Darshana, “Riverside” Restaurant, Daragala, Welimada. Petitioner Vs 1. J.J. Chamila Indika Jayasinghe, 1A. M.M.K. Pushpakanthi, 1B. Suvineetha Gunasekara, Divisional Secretary, Uvaparanagama, Divisional Secretariat, Lunuwatta. 2. R.P.R. Rajapaksha, 2A. R.M.C.M. Herath, G.D. Keerthi Gamage, Land Commissioner General, Land Commissioner General’s Department, “Mihikatha Madura”, No. 1200/6, Rajamal Waththa Road, Battaramulla. 3. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2023-06-27	SC/APPEAL/104/2017	1. Arulampalam Gnaneswaran, 2. And his wife Suganthini Dutch Road, Alaveddy West, Alaveddy. PLAINTIFFS Vs 1. Kasilingam Sritharan, 2. And his wife Manohari Sithankeni Santhiyadi, Sithankeni. DEFENDANTS AND THEN BETWEEN 1. Kasilingam Sritharan, Sithankeni Santhiyadi, Sithankeni. 1ST DEFENDANT - APPELLANT Vs 1. Arulampalam Gnaneswaran, 2. And his wife Suganthini Dutch Road, Alaveddy West, Alaveddy. PLAINTIFF - RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Arulampalam Gnaneswaran, 2. And his wife Suganthini Dutch Road, Alaveddy West, Alaveddy. PLAINTIFF - RESPONDENT - APPELLANTS Vs 1. Kasilingam Sritharan, Sithankeni Santhiyadi, Sithankeni. 1ST DEFENDANT - APPELLANT - RESPONDENT 2. And his wife Manohari Sithankeni Santhiyadi, Sithankeni View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena		In the matter of an Appeal in terms of section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special provisions) Act No.19 of 1990 as amended by Act No. 54 of 2006 against a judgment delivered by the Provincial High Court exercising its jurisdiction under section 5A of the said Act.	Download
2023-06-27	SC/FR/139/2023, SC/FR/90/2023	1. Dr. Harini Amarasuriya Member of Parliament, No. 33B, Janatha Mawatha, Kotte 2. Sunil Handunneththi, No. 92/3, Paasal Mawatha, Rukmale, Pannipitiya. 3. Dr. M.R. Nihal Abeysinghe No. 134A, St. Saviour Road, Ja-Ela. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. K. M. Mahinda Siriwardena Secretary to the Ministry of Finance Ministry of Finance Colombo-01. 2. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. (Named as a Respondent in terms of the First Proviso to Article 35(1) of the Constitution) 3. G. K. D. Liyanage Government Printer Department of Government Printing No. 118, Dr Danister De Silva Mawatha, Colombo 08 4. Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters Colombo 01. 5. Neil Bandara Hapuhinna Secretary Minister of Public Administration Home Affairs Provincial Councils and Local Government Independence Square Colombo 07. 6. Nimal Punchihewa Chairman, The Election Commission, Elections Secretariat, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya. 7. S. B. Divarathne Member 8. M. M. Mohammed Member 9. K. P. P PAthirana Member 6th to 9th Respondents are all of: The Election Commission, Elections Secretariat, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya 10. P. S. M. Charles (Former Member of the Election Commission) 1/8, Blue Ocean Apartments, No. 5, Railway Avenue, Nugegoda. 11. Saman Sri Rathnayake Commissioner of General of Elections, Elections Secretariat No. 02, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya 12. Director General of Government Information Department of Government Information 163, Kirulapana Avenue, Colombo 06. 13. Tiran Alles Minister of Public Security 14th Floor, Suhurupaya, Battaramulla 14. Dinesh Gunawardena, Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Administration, Home Affairs Provincial Council and Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 07. AND OTHERS View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC		In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Article 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-06-27	SC/FR/90/2003	View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC		In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Article 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2023-06-14	SC/CHC APPEAL/56/2013	L B Finance PLC No. 275/75, Prof. Stanley Wijesundara Mawatha, Colombo 07. Plaintiff Vs. Wadduwa Palliyagurunnanselage Namal Senanayake, “Nihathamani”, Ambagahawatta, Kaikawala, Induruwa. Defendant AND NOW BETWEEN Wadduwa Palliyagurunnanselage Namal Senanayake, “Nihathamani”, Ambagahawatta, Kaikawala, Induruwa. Defendant-Appellant L B Finance PLC No. 275/75, Prof. Stanley Wijesundara Mawatha, Colombo 07. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando			Download
2023-06-12	SC/APPEAL/188/2014	Ratnayake Maudiyanselage Herath Banda, Thiththawella, Kubukgete. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Ihala Welgamage Abeysinghe, Kalawellandawatta, Kumbukgete. 2. G.G. Sanjeewa Karunaratne, No. 15, Jayawardane Place, Hill Street, Dehiwala. 3. Pushpa Karunaratne, No.15, Jayawardane Place, Hill Street, Dehiwala. Defendants AND 1. Ihala Welgamage Abeysinghe, Kalawellandawatta, Kumbukgete. 2. G.G. Sanjeewa Karunaratne, No. 15, Jayawardane Place, Hill Street, Dehiwala 3. Pushpa Karunaratne, No.15, Jayawardane Place, Hill Street, Dehiwala. Defendants- Appellants Vs. Ratnayake Maudiyanselage Herath Banda, Thiththawella, Kubukgete. Plaintiff- Respondent AND NOW Ratnayake Maudiyanselage Herath Banda, Thiththawella, Kubukgete. Plaintiff- Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. Ihala Welgamage Abeysinghe, Kalawellandawatta, Kumbukgete. 2. G.G. Sanjeewa Karunaratne, No. 15, Jayawardane Place, Hill Street, Dehiwala. 3. Pushpa Karunaratne, No.15, Jayawardane Place, Hill Street, Dehiwala. Defendants- Appellants-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe			Download
2023-06-09	SC/APPEAL/21/2017	Capital Printpack (Private) Limited, No. 257, Grandpass Road, Colombo 14. Plaintiff Vs. Wijitha Group of Companies (Private) Limited, No. 160, Main Street, Mawanella. Defendant AND In the matter of an Appeal in terms of Section 754[1] of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 5 of the High Court of Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006. Wijitha Group of Companies (Private) Limited, No. 160, Main Street, Mawanella. Defendant -Appellant Vs. Capital Printpack (Private) Limited, No. 257, Grandpass Road, Colombo 14. Plaintiff -Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of Section 5(C) of the High Court of Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006. Wijitha Group of Companies (Private) Limited, No. 160, Main Street, Mawanella. Defendant - Appellant - Appellant Capital Printpack (Private) Limited, No. 257, Grandpass Road, Colombo 14. Plaintiff - Respondent - Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2023-06-01	SC/APPEAL/91/2014	In the matter of the winding up of FA IMPEX (PRIVATE) LIMITED under Part IX of Companies Act No. 17 of 1982, having its registered office at No. 46, Sri Mahindarama Road, Colombo 9 and also a place of business at NO. 213/1, Main Street, Colombo 11 and presently at 23, Sea Street Colombo 11. Adani Exports Ltd “Adani House”, Near Mithakhali Circle, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, 380 009, India PETITIONER vS 1. Fa Impex (Pvt) Ltd having its registered office at No. 46, Sri Mahindarama Road, Colombo 9 and also a place of business at No. 213/1, Main Street, Colombo 11 and presently at 23, Sea Street, Colombo 11. 1 st Respondent 2. Seylan Bank Ltd, Ceylinco Seylan Tower, No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Intervenient-Petitioner-2 nd Respondent 3. Rahamatulla Abdul Rahuman, B/04, First Floor, St. James’ Flats, Colombo 15. Creditor-Petitioner-3 rd Respondent AND Fa Impex (Pvt) Ltd having its registered office at No. 46, Sri Mahindarama Road, Colombo 9 and also a place of business at No. 213/1, Main Street, Co View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva		In the matter of an Application for Leave under and in terms of Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 as amended by the High Court of Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006.	Download
2023-05-31	SC/APPEAL/115/2017	RSK LANKA PRIVATE LIMITED Phase 11, Katunayake Employer-Respondent-Appellant Vs. P.M. NADIKA R. PATHIRAJA SiriNiwasa Wadumunnegedara. Applicant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC		In the Matter of an application for Special Leave to Appeal against the judgement of the High Court of the Western Province in Case No. WP/HCA//103/2013/LT, Under and in terms of Article 128 (2) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the Section 31DD of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, No. 32 of 1990 as amended.	Download
2023-05-30	SC/FR/368/2016	1. Ponsuge Sanjeewa Tisera 189/03, Palagathure, Kochchikade. 2. Sebastian Jude Shakespeare 21/10/A, Shramadana Road, Ethukala, Negombo. Petitioners Vs. 1. Singappulige Deeptha Rajitha Jayantha Headquarters Inspector, Chief Inspector, Police Station – Marawila 2. Kamal (41246) Police Sergeant, Police Station – Marawila 3. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando		The matter of an application under Article 126 (2) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2023-05-26	SC/FR/371/2022	Dr. Galmangoda Guruge Chamal Sanjeewa No. 233, Matara Road, Tangalle, Sri Lanka Dr. Galmangoda Guruge Chamal Sanjeewa No. 233, Matara Road, Tangalle, Sri Lanka 7. Mr. Sudath Rathnaweera Senior Additional Secretary (Flying Squad), Ministry of Health 8. Mr. D. A. W. Kulathileka Preliminary Investigation Officer Flying Squad, Ministry of Health (all of the above 1st to 8th Respondents are of; ‘Suwasiripaya’, No. 385, Rev. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10.) 9. Mr. Janaka Sugathadasa Chairman 10. Mr. L. A. Kalukapuarachchi Secretary 11. Mrs. N. Godakanda Member 12. Mr. D. Swarnapala Member (all of the above 9th to 12th Respondents are of; the Health Services Committee, Public Services Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla.) 13. Hon. Justice Jagath Balapatabendi The Chairman, Public Service Commission 14. Mrs. Indrani Sugathadasa Member, Public Service Commission 15. Dr. T. R. C. Ruberu Member, Public Service Commission 16. Mr. Ahamod Lebbe Mohamed Saleem Member, Publ View More	Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Article 126 read with Article 17 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-05-25	SC/FR/191/2009	1. Roshan Harindra Fernando No. 9/6, Suranimala Place, Pamankada Colombo 06 2. Ishani Shrimanthi Fernando No. 9/6, Suranimala Place, Pamankada Colombo 06 PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Monetary Board of the Central Bank No. 30, Janadipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01 2. Hon. Mahinda Rajapakse President of the Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Minister of Finance, The Ministry of Finance and Planning, The Secretariat, Colombo 01 3. Sumith Abeysinghe Secretary to the Treasury, The Ministry of Finance and Planning, The Secretariat, Colombo 01 4. Sumith Abeysinghe Secretary to the Ministry of Finance and Planning, The Ministry of Finance and Planning, The Secretariat, Colombo 01 5. Ajith Nivad Cabraal Governor of the Central Bank, No. 30, Janadipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01 6. Golden Key Credit card Company Limited Ceylino center No. 02, R. A. De Mel Mawatha, Colombo 04 7. Deshamanya Dr. Lalith Kothalawala Ceylino center No. 02, R. A. De Mel Mawatha, Colombo 04 8. Khavan Perera Ceylino center No. 02, R. A. De Mel Mawatha, Colombo 04 View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena	In the matter of an application in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Sri Lanka	Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2023-05-25	SC/APPEAL/16/2018	Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Padiyatalawa. Complainant Vs. Gamini Harischandrage Nandana Sisira Kumara, No. 28/A, Kekirihena, Maha-Oya. Accused AND BETWEEN Gamini Harischandrage Nandana Sisira Kumara, No. 28/A, Kekirihena, Maha-Oya. Accused-Appellant Vs. 1. Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Padiyatalawa. 2. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Gamini Harischandrage Nandana Sisira Kumara, No. 28/A, Kekirihena, Maha-Oya. Accused-Appellant-Petitioner 3. Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Padiyatalawa. 4. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne		In the matter of an application for Special Leave to Appeal against the Judgment dated 26/10/2017 delivered in the Provincial High Court of Ampara Appeal No. HC/AMP/APP/437/2016 under the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-05-25	SC/FR/191/2019	1. Roshan Harindra Fernando No. 9/6, Suranimala Place, Pamankada Colombo 06 2. Ishani Shrimanthi Fernando No. 9/6, Suranimala Place, Pamankada Colombo 06 PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Monetary Board of the Central Bank No. 30, Janadipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01 2. Hon. Mahinda Rajapakse President of the Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Minister of Finance, The Ministry of Finance and Planning, The Secretariat, Colombo 01 3. Sumith Abeysinghe Secretary to the Treasury, The Ministry of Finance and Planning, The Secretariat, Colombo 01 4. Sumith Abeysinghe Secretary to the Ministry of Finance and Planning, The Ministry of Finance and Planning, The Secretariat, Colombo 01 5. Ajith Nivad Cabraal Governor of the Central Bank, No. 30, Janadipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01 6. Golden Key Credit card Company Limited Ceylino center No. 02, R. A. De Mel Mawatha, Colombo 04 7. Deshamanya Dr. Lalith kothalawala Ceylino center No. 02, R. A. De Mel Mawatha, Colombo 04 8. Khavan Perera Ceylino center No. 02, R. A. De Mel Mawatha, Colombo 04 9. View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena		In the matter of an application in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2023-05-24	SC/APPEAL/32/2019	Irene Liyanage, No. 48/21, Udahamulla Road, Wijerama, Nugegoda. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Maddumage Geetha Jayamali, No. 418/2, Gunanandaghana Mawatha, Moragahahena, Millawa. 2. Sirimewan Pathirana, No. 332/B, Makumbura, Pannipiya. Defendants AND BETWEEN Irene Liyanage, No. 48/21, Udahamulla Road, Wijerama, Nugegoda. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Maddumage Geetha Jayamali, No. 418/2, Gunanandaghana Mawatha, Moragahahena, Millawa. 2. Sirimewan Pathirana, No. 332/B, Makumbura, Pannipiya. Defendant-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Sirimewan Pathirana, No. 332/B, Makumbura, Pannipiya. 2nd Defendant-Respondent -Appellant Vs. 1. Irene Liyanage, No. 48/21, Udahamulla Road, Wijerama, Nugegoda. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent 2. Maddumage Geetha Jayamali, No. 418/2, Gunanandaghana Mawatha, Moragahahena, Millawa. 1st Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2023-05-22	SC/APPEAL/171/2019	M.M.M. Ashar, No. 49/1A, Kawdana Road, Dehiwala. Plaintiff Vs. T.H. Kareem, No. 49/1B, Kawdana Road, Dehiwala. Defendant AND BETWEEN T.H. Kareem, No. 49/1B, Kawdana Road, Dehiwala. Defendant-Appellant Vs. M.M.M. Ashar, No. 49/1A, Kawdana Road, Dehiwala. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN M.M.M. Ashar, No. 49/1A, Kawdana Road, Dehiwala. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. T.H. Kareem, No. 49/1B, Kawdana Road, Dehiwala. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2023-05-22	SC/APPEAL/193/2014	Weerasinghe Arachchige Sarath Weerasinghe, No. 11, Templars Road, Mount Lavinia. Plaintiff Vs. H.D. Sarath Premaratne, No. 184, Avissawella Road, Wellampitiya. Defendant AND BETWEEN H.D. Sarath Premaratne, No. 184, Avissawella Road, Wellampitiya. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Weerasinghe Arachchige Sarath Weerasinghe, No.11, Templars Road, Mount Lavinia. Plaintiff -Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Weerasinghe Arachchige Sarath Weerasinghe, No.11, Templars Road, Mount Lavinia. Plaintiff -Respondent-Appellant Vs. H.D. Sarath Premaratne, No. 184, Avissawella Road, Wellampitiya. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2023-05-22	SC/APPEAL/201/2016	The Pentecostal Assembly of Sri Lanka, No. 5, Jubily Road, Katubedda, Moratuwa. Plaintiff Vs. David Ratnam, No. 279, Badulla Road, Bandarawela. Defendant AND BETWEEN The Pentecostal Assembly of Sri Lanka, No. 5, Jubily Road, Katubedda, Moratuwa. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. David Ratnam, No. 279, Badulla Road, Bandarawela. Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN David Ratnam, No. 279, Badulla Road, Bandarawela. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. The Pentecostal Assembly of Sri Lanka, No. 5, Jubily Road, Katubedda, Moratuwa. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2023-05-19	SC/MISC/3/2019	Suntel Limited, No. 110. Sir James Peiris Mawatha, Colombo 02. Plaintiff Vs. Electroteks Network Services Private Limited, No. 429 D, Galle Road, Ratmalana. Defendant. AND BETWEEN Dialog Broadband Network (Private) Limited, No. 475, Union Place, Colombo 02. Plaintiff – Appellant. Vs. Electroteks Network Services Private Limited, No. 429 D, Galle Road, Ratmalana. Defendant -Respondent. AND NOW Electroteks Network Services Private Limited, No. 429 D, Galle Road, Ratmalana. Defendant – Respondent – Petitioner. Vs. Dialog Broadband Network (Private) Limited, No. 475, Union Place, Colombo 02. Plaintiff – Appellant – Respondent. View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara		In the matter of an application for review of judgment delivered in SC/APPEAL/53/2012 dated 14th December 2018, under and in terms of Article 132(3)(iii) of the constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and/or in the exercise of inherent powers of the Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-05-17	SC/CHC APPEAL/60/2013	Dharma S.Samaranayake, No.150/1, Moraketiya, Pannipitiya. Plaintiff Vs. Sarasavi Publishers (Pvt) Limited, No 30, Stanley Thilakaratna Mawatha, Nugegoda. Defendant AND NOW BETWEEN Sarasavi Publishers (Pvt) Limited, No 30, Stanley Thilakaratna Mawatha, Nugegoda. Defendant- Petitioner/Appellant Vs. Dharma S.Samaranayake, No.150/1, Moraketiya, Pannipitiya. Plaintiff- Respondent View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC. J.			Download
2023-05-15	SC/FR/363/2008	1. W.S. Nissanka, Chief Inspector of Police, OIC Police Station, Valvettithurai. 2. K.K.D.W.P. Kumarasinghe, Chief Inspector of Police, Police in Service Training Centre, North Western Range, Kurunegala. 3. M.G. Podinilame, Chief Inspector of Police, Special Investigations Unit, Kegalle. 4. E.A.S. Kumarasinghe, Chief Inspector of Police, State Intelligence Service, Cambridge Place, Colombo 7. 5. A.M.K. Seneviratne, Chief Inspector of Police, Sabaragamuwa Range, Ratnapura. 6. K.H.A. Wimal Shantha, Personal Assistant, Officer of the Senior Superintendent, Mount Lavinia. 7. K.K. Karunasinhge, Chief Inspector of Police, Range Intelligence Unit, Kurunegala. PETITIONERS vs. 1. Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 1. 2. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 3. 2A. Nandana Mallawarachchi, Secretary, Ministry of Law and Order, 13th Floor, Sethsiripaya, II Stage, Battaramulla. 3. Neville Piyadigama, Chairman, National Police Commissio View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere		In the matter of an Application under Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-05-12	SC/APPEAL/125/2014	Distilleries Company of Sri Lanka Limited, No.110, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. Plaintiff Vs. P.D.A. Gunawardena, No.31/4, Thalakotuwa Garden, Colombo 05. Defendant AND BETWEEN P.D.A. Gunawardena, No.31/4, Thalakotuwa Garden, Colombo 05. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Distilleries Company of Sri Lanka Limited, No.110, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN P.D.A. Gunawardena, No.31/4, Thalakotuwa Garden, Colombo 05. Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Distilleries Company of Sri Lanka Limited, Presently known as Distilleries Company of Sri Lanka PLC, No.110, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2023-05-12	SC/APPEAL/89/2011	Jayalath Pedige Nimal Chandrasiri, Doraeba, Heeruwalpola. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Karuna Pedige Seeti, Doraeba, Heeruwapola. 2. Jayalath Pedige Emalin, Thimbiriwewa, Bingiriya. 3. Jayalath Pedige Gnanawathie, Doraeba, Heeruwalpola. 4. Jayalath Pedige Karunawathie, Doraeba, Heerwalpola (Deceased). 4a. Jayalth Pedige Emalin, Thimbiriwewa, Bingiriya. 5. Jayalth Pedige Babynona, Doraeba, Heeruwalpola. 6. Karunapedige Dingiri alias Emalin, Temple Junction, Pahala, Kottaramulla, Kottaramulla. 7. Jayalath Pedige Hemalatha, Doraeba, Heeruwalpola. 8. Ranikiran Pedidurayalage Prasanna Piryashantha, Doraeba, Heeruwalpola. 9. Ranikiran Pedidurayalage Darshana Priyantha Ranjith, Doraeba, Heeruwalpola. 10. Rankiran Pedigedurayalage Simiyan Ranjith, Doraeba, Heeruwalpola. 11. Jayalath Pedidurayalage Hemalatha, Doraeba, Heeruwalpola. 12. Rankiran Pedidurayalage Jayasena, Doraeba, Heeruwalpola. Defendants 13. Land Reform Commission, No. C82, Gregory’s Avenue, Colombo 07. 14. Divisional Secretary, Udubaddawa, Divisional Secretariat View More	Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2023-05-12	SC/APPEAL/140/2017	Mundigala Pathirage Jimonona Perera, No. 164, Mawalgama Vs. Rupasinghe Arachchige Diana Priyadarshani, No. 162 A, Kelagahawatte, Mawalgama, Waga. Defendant AND BETWEEN Rupasinghe Arachchige Diana Priyadarshani, No. 162 A, Kelagahawatte, Mawalgama, Waga. Defendant-Appellant Vs. , Waga. Plaintiff Mundigala Pathirage Jimonona Perera, No. 164, Mawalgama, Waga. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Mundigala Pathirage Jimonona Perera, No. 164, Mawalgama, Waga. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Rupasinghe Arachchige Diana Priyadarshani, No. 162 A, Kelagahawatte, Mawalgama, Waga. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2023-05-11	SC/FR/399/2022	Ms. Kayleigh Frazer, 972/4, Kekunagahawatta Road, Akuregoda, Battaramulla. Petitioner Vs 1. Priyantha Jayawardena, Judge in the Supreme Court, Colombo 12. 2. Controller General of Immigration, Department of Immigration and Emigration, Suhurupaya, Sri Subhuthipura, Battaramulla. 3. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Colombo 12 Respondents View More	Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC J.		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Article 17 and 126 (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-04-06	SC/APPEAL/148/2018	Iyathurai Kulenthiran 5252 Rue L’armoise Pierrefonds QC H8Z 0A6 Montreal, Canada through his power of attorney holder Kumunthan Vijitha of Markandu Road, Mulangavil. 2. Rathinam Kumunthan 3. wife Vijitha Both of Markandu Road, Mulangavil Plaintiffs Vs Iyathurai Perinpanayagam Moolai South, Chulipuram Presently of Chettier Eating House, Pillaiyar Kovilady, Mulangavil. Defendant AND Iyathurai Perinpanayagam Moolai South, Chulipuram Presently of Chettier Eating House, Pillaiyar Kovilady, Mulangavil. Defendant-Petitioner Vs. 1. Iyathurai Kulenthiran 5252 Rue L’armoise Pierrefonds QC H8Z 0A6 Montreal, Canada through his power of attorney holder Kumunthan Vijitha of Markandu Road, Mulangavil. 2. Rathinam Kumunthan 3. Wife Vijitha Both of Markandu Road, Mulangavil Plaintiff-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Iyathurai Kulenthiran 5252 Rue L’armoise Pierrefonds QC H8Z 0A6 Montreal, Canada through his power of attorney holder Kumunthan Vijitha of Markandu Road, Mulangavil. 2. Rathinam Kumunthan 3. wife Vijitha Both of Ma View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli		In the matter of an Appeal under Section 5(C)1 of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 as amended by Act No.54 of 2006	Download
2023-04-06	SC/APPEAL/219/2014	Sabaragamuwa Development Bank, No. 28, Bandaranaike Mawatha, Ratnapura. Petitioner Vs. 1. Ranjith Lionel Kuruneru, Ranjula Motors, Ratnapura – Hambantota Road, Padalangala. 2. Ranjula Kuruneru, Ranjula Motors, Ratnapura – Hambantota Road, Padalangala. 3. N.A. Abedeera, Ratnapura – Hambantota Road, Padalangala. 4. Manoja Srimathi Abeysinghe, Ratnapura – Hambantota Road, Padalangala 5. Bulathsinhalage Nadeera Thushari Bulathsinhala, No. 189, Pothgul Vihara Mawatha, Ratnapura. Respondents AND BETWEEN Sabaragamuwa Development Bank, No. 28, Bandaranaike Mawatha, Ratnapura. Petitioner-Petitioner Vs. 1. Ranjith Lionel Kuruneru, Ranjula Motors, Ratnapura – Hambantota Road, Padalangala. 2. Ranjula Kuruneru, Ranjula Motors, Ratnapura – Hambantota Road, Padalangala. 3. N.A. Abedeera, Ratnapura – Hambantota Road, Padalangala. 4. Manoja Srimathi Abeysinghe, Ratnapura – Hambantota Road, Padalangala. Bulathsinhalage Nadeera Thushari Bulathsinhala, No. 189, Pothgul Vihara Mawatha, Ratnapura. Respondent-Respondents AND N View More	Samayawardhena, J			Download
2023-04-06	SC/APPEAL/29/2014	Bulanawewe Gedera Loku Banda Dharmasena, Pelwehera, Madipola, Udasiya Pattuwa, Udugoda, Matale. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Bulanawewe Gedera Abeyratne Banda Karunathilake, Pelwehera, Madipola, Matale. 2. Bulanawewe Gedera Tikiri Banda Dhanapala Bulanawewa, Bambaragaswewa (Deceased). 2(a). Sunil Dharmasiri Bandara, Bulanawewa, Bambaragaswewa, Galewela. 3. Bulanawewe Gedera Heen Banda, Meditation Institute, Polpithi Mukalana, Ja-ela (Deceased). 3(a). Lalitha Bulanawewa, “Sandhasiri”, Ganankete, Uhumeeya, Kurunegala. 4. Ekanayake Mudiyanselage Somaratne, Pelwehera, Madipola, Matale. 5. Ekanayake Mudiyanselage Bulanawewe Gedadera Lalitha Kumari Herath, Kurunegala Road, Dombawela, Mahawela, Matale. 6. Ekanayake Mudiyanselage Bulanawewe Gedadera Narendrasinghe Karunathilake, No. 126 Road, Mahawehera, Madipola, Matale. 7. Ekanayake Mudiyanselage Bulanawewe Gedadera Abeywansa Amanodana, Bulanawewe, No. 126 Road, Mahawehera, Madipola, Matale. 8. Ekanayake Mudiyanselage Bulanawewe Gedadera Anurudhdhika Jinadharee Indrani Bulanawe View More	Samayawardhena, J			Download
2023-04-06	SC/APPEAL/40/2016	D.M.D. Ananda Jayaratne, No. 209, Thalawathugoda Road, Mirihana, Pitakotte. Plaintiff Vs. M.D.R.M. Perera, No. 138/35, Thalahena, Malabe. Defendant AND BETWEEN M.D.R.M. Perera, No. 138/35, Thalahena, Malabe. Defendant-Appellant Vs. D.M.D. Ananda Jayaratne, No. 209, Thalawathugoda Road, Mirihana, Pitakotte. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN M.D.R.M. Perera, No. 138/35, Thalahena, Malabe. Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. D.M.D. Ananda Jayaratne, No. 209, Thalawathugoda Road, Mirihana, Pitakotte. (Deceased) Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent D.M.D. Dhanushka Buddhika Jayaratne, House/Assessment No. 431/2, Kattakaduwa Janapada Kotasa, Grama Niladari Division of Wadugama, (No. 71), Galgamuwa. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Samayawardhena, J			Download
2023-04-04	SC/APPEAL/53/2014	Ceylon Paper Sacks Limited, 47, Maligawa Road, Etulkotte. APPELLANT Vs Commissioner General of Inland Revenue, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo-2. RESPONDENT And now between Ceylon Paper Sacks Limited, 47, Maligawa Road, Etulkotte. APPELLANT-APPELLANT Vs Commissioner General of Inland Revenue, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A Gardner Mawatha, Colombo-2. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena		In the matter of an appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-03-27	SC/APPEAL/1/2019	Welikala Vithanalage Beatrice Rodrigo, No. 106, “Rodrigo Villa”, Kandy Road, Yakkala. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Pradeep Kumara Dissanayaka, 2. Lokuketagodage Gunaseeli Chandralatha, Both of No. 92, 42/04, 4th Lane, Aluthgamawatte, Yakkala. Defendants AND Welikala Vithanalage Beatrice Rodrigo, No. 106, “Rodrigo Villa”, Kandy Road, Yakkala. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Pradeep Kumara Dissanayaka, 2. Lokuketagodage Gunaseeli. Chandralatha, Both of No. 92, 42/04, 4th Lane, Aluthgamawatte, Yakkala. Defendant-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Welikala Vithanalage Beatrice Rodrigo, No. 106, “Rodrigo Villa”, Kandy Road, Yakkala. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Pradeep Kumara Dissanayake, 2. Lokuketagodage Gunaseeli Chandralatha, Both of No.92, 42/04, 4th Lane, Aluthgamawatte, Yakkala. Defendant-Respondent-Respondents View More	Samayawardhena, J	permanent injunction preventing, affirming the judgment		Download
2023-03-27	SC/APPEAL/218/2016	Sunnadeniyage Jayadasa, Dehigahalanda, Ambalantota. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Sudusinghage John Singho (Deceased), 1A. Wimaladasa Sudusinghe, Gemunupura, Tissamaharama. Substituted 1st Defendant 2. Ramasundara Hettige Misinona (Deceased) 2A. Wimaladasa Sudusinghe, Gemunupura, Tissamaharama. Substituted 2nd Defendant 3. Jasenthu Hewage Dharmadasa, No. 1046, Nandimithra Mawatha, Gemunupura, Tissamaharama 4. Chaminda Sudusinghe, “Chaminda”, Gemunupura, Tissamaharama. 3rd and 4th Defendants AND BETWEEN Sunnadeniyage Jayadasa, Dehigahalanda, Ambalantota. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Sudusinghage John Singho (Deceased), 1A. Wimaladasa Sudusinghe, Gemunupura, Tissamaharama. Substituted 1st Defendant-Respondent 2. Ramasundara Hettige Misinona (Deceased), 2A. Wimaladasa Sudusinghe, Gemunupura, Tissamaharama. Substituted 2nd Defendant-Respondent 3. Jasenthu Hewage Dharmadasa, No. 1046, Nandimithra Mawatha, Gemunupura, Tissamaharama 4. Chaminda Sudusinghe, “Chaminda”, Gemunupura, Tissamaharama. 3rd and 4th Defendant-Res View More	Samayawardhena, J.	Ambalantota, Sudusinghe, adversarial, affirmative		Download
2023-03-23	SC/APPEAL/46/2018	Sujatha Jayasinghe, Godewatte Walauwa, Nagoda. 5A/11th Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Walakada Gamage Munidasa, No. 17/1, Pepiliyana Mawatha, Nugegoda. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 1. Amarasena Amarasiri Jayasinghe, Rukattanagahawatte, Nagoda. 2. Wimalawathie Wijeratne, Rukattanagahawatte, Nagoda. 3A. Victor Amarasiri Jayasinghe, Mulanagoda, Keppettiyagoda, Nagoda. 4A. Gotabhaya Amarasiri Jayasinghe, Vando Street, Fort, Galle. 6. Walakada Gamage Sirisena, Kanahenkanda, Kurupanawa, Nagoda. 7A. Walakada Gamage Pathmasiri, Kurupanawa, Nagoda. 8A. Walakada Gamage Aruna Deepal, “Aruna”, Nagoda. 9A. Janaka Athukorala, No. 19, Sawsiripaya, Heenatiyangala Road, Kalutara South. 10. Walakada Gamage Karunawathie, Kurupanawa, Nagoda. 12A. Bovitantiri Nandawathie, Kurupanawa, Nagoda. 13. Victor Amarasiri Jayasinghe, Mulanagoda, Keppittiyagoda, Nagoda. 14. Kumarasiri Amarasiri Jayasinghe, No. 44, Peralanda Road, Ragama. Defendant-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC	pedigree, Surveyor	In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court against a Judgement delivered on 01.06.2016 in appeal bearing number SP/HCCA/GA/0054/2009	Download
2023-03-23	SC/RULE/3/2021	Edward Megarry 2nd Secretary-Migration British High Commission 389, Bauddhaloka Mawatha Colombo 7 Complainant Alwapillai Gangatharan No.361, Dam Streem, Colombo -12. Respondent View More	Hon. Buwaneka Aluwihare PC J	United Kingdom, Disciplinary, Sakunthala, Naguleswaran	In the matter of a Rule in terms of Section 42(2) of the Judicature Act No. 2 of 1978	Download
2023-03-10	SC/APPEAL/220/2012	Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant Vs Dekum Ambakotuwa Prageeth Nishantha Bandara, Godella Watta, Andawela, Meegama. Accused And Dekum Ambakotuwa Prageeth Nishantha Bandara, Godella Watta, Andawela, Meegama. Accused-Appellant Vs. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Dekum Ambakotuwa Prageeth Nishantha Bandara, Godella Watta, Andawela, Meegama. Accused-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli	Constitution states, interlocutory order, Thereupon, her Ladyship	In the matter of an Appeal from an order of the Court of Appeal in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution	Download
2023-03-10	SC/RULE/14/2000	Dr. Lakshman Lucian de Silva Weerasena No. 372, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Complainant Vs, 1. Jayantha Attanayake Attorney at Law 2. Mrs. Ratnamalie Maitipe Attanayake Attorney at Law Both of No. 65, Stork Place, Colombo 10 Respondent View More	Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J	Practitioner, Ratnamalie, transactions, Mudunkotuwa, Winifred, Bambalapitiya	In the matter of a Rule in terms of Section 42 (2) of the Judicature Act, No 2 of 1978	Download
2023-03-01	SC/APPEAL/114/2021	D.M.Karunarathne, Acting Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Legal Section, Colombo 05. Complainant Respondent And Between Bhuwelka Steel Industries (Sri Lanka) Ltd. No. 65/2, Sir Chittampalan A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Presently at, No. 5/5, -10, East Tower, 5 th Floor, WTC, Echelon Square, Colombo 01. Respondent -Petitioner Vs. D.M.Karunarathne, Acting Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Legal Section, Colombo 05. Complainant-Respondent And Between Bhuwelka Steel Industries (Sri Lanka) Ltd. No. 65/2, Sir Chittampalan A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Presently at, No. 5/5, -10, East Tower, 5 th Floor, WTC, Echelon Square, Colombo 01. Respondent -Petitioner-Appellant Vs. D.M.Karunarathne, Acting Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Legal Section, Colombo 05. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent And now between Yapa Appuhamilage Mithila Madavi Yapa Acting Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Legal Section, Colombo 05. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent-Appellant Vs, Bhuwelka Steel Industries (Sri Lanka) Ltd. No. View More	Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J	affirming, scrutinizing, Chilaw	In the matter of an Application for Special Leave to Appeal under the Provisions Article 128 (2) of the Constitution of Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2023-03-01	SC/FR/236/2008-237/2008	1. C. Chethiyawardena, No. 195/7, 2nd Lane, Egodawatte Road, Boralesgamuwa. 2. Sanjaya Mudakige, No.05, Wijesekera Road, Dehiwala. 3. D. D. Mataraarachchi, No. 255/1, Pelanwatte, Pannipitiya. 4. Ajith Abeysekere, Pashionwatte, Wellavilmulla, Kal-Eliya. 5. Anjalika Gunasekera, No. 19-J, Bandarawatte, Kadawatha. 6. D.C.W. Hapugoda, Thalwate Estate, Kundasale. 7. L.V.N. Preethika Kumudini, 105 D, Millagahadeniya, Ankokkawala, Galle. 8. S.G.Vidura Prassanna, 48/1, Paramulla Road, Matara. 9. M. Gangadharan, No. 9/16A, Fernando Gardens, Off Bhatiya Mawatha, Kalubovila, Dehiwala. 10. M. Ramamurthi, No. 33/3/1, Sangabo Mawatha, Hunupitiya, Wattala. 11. S.H. Vijitha Kumara, No. 52/8, Walawatte, Ibbagamuwa. 12. R.M. Wijesinghe Banda, No. 47/A, Kamburuadeniya, Hndessa. 13. P.M.K. Hettiarachchi, “Sri Kirula”, Dampella Road, Kadduwa, Thelijjavila. 14. Sir Lanka Planning Service Association, 9th Floor, “Sethsiripaya”, Battaramulla. Petitioners Vs, 1. Ranil Wickramasinghe Minister of National Policies and Economic Affairs, “Miloda” (Old Times Building), 1st Floor, British Street, Colombo 01. 2. Gamini Jayawickrema Perera Minister of Buddha Sasana, Ministry of Buddha Sasana, No. 135, Sirimath Anagarika Dharmapala Mawatha, Colombo 07. And Minister of Sustainable Development and Wildlife Department of Wildlife Conservation, No. 811A, Jayanthipura, Battaramulla. 3. Nimal Siripala de. Silva Minister of Transport, No. 01, Dr. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. 4. S.B. Dissanayake Minister of Social Empowerment and Welfare and Kandyan Heritage, 1st Floor, Second State, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 5. W.D.J. Seneviratne Minister of Labour and Trade Union Relations and Sabaragamuwa Development. 2nd Floor, Labour Secretariat, Colombo 05. 6. A. Ibathul Rauff Hakeem Minister of City Planning and Water Supply, “Lakdiya Medura” 35, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. 7. Anura Piyadarshana Yapa Minister of Disaster Management, Vidyala Mawatha, Colombo 07. 8. Susil Premajayantha Minister of Technology, Technical Education and Employment, No. 408, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 9. Jhon Anthony Emmanuel Amarathunga Minister of Tourism Development and Christian Religious Affairs, 13th Floor, “Sethsiripaya” Stage II, Battaramulla. 10. Rajitha Senarathne Minister of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine 385, “Suwasiripaya” Ven. Wimalarathna Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 11. Thilak Marapana P.C. Minister of Foreign Affairs, Republic Building, Colombo 01. 12. Mahinda Samarasinghe Minister of Ports and Shipping, No. 19, Chaithiya Road, Colombo 01. 13. Vajira Abeywardena Minister of Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 14. S.B. Nawinna Minister of International Affairs, Wayamba Development and Cultural Affairs, 8th Floor, “Sethsiripaya”, Battaramulla. 15. Abdul Rishad Bathiudeen Minister of Industry and Commerce, No. 73/1, Galle Road, Colombo 03. AND OTHERS View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J	Sri Lanka Planning Service Association, supernumerary, Cabinet Memorandum	In the matter of an application under and in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution	Download
2023-03-01	SC/FR/460/2017	Minister of Conservation, 811/A, Wildlife Jayanthipura Battaramulla. 40. Hon. Mahinda Samarasinghe and Main Forest Road, Former Minister of Plantation Industries, No. 53/2, Torrington Mawatha, Colombo 07. 40A. Mahindananda Aluthgamage Minister of Agriculture, 288, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha, Sri Jayawardenepura Kotte. 41. Hon. Rajitha Senarathne Former Minister of Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Development, No 22B, Stanmore Crescent, Colombo 07. 41A.Wasudeva Nanayakkara 13 Minister of Water Supply, Lakdiya Medura, 35 New Parliament Road, Sri Jayawardenepura Kotte. 42. Hon. Athauda Senevirathne Former Minister of Justices, No. 396/20A, Kalalpitiya School Lane, Pannipitiya Road, Pannipitiya. 42A.Udaya Prabath Gammanpila Minister of Energy, No.72, Ananda Coomaraswamy Mawatha, Colombo 07. 43. Hon. Jhon Senevirathne Former Minister of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Sabarahamuwa Development Coordinating Moragahayata, Rathnapura. 43A.Hon. Rohitha Abegunawardene Office, Minister of Ports and Shipping, 19, 1 Chaithya Road, Colombo 44. Hon. Maithripala Sirisena Former Minister of Health, Presidential Secretariat, Galle Face, Colombo 01. 44A.Namal Rajapakse Minister of Youth and Sports, No. 09, Phillip Gunawardana Mawatha, Colombo 07. 45. Hon. Janaka Bandara Tennakoon Former Minister of Land and Land Development, No. 25/2, ‘Rangiri,’ sama Uyana, Boralesgamuwa. 45A. Ali Sabry Minister of Justice, Ministry of Justice, Sri Lanka Superior Courts Complex, Colombo 12 46. Hon. Arumugam Thondaman Former Minister of Livestock and Rural Community Development, No.72, Ananda Coomaraswamy Mawatha, Colombo 07. 46A.Sarath Weerasekara Minister of Public Security, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 03. 47. Hon. Tissa Vitharana 15/5, Former Minister of Technology and Research, 457, Union Place, Colombo 02. 48. Hon Pavithra Devi Wanniarachchi Former Minister of National Heritage and Cultural Affairs, No. 18/228A, 3rd Cross Avenue, Evergreen Park, E.D. Dabare Mawatha, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 49. Hon. W.A.Wiswa Warnapala Former Minister of Higher Education 50. Hon. Wimal Weerawansha Former Minister of Construction, Engineering Services, Housing and Common Amenities, No. 342/1/4, E.W. Perera Mawatha, Kotte Road, Pitakotte. 51. Hon. Kumara Welgama, Former Minister of Transport, No. 101A, Manning Place, Colombo 06. Deniston Estate, Horawala, Welipenna. 52. Hon. Rathnasiri Wickramanayake Former Minister of Public Management Reforms 53. Hon. Anura Priyadarshana Yapa Former Minister of Environment, Minister Office, Ministry of Disaster Management, Vidhya Mawatha, Colombo 07. Respondents 54. U.L.Samaratunga Development Officer, No.222/1, Wijerama Road, Gampaha. 55. S.M. Bandu Development Officer, No. 61/18, Ingiriya Road, Padukka. 56. R.M.N.S. Gunetilake, Development Officer, No. 142, Baseline Road, Colombo 09. Intervenient-Respondents View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J	Planning Service Association, Secretary and Assistant Secretary, Petitioner Union	In the matter of an application under and in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution	Download
2023-01-24	SC/CONT/3/2020	Hewa Aluth Sahal Arachchige Ajith Prasanna. 87/D, Parakrama Mawatha Talahena, Malabe Respondent View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena	In the matter of a Rule in terms of Article 105 (3)		Download
2023-01-23	SC/APPEAL/4/2007	1. S. Albert 2. A. Chakravarthy 3. A. Muralitharan 4. A. Muthukumaran 5. Miss N. Vadivuvathi 6. Miss T. Usha 7. Miss Susila Amal 8. Miss C. Ponmalar 9. Miss M. Pon Niraajan All of No. 22, Lind Main Road, Kattoor Gardens, Kottoorpuram, Chennai No. 85, carrying on business in partnership in India under the name and style of S. Albert & Company duly registered in India. The Head Office situated at No. 75, Yavun Rajah Street, Tuticorin G. 628001 and the Branch Office situated at 13/1, Vanels Road, Egmore, Chennai. Plaintiffs S. Sivakumar, Carrying on business in sole proprietorship under the name and style of “Udaya Enterprises” at P-168, 5th Cross street, Colombo 11. Presently S. Sivakumar, No.88, Wasala Road, Colombo 13 Defendant Page 2 of 17 AND NOW BETWEEN 1. S. Albert 2. A. Chakravarthy 3. A. Muralitharan 4. A. Muthukumaran 5. Miss N. Vadivuvathi 6. Miss T. Usha 7. Miss Susila Amal 8. Miss C. Ponmalar 9. Miss M. Pon Niraajan All of No. 22, Lind Main Road, Kattoor Gardens, Kottoorpuram, Chennai No. 85, carry View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva	In the matter of an appeal in terms of Chapter LVIII and in particular in terms of Section 754 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code read together with the provisions Section 5 and 6 of the High Court of Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 10 of 1996 against the Judgment of the Learned High Court Judge of the Commercial High Court of Colombo delivered on 12.12.2006.		Download
2023-01-13	SC/CHC APPEAL/35/2012	J. D. Corporation (Private) Limited No. 37, W. A. D. Ramanayake Mawatha Colombo 02 PLAINTIFF Vs. Lafarge Mahaweli Cement (Private) Limited No. 69, New Kelani Bridge Road Orugodawatte Colombo 14 DEFENDANT AND NOW BETWEEN J. D. Corporation (Private) Limited No. 37, W. A. D. Ramanayake Mawatha Colombo 02 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Lafarge Mahaweli Cement (Private) Limited No. 69, New Kelani Bridge Road Orugodawatte Colombo 14 DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2023-01-13	SC/APPEAL/34/2014	P.G. Punchimanike, 33B, Galamuna, Manikhinna. 2. Waiyeli Vs. SC APPEAL 34/2014 SC/HCCA/LA 471/2011 CP/HCCA/KN 477/04 DC KANDY NO: P13000 2 1. Waiyelli Mudiyanselage Chandana Jayathissa, 58, Bogahakuburawatta, Udagamadda, Menikhinna. Plaintiff-Respondent 2. Wahindra Mudiyanselage Thalkotuwegedara Koinmanike 3. Waiyelli Mudiyanselage Cholmondeley Jayawardana 4. Waiyelli Mudiyanselage Subadra Nilanthi Kumari- 5. Waiyelli Mudiyanselage Chaminda Jayathilaka 6. Co-operative Rural People’s Bank, Manikhinna And 1, 2, 3, 4, 11 Defendants. 4. Talagollegedara Mathusena Mudiyanselage Agnus, Nikahetiya, Manikhinna. 3. Waiyeli Mudiyanselage Bisomanike Nikahetiya, Manikhinna. Galamuna, Manikhinna. 4A. Wahindara Mudiyanselage Kasthurigedara Heenmanike, 65, Galamuna, Manikhinna 4B. Waiyeli Mudiyanselage Chandrika Damayanthi- Same address 5. B.K.G. Ebert Wijeratne, Galamuna, Manikhinna. And 6A, 7, 8, 9, 12 Defendants/Appellants Defendants/Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2023-01-13	SC/APPEAL/52/2020	1. Weragoda Kapuge Priyantha, “Agra”, Pahala Karannagoda, Warakagoda. 2. Hewage Don Ananda, Sri Sarananda Road, Pahala Naragala, Gowinna. 3. Lalith Samantha Wijesinghe, 179/01, Pannil Kandha, Kananwila, Horana. 4. Kurukulasooriya Oswal Chanditha Mario Fernando, No. 77, Kirigala Road, Handapangoda. PETITIONERS vs 1. Secretary, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Sri Jayawardenapura, Battaramulla, Kotte. 2. Upali Marasinghe, Former Secretary, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Sri Jayawardenapura, Battaramulla, Kotte. 3. P.D. Jayarathne, Principal, Ashoka College, Horana. 4. Ven. Opalle Gnanasiri Nayaka Thero, Rajamaha Viharaya, Horana. 5. Vidyarathna (incorporated) Society, Rajamaha Viharaya, Horana. 6. P.D. Jayarathne, Principal, Ashoka College, Horana. 7. Commissioner General of Examinations, Ministry of Education, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. RESPONDENTS And now between 1. Secretary, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Sri Jayawardenapura, Battaramulla, Kotte. 7. Commissioner General of Examinations, Ministry View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere	Ministry of Education, Horana Asoka College, Training Colleges, C.W.W. Kannangara	In the matter of an appeal under the provisions of Article 128(2) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-01-12	SC/FR/329/2017	1. Chandana Suriyarachchi No. 55B, Pahala Kosgama, Kosgama. 2. G.V. Siripala No. 11, Salaawa, Kosgama. 3. W.S. Sudath Kumara No. 8, Salaawa, Kosgama. 4. W. Dharmadasa Saraswathie Salon, Salaawa, Kosgama. 5. N. Nimalsiri Nandana Hotel, Salaawa, Kosgama. 6. K.A. Walter Kirisena Stores, Salaawa, Kosgama. 7. M.D.H. Joseph Perera Karangoda Tailors, Salaawa, Kosgama. 8. P.K. Rupasinghe No. 317, Boralugoda, Kosgama. 9. T.A.D.C. Gunarathna Jayathilake No. 67, Vidyala Mawatha, Akarawita, Kosgama. 10.W.K. Senarathne No. 250, Salaawa, Kosgama. 11.W.K.P.D. Senarathna No. 15/2/B, Salon Purnima, Salaawa, Kosgama. 12.W.M. Kamal Priyantha No. 5/A, Upper Floor of Hemantha Hardware, Salaawa, Kosgama. 13.H.W. Charith Widuranga No. 217, Widuranga Salon, Salaawa, Kosgama. 14.N. Ranasinghe No. 272, Lenadora Hotel, Salaawa, Kosgama. 15.Deraniyagala Janak Priyalal No. 30/1/B, High Level Road, Salaawa, Kosgama 16.J.A.S.P.C. Jayasuriya Sanjeewa Food Corner, No. 30/1/1/A, Salaawa, Kosgama. 17.W.C. Senarath Kumara Super Son Insti View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J	Sri Lanka Army, Timber Corporation, armories, Valuation Department, HRCSL	In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Article 126 read with Article 17 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-01-12	SC/FR/85/2015	Wijewickrama Manamperig Leelawathi Udahawatta, Ulahitiy awa, Middeniya. Petitioner Vs. 1. Priyantha Kulathunga, Police Sergeant (54471), Sooriyawewa Police Station, Sooriyawewa. 2. Chaminda Prabath, Police Constable (35079), Sooriyawewa Police Station, Sooriyawewa. 3. J. Chandana, Police Constable (38261), Sooriyawewa Police Station, Sooriyawewa. 4. Sunil Shantha, Police Constable (40720), Sooriyawewa Police Station, Sooriyawewa. 5. K.A.Sampath Peiris, Police Constable (39716), Sooriyawewa Police Station, Sooriyawewa. 6. Sisira Padma Kumara, Police Constable (61985), Sooriyawewa Police Station, Sooriyawewa. 7. N.K.Illangakoon Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 8. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp Street, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli	Hambantota Hospital, cylindrical weapon	In the matter of an application under and in terms of Article 126 of the Constitution read with Article 17 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2023-01-12	SC/CHC APPEAL/22/2014	Mohamed Lebbe Mohamed Zarook, No. 41, Kandy Road, Gampola. PLAINTIFF -Vs.- Tokyo Cement Company (Lanka) Ltd., No. 469/1/1, Galle Road, Colombo 3. DEFENDANT AND NOW BETWEEN Mohamed Lebbe Mohamed Zarook, No. 41, Kandy Road, Gampola PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT -Vs.- Tokyo Cement Company (Lanka) PLC., No. 469/1/1, Galle Road, Colombo 03. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2023-01-12	SC/APPEAL/46/2014	1. Nanayakkara Senarath Appuhamillage Karunarathne Nanayakkara, of Banduragoda. [Deceased] 2. Karunarathne Senarath Appuhamillage Indra Beatrice Nanayakkara, of Banduragoda. Plaintiffs Vs. Jayasinghe Aratchige Somaratne, of Banduragoda. Defendant IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Jayasinghe Aratchige Somaratne, of Banduragoda. Defendant Appellant Vs. 2. Karunarathne Senarath Appuhamillage Indra Beatrice Nanayakkara, of Banduragoda. NOW, IN THE SUPREME COURT 2. Karunarathne Senarath Appuhamillage Indra Beatrice Nanayakkara, of Banduragoda. Plaintiff- Respondent -Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Jayasinghe Aratchige Somaratne, of Banduragoda Defendant- Appellant- Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2023-01-12	SC/APPEAL/28/2014	1. Mandis de Silva Jayasingha, Walpola, Matara (Deceased) 1A. Hemalatha de Silva Jayasingha, Walpola, Matara Plaintiff Vs. 1. Somadasa Galle Liyanaga, Welegoda 2. Chandrika Kumudini Samaraweera, 2nd Cross Road, Walpola, Matara 3. Olga Ranjani Wijeweera alias Samaraweera, Welewatte Defendants AND BETWEEN 1. Mandis de Silva Jayasingha Walpola, Matara (Deceased) 1A. Hemalatha de Silva Jayasingha, Walpola, Matara Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Somadasa Galle Liyanaga, Welegoda. 2. Chandrika Kumudini Samaraweera, 2nd Cross Road, Walpola, Matara 3. Olga Ranjani Wijeweera alias Samaraweera, Welewatta Defendant-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Mandis de Silva Jayasingha, Walpola, Matara (Deceased) 1A. Hemalatha de Silva Jayasingha Walpola, Matara Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Somadasa Galle Liyanaga, Welegoda 2. Chandrika Kumudini Samaraweera, 2nd Cross Road, Walpola, Matara 3. Olga Ranjani Wijeweera alias Samaraweera, Welewatta (Deceased) 3A. Dayananda Wejeweera, Welewatta, Matara 3B. Devi Tharanga Wejeweera, View More	Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2023-01-12	SC/APPEAL/182/2017	Officer in Charge, Criminal Investigation Division, Colombo Complainant -Vs.- Sangili Ramalingam No. 19, Wilferd Place, Colombo 3. Accused AND BETWEEN Mohhamed Hajji Anwar No 50/19, Sir James Pieris Mw, Colombo 02 First Complainant-Appellant Vs.- Sangili Ramalingam No. 19, Wilferd Place, Colombo 3. Accused-Respondent AND Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Sangili Ramalingam No. 19, Wilferd Place, Colombo 3. Accused-Respondent-Appellant -Vs.- Mohhamed Hajji Anwar No 50/19, Sir James Pieris Mw, Colombo 02 Virtual Complainant-Appellant-Respondent Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2023-01-12	SC/APPEAL/161/2016	4. Kehelwatte Gedara Gunadasa, Peremadulla, Udumulla. 5. Kehelwatte Gedara Wijepala, Peramadulla, Udumulla. 6. Kehelwattalage Jemis, Peramadulla, Udumulla 6(a) Kehelwattalage Somasiri, Peramadulla, Udumulla. 7. Suduhakurulage Podi Amma, Peramadulla, Udumulla. 7(a) Kehelwatte Gedara Gunadasa, Peramadulla, Udumulla. 4,5,6(a) and 7(a) Defendant-Respondent- Petitioners/Appellants Vs Kehelwattege Podi Singho Sunil Permawardane, Peramadulla, Udumulla via Kadugannawa Plaintiff- Appellant- Respondent 1. Bibile Manage Chandrawathy, Peramadulla, Udumulla via Kadugannawa. 2. Kamal Gamini Premawardane, Peramadulla, Udumulla via Kadugannawa. 3. Agampodige Jinadasa, Waliwatura, Udumulla via Kadugannawa. 3(a) J. P Gnawathy, Pathahamulla Hena, Udumulla via, Kadugannawa. 8. Hondamuni Arachilage Podimenike, Udumulla via Kadugannawa. 1, 2, 3(a), 8 Defendant-Respondent- Respondents View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC. J.			Download
2023-01-11	SC/APPEAL/104/2015	Inoka Sulari Nissanka 121/C, Kaluwairippuwa west, Katana. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Stela Karmon Nissanka, 121/C, Kaluwairippuwa West, Katana. 2. Nissanka Appuhamilage Kema Senehelatha Nissanka, No.382, Kandurugashena, Kuliyapitiya. 3. G. G. Krishantha Sisira Pathirana, No.382, Kandurugashena, Kuliyapitiya. Defendants AND Nissanka Appuhamilage Kema Senehelatha Nissanka, No.382, Kandurugashena, Kuliyapitiya. 2 nd Defendant-Appellant G. G. Krishantha Sisira Pathirana, No.382, Kandurugashena, Kuliyapitiya. 3 rd Defendant-Appellant Vs Inoka Sulari Nissanka 121/C, Kaluwairippuwa west, Katana. Plaintiff-Respondent Stela Karmon Nissanka, 121/C, Kaluwairippuwa West, Katana. 1 st Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN G. G. Krishantha Sisira Pathirana, No.382, Kandurugashena, Kuliyapitiya. Substituted 2nd Defendant-Appellant-Appellant G. G. Krishantha Sisira Pathirana, No.382, Kandurugashena, Kuliyapitiya. 3rd Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs 3 Inoka Sulari Nissanka 121/C, Kaluwairippuwa west, Katana. Plaintiff-Respond View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2023-01-11	SC/APPEAL/136/2011	Stassen Exports Ltd. No. 833, Sirimavo Bandaranaike Mawatha, Colombo 14 Appellant-Petitioner-Plaintiff -Vs- 1. Kithsiri Jayasinghe Registrar of patents & Trademark 267, Union Place Colombo 02 2. M.S. Hebtulabhoy & Co Ltd. 257, Grandpass Road Colombo 14 Respondent-Respondent-Defendant And Stassen Exports Ltd. No. 833, Sirimavo Bandaranaike Mawatha Colombo 14 Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff Vs 1. Director General of Intellectual Property of Sri Lanka National Intellectual Property Office in Sri Lanka 400, D.R. Wijewardene Mawatha Colombo 10. 1 st Respondent-Respondent-Defendant 2. Suad Ahamed Mohamed Saleh Baeshan 3. Khalid Ahmed Abu Baker Abdullah Baeshan 4. Osama Ahmad Abu Baker Abdulla Baeshen 5. Sumaya Ahmad Abu Baker Abdullah Baeshen 6. Sahar Ahmad Abu Baker Abdullah Baeshen 7. Mohamed Abdul Kader Baeshen 8. Ahmed Abdul Kader Baeshen All partners of Ahamed Saleh Baeshen and company, a limited liability Partnership, existing under the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia of P.O. Box View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2023-01-11	SC/APPEAL/11/2017	Dinga Thanthirige Jayalath Perere, No. 1/64, Kalalgoda Road, Pannipitiya. Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Vice Admiral W.K.J. Karannagoda Commander of the Sri Lanka Navy Sri Lanka Navy Headquarters, Colombo 01. 1A. T.S.G. Samarasinghe Vice Admiral Commander of the Sri Lanka Navy Sri Lanka Navy Headquarters, Colombo 01. 1B. S.A.M.J. Perera Vice Admiral Commander of the Sri Lanka Navy Sri Lanka Navy Headquarters, Colombo 01. 1C. Vice Admiral Ravindra C. Wijegunaratne Commander of the Sri Lanka Navy Sri Lanka Navy Headquarters, Colombo 01. (Added) 2. M.R.U. Siriwardene, Rear Admiral, Sri Lanka Navy Sri Lanka Navy Headquarters, Colombo 01. 3. M. Prematillake Commodore, Sri Lanka Navy Sri Lanka Navy Headquarters, Colombo 01. 4. M.A.J. De Costa Commodore, Sri Lanka Navy Sri Lanka Navy Headquarters, Colombo 01. 5. N.W.W.G.W.M.G.M. Gunasekera Commodore, Sri Lanka Navy Sri Lanka Navy Headquarters, Colombo 01. 6. D.S. Udawathha, Commodore, Sri Lanka Navy Sri Lanka Navy Headquarters, Colombo 01. 7. A.K.M. J View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC			Download
2023-01-11	SC/TAB 1A and 1B/2020	Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, No. 36, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. Complainant vs Indiketiya Hewage Kusumdasa Mahanama, Chief of Staff to the President, Presidential Secretariat, (Private Address) No. 328/2, Betans Road, Dalugama, Kelaniya. 1 st Accused Piyadasa Dissanayake, Chairman, State Timber Corporation, (Private Address) No. 55/23, Gemunu Mawatha, Udumulla, Battaramulla. 2 nd Accused And now between Indiketiya Hewage Kusumdasa Mahanama, Chief of Staff to the President, Presidential Secretariat, (Private Address) No. 328/2, Betans Road, Dalugama, Kelaniya. Presently at- Welikada Prison, Colombo 10 (Pr. No. 23336X) 1 st Accused-Appellant Piyadasa Dissanayake, Chairman, State Timber Corporation, (Private Address) No. 55/23, Gemunu Mawatha, Udumulla, Battaramulla. 2 nd Accused-Appellant Vs, 1. Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, No. 36, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. Complainant-Respondent 2. Hon Attorney General, Attorney Ge View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J			Download
2023-01-11	SC/APPEAL/29/2022 WITH SC/APPEAL/29A/2022	1. Jagath Balapatabendi, Chairman - Public Service Commission, No.1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 8. Dilith Jayaweera Member - Public Service Commission, No.1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla 1ST & 8TH RESPONDENT-APPELLANTS 11. Secretary to the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Justice, Colombo 12. 12. Sanjaya Rajaratnam Esqr, Hon. Attorney General, No.14/11, Auburn Side, Dehiwala. 11TH & 12TH RESPONDENT-APPELLANTS Vs A. P. Dilrukshi Dias Wickramasinghe No.377/2, Thalawathugoda Road, Hokandara South PETITIONER-RESPONDENT 1. Indrani Sugathadasa, Member - Public Service Commission, No.1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla 2. V. Sivagnanasothi, Member - Public Service Commission, No.1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla 3. C.R.C. Ruberu, Member - Public Service Commission, No.1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla 4. A.L.M. Saleem, Member - Public Service Commission, No.1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla 5. Leelasena Liyanagama, Member - Public Service Commission, No.1200/9, Rajamalwatta R View More	Hon. P. Padman Surasena J			Download
2023-01-11	SC/APPEAL/98/2017	Union Bank of Colombo PLC, 64, Galle Road, Colombo 03. (Formerly Known as Union Bank of Colombo Limited) Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. 1. David Pedurupillai Dominique, Kings Court, No. 4/5, Havelock Road, Colombo 05. 2. Nallathambi Naguleswaran, No. 5/1, “F” Block, Government Flats, Colombo 04. 1 st and 2nd Defendants-Appellants-Respondents 3. Jagathlal Abeysinghe Gunawardene, No. 3, Sarasavi Road, Nugegoda. 4. Surendra Nadan Ravindran, No. 24, Circular Road, Mabole, Wattala. 3 rd and 4th Defendants-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2023-01-11	SC/CONT/1/2023	Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, No. 14, R A de Mel Mawatha, Colombo 04, Sri Lanka. Complainant – Petitioner -Vs- 1. M.P.D.U.K. Mapa Pathirana, Secretary, Ministry of Power and Energy, No. 437, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 2. N.S. Ilangakoon, Chairman. 3. K.G.R.F. Comestar, Additional General Manager. 4. T.K. Liyanage Finance Manager. 5. A.R.M.M.S. Karunasena, Deputy General Manager. All of Ceylon Electricity Board, 6th Floor, No. 50, Sir Chittamapalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 6. Janaka Rathnayake, Chairman, Public Utilities Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwaththa Road, Battaramulla. 7. Mohamed Uvais Mohamed, Managing Director/Chairman. 8. V.N. Weerasuriya, Deputy General Manager (Finance), 9. S.M.C.P. Samarakoon, Manager (Sales) All of Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, Dr. Danister De Silva Mawatha, Colombo 09. 10. Hon. Attorney-General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Contemnor - Respondents View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara	In the matter of an application under and in terms on Article 105(3) of the Constitution read with Section 21 of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka Act No. 21 of 1996.		Download
2023-01-11	SC/APPEAL/228/2014	Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Complainant -Vs- 1. Iddagodage Sarath Kumara, 2. Walpita Pathiranage Prasanna Perera alias Alli Accused AND BETWEEN Iddagodage Sarath Kumara 1st Accused - Appellant -Vs- The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department Colombo 2 Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Iddagodage Sarath Kumara Presently at Welikada Prison Base Line Road, Borella. 1st Accused - Appellant - Appellant -Vs- Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department Colombo 2 Complainant – Respondent - Respondent View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena	In the matter of an appeal in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.		Download
2023-01-11	SC/FR/398/2008	Mohammed Rashid Fathima Sharmila No. 159/FB/54, Maligawatte Place, Maligawatte, Colombo 10. Petitioner Vs. 1. K.W.G. Nishantha 31118, Police Sergeant, Police Station, Slave Island, Colombo 02. 2. Siddique 5004, Police Constable, Police Station, Slave Island, Colombo 2. 3. Karunathilake 30342, Police Sergeant, Police Station, Slave Island, Colombo 2. 4. K.N.C.P. Kaluarachchi, Police Inspector, Police Station, Slave Island, Colombo 2. 5. Officer in Charge, Police Station, Slave Island, Colombo 2. 6. The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 7. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC	In the matter of an Application under Article 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka		Download
2023-01-11	SC/APPEAL/85A/2009	(IN THE DISTRICT COURT) In the matter of a Winding Up Application in terms of sections 255 and 256 of the Companies Act No 17 of 1982 Hatton National Bank Limited, No. 481, T. B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. PETITIONER - PETITIONER - APPELLANT Vs 1. Seylan Bank Limited, No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. PARTY RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT 2. Lanka Tractors Limited, No. 45/100, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. RESPONDENT AND THEN BETWEEN (IN THE DISTRICT COURT) In the matter of an application in terms of sections 260, 261, 348, 350 and 352 of the Companies Act No. 17 of 1982 to stay execution of properties belonging to the Company after the commencement of winding up of the Company. Hatton National Bank Limited, No. 481, T. B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. PETITIONER - PETITIONER Vs Seylan Bank Limited, No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. PARTY RESPONDENT AND THEN BETWEEN (IN THE PROVINCIAL HIGH COURT) View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena	In the matter of an appeal in terms of section 5 C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 as amended by Act No. 54 of 2006, against a judgment delivered by the Provincial High Court exercising its jurisdiction under section 5A of the said Act.		Download
2023-01-10	SC/APPEAL/143/2015	K. A. Munidasa Wattahena, Thalagaswala. Applicant -Vs.- Diya-kithulkanda Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd, Diya-kithulkanda, Thalgaswala. Respondent AND Diya-kithulkanda Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd, Diyakithulkanda, Thalgaswala. Respondent-Appellant -Vs.- K. A. Munidasa, Wattahena, Thalagaswala. Applicant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Diya-kithulkanda Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd, Diyakithulkanda, Thalgaswala Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner -Vs.- K. A. Munidasa Wattahena, Thalagaswala. Applicant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2022-12-16	SC/APPEAL/108/2019	Aluthgama Hewage Ariyapala Amaradasa, No. 555/16B, Elhenewatte, Gonahena, Kadawatha. Plaintiff Vs. Hewaralalage Dulani Dilrukshi, No. 555/16A, Elhenawatte, Gonahena, Kadawatha. Defendant AND BETWEEN Hewaralalage Dulani Dilrukshi, No. 555/16A, Elhenawatte, Gonahena, Kadawatha. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Aluthgama Hewage Ariyapala Amaradasa, No. 555/16B, Elhenewatte, Gonahena, Kadawatha. Plaintiff-Respondent (deceased) Gamlath Ralalage Chandrawathie, No. 555/16B, Elhenewatte, Gonahena, Kadawatha. Substituted-Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Gamlath Ralalage Chandrawathie, No. 555/16B, Elhenewatte, Gonahena, Kadawatha. Substituted-Plaintiff-Respondent Vs. Hewaralalage Dulani Dilrukshi, No. 555/16A, Elhenawatte, Gonahena, Kadawatha. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2022-12-16	SC/APPEAL/17/2016	Rev. Mahanuwara Ratnasara Thero, Sri Sidhartha Ramaya, 509, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya. Plaintiff (Deceased) Arumugam Rasalingam, No. 32, St. Anthony’s Mawatha, Colombo 13. Substituted Plaintiff Vs. Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation, No. 3, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha, Welikada, Rajagiriya. Defendant AND BETWEEN Arumugam Rasalingam, No. 32, St. Anthony’s Mawatha, Colombo 13. Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation, No. 3, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha, Welikada, Rajagiriya. Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Arumugam Rasalingam, No. 32, St. Anthony’s Mawatha, Colombo 13. Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation, No. 3, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha, Welikada, Rajagiriya. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2022-12-16	SC/APPEAL/189/2017	Henri Edama, New Heaven, Kahaththewela, Prise Road, Bandarawela. Plaintiff Vs. A.L.G. Somasiri, No. 444, Bindunuwewa, Bandarawela. Defendant AND BETWEEN A.L.G. Somasiri, No. 444, Bindunuwewa, Bandarawela. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Henri Edama, New Heaven, Kahaththewela, Prise Road, Bandarawela. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Henri Edama, New Heaven, Kahaththewela, Prise Road, Bandarawela. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. A.L.G. Somasiri, No. 444, Bindunuwewa, Bandarawela. (Deceased) Defendant-Appellant-Respondent Arabegoda Loku Gamage Bandula Karunarathne Perera, No. 444, Bindunuwewa, Bandarawela Substituted Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2022-12-16	SC/APPEAL/76/2021	Ven. Habarakada Soratha Thero, The Chief Incumbent, Sri Wardhanarama Purana Viharaya, Kaluwella, Galle. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Palpola Kankanamge Gunadasa (Deceased) 1A. Maddekandege Lilawathie 1B. Palpola Kankanamge Jayawathie 1C. Palpola Kankanamge Sunila 1D. Palpola Kankanamge Mangalika All of Unnanse Liyadda, Paragaha Owita, Kirimatimulla, Godakanda, Galle. 2. Game Kankanamge Daya alias Dayawathie, Godakanda, Galle. Defendants AND BETWEEN Ven. Habarakada Soratha Thero, The Chief Incumbent, Sri Wardhanarama Purana Viharaya, Kaluwella, Galle. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1A. Maddekandege Lilawathie 1B. Palpola Kankanamge Jayawathie 1C. Palpola Kankanamge Sunila 1D. Palpola Kankanamge Mangalika All of Unnansege Liyadda, Paragaha Owita, Kirimatimulla, Godakanda, Galle. 2. Game Kankanamge Daya alias Dayawathie, Godakanda, Galle. 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D & 2nd Defendant-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1A. Maddekandege Lilawathie 1B. Palpola Kankanamge Jayawathie 1C. Palpola Kankanamge Sunila 1D. Palpola Kankanamge Mangalika All of Unnansege Liyadda, Paragaha Owita, Kirimatimulla, Godakanda, Galle. View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2022-12-16	SC/CHC APPEAL/19/2002	Korea-Ceylon Footwear Manufacturing Company Limited of No. 36, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. Plaintiff Vs. Coats Tootal Lanka (Private) Limited of P.O. Box 250, No. 33, Steples Street, Colombo 02. Defendant AND NOW BETWEEN Coats Tootal Lanka (Private) Limited of P.O. Box 250, No. 33, Steples Street, Colombo 02. presently called and known as, Coats Thread Lanka (Private) Limited of Floor 3-6, No. 163, Union Place, Colombo 02. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Korea-Ceylon Footwear Manufacturing Company Limited of No. 36, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. presently under winding up by court in the District Court of Colombo Case No. 67/CO and represented by: 1. N.S.C de Silva 2. L.C. Piyasena 3. L.L.S Wickramasighe 4. C.R. Weragala All of No. 32, Park Road, Colombo 05. The liquidators appointed by the District Court in Case No. 67/CO. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2022-12-16	SC/APPEAL/167/2012	1. Hariharan Selvanathan C/O No, 83, George R. De Silva Mawatha, Colombo 13. 2. Manoharan Selvanathan C/O No, 83, George R. De Silva Mawatha, Colombo 13. 3. Nataraja Ramiah No. 17, Stubbs Place, Off Dickman’s Road, Colombo 04. 4. Suresh Kumar Shah No. 125/11, Kirula Road, Colombo 05. 5. Don Chandima Rajakaruna Gunawardana No. 61, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01. 6. Lional Cuthbert Road De Cabraal Wijetunge No. 1, Charles Avenue, Colombo 03. 7. Palehenalage Chandana Priyankara Tissera No. 55, Swarnadisi Place, Koswatta, Nawala. 10. Ceylon Brewery PLC No. 61, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01. 1st to 7th and 10th Appellants-Appellants View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2022-12-15	SC/APPEAL/167/2016	Renuka Withanachchi, of No. 109D, Medaweraniya, Thittapattara. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Pallage Jinadasa (Deceased), of Iddagoda, Kahaduwa. 10th Defendant-Appellant-Respondent 10A. Kooragodage Gunawathie, 10B. Pallage Wasantha Hema Kumara, 10C. Pallage Mallika, 10D. Pallage Gamini Ajith Kumara, 10E. Pallage Priyantha, 10F. Pallage Deepa Nishanthi, All of Iddagoda, Kahaduwa. Substituted 10A to 10F Defendant-Appellant-Respondents 1. Sanath Gunawardena (Deceased), Sanath Raveendra Prasantha Gunawardena. Substituted 1st Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 2. S.L. Amarasekara nee Gunawardena, 3. Wimala Gunawardena, 4. Kalyanawathie Gunawardena, All of Waturawila, Kahaduwa. 5. Chandra Gunawardena (Deceased) 5A. Sunith Karunatileke, of Niyagama, Talgaswela. 6. A.A. Gunawardena, of Waturawila, Kahaduwa. 7. Punchi Singho (Deceased) 7A. Pallage Indrasiri, Pallegoda, Kahaduwa. 8. Poddiwela Marage John, 9. Poddiwela Marage David, Both of Iddagoda, Kahaduwa. 11. Arthur Samuel De Silva View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne		In the matter of an application for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka under and in terms of Article 128(2) of the Constitution read with the Supreme Court Rules of 1990.	Download
2022-12-15	SC/APPEAL/47/2008	Mohamed Buhari Ikram Applicant Vs. Officer-In-Charge, Police Station, Uragasmanhandiya. Respondent AND BETWEEN Mohamed Buhari Ikram Applicant-Appellant Vs. 1. The Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 2. Officer-In-Charge Police Station, Uragasmanhandiya. Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. The Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 1st Respondent- Appellant Vs. Mohamed Buhari Ikram Applicant-Appellant-Respondent Mohamed Buhari Mohamed Akram Accused-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2022-12-14	SC/APPEAL/47/2021	K.G. Somawathie, Mudiyala, Kotagama, Bibile. PLAINTIFF vs. 1. Y. R. Upul, Wedikumbura, Monaragala. 2. Y.R. Nimal Jayathilaka, No. 51, Dutugemunu Road, Monaragala 3. W.G. Gunadasa, No 48, Wedikumbura Road, Monaragala. DEFENDANTS AND BETWEEN 1. Y. R. Upul, Wedikumbura, Monaragala. 2. Y.R. Nimal Jayathilaka, No. 51, Dutugemunu Road, Monaragala 3. W.G. Gunadasa, No 48, Wedikumbura Road, Monaragala. DEFENDANTS- APPELLANTS Vs K.G. Somawathie, Mudiyala, Kotagama, Bibile. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Y. R. Upul, Wedikumbura, Monaragala. 2. Y.R. Nimal Jayathilaka, No. 51, Dutugemunu Road, Monaragala 3. W.G. Gunadasa, No 48, Wedikumbura Road, Monaragala. DEFENDANTS- APPELLANTS-PETITIONERS Vs K.G. Somawathie, Mudiyala, Kotagama, Bibile. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J			Download
2022-12-14	SC/FR/452/2019	Thilangani Kandambi, No.259/1A, Sethsiri Mawatha, Panamura Road, Koswatta, Thalangama. Petitioner Vs. 1. State Timber Corporation, No.82, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 2. Niluka Ekanayake, Chairperson (Ceased to hold office), State Timber Corporation, No. 82, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 2A. U.C. Walisinghe, Chairman (Ceased to hold office), State Timber Corporation, No. 82, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 2B. M.S. Karunarathna, Chairperson, State Timber Corporation, No. 82, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla 3. H.Y.T. Pawakumar Working Director (Ceased to hold office), State Timber Corporation, No. 82, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 3A. H.K.M.J.H. Kumarasinghe, Working Director (Ceased to hold office), State Timber Corporation, No. 82, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 4. D. Wijesiriwardhana (Ceased to hold office) Director and Senior Assistant Secretary and General Treasury, State Timber Corporation, No. 82, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 4A. B.N. Gamage, Director (Ceased to hold office), State Timber Corporation, No. 82, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Article 17 and Article 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2022-12-05	SC/CHC APPEAL/33/2013	Lanka Savings Bank Ltd No: 110, D.S. Senanayake Mawatha Colombo 08 Plaintiff Vs. 1. Good Value Importers (pvt) Ltd 536, R.A.De Mel Mawatha Colombo 04 2.Good Value Distributors (pvt) Ltd 104/11, Grandpas Road Colombo 14 Defendants And now between Sri Lanka Savings Bank Ltd No: 110, D.S. Senanayake Mawatha Colombo 08 Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Good Value Importers (pvt) Ltd No: 536, R.A.De Mel Mawatha Colombo 04 2. Good Value Distributors (pvt) Ltd No: 104/11, Grandpass Road Colombo 14 Defendant-Respondents View More	Hon.L. T. B. Dehideniya, J.			Download
2022-11-30	SC/APPEAL/53/2022	The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. COMPLAINANT Vs. Madapathage Dona Thilaka Alias Shyamali ACCUSED AND BETWEEN Madapathage Dona Thilaka Alias Shyamali ACCUSED - PETITIONER Vs. The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Attorney General Attorney Generals Department, Colombo 12. COMPLAINANT – RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs Madapathage Dona Thilaka Alias Shyamali ACCUSED-PETITIONER-RESPONDENT View More	S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J		In the matter of an application for Special Leave to Appeal in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2022-11-28	SC/APPEAL/3/2020	Christhombu Wasangalwadu Lakshman Jayasiri Wijeratne, No. 126/2A, Galwala Road, Dehiwala. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Colombage Nandawathie De Silva Wijeratne, No. 126/2A, Galwala Road, Dehiwala. 1a. Christhombu Tasan Galwaduge Ishara Deepthi Kanchana Wijeratne, No. 126/2A, Galwala Road, Dehiwala. 2. Mohammad Haneefaa Ahamad Jamaldeen, No. 58, Marikkar Place, Colombo 10. 3. Christhombu Galwadu Saranadasa De Silva Wijeratne, No. 126/2A, Galwala Road, Dehiwala. 4. Nimala Theressa Atapattu alias Nimala Theressa Chandrapala, No. 126/2A, Galwala Road, Dehiwala. Defendants And Christhombu Wasangalwadu Lakshman Jayasiri Wijeratne, No. 126/2A, Galwala Road, Dehiwala. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Colombage Nandawathie De Silva Wijeratne, No. 126/2A, Galwala Road, Dehiwala. 1a. Christhombu Tasan Galwaduge Ishara Deepthi Kanchana Wijeratne, No. 126/2A, Galwala Road, Dehiwala. 2. Mohammad Haneefaa Ahamad Jamaldeen, No. 58, Marikkar Place, Colombo 10. 3. Christhombu Galwadu Saranadasa De Silva Wijeratne, No. 126/2A, Galwala Road, Dehiwala. View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne		In the matter of an application for a Leave to Appeal in terms of Article 127, 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka read with Section 5(C) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Amendment Act No. 54 of 2006.	Download
2022-11-25	SC/FR/141/2017	Dr. Indika Mudalige, 391/3C, 2nd Lane, Ekamuthu Mawatha, Thalangama North, Battaramulla. Petitioner Vs. 1. National Water Supply and Drainage Board, Ratmalana. 2. G.A Kumararatna, General Manager, National Water Supply and Drainage Board, Ratmalana. 3. Mangala Abeysekera, Project Director, National Water Supply and drainage Board, Ratmalana. 4. Sarath Chandrasiri Vithana, Secretary, Ministry of City Planning and Water Supply, No.05, ‘Lak Diya Medura’, New Parliament Road, Pelawatte, Battaramulle. 5. K.D Ebert and Sons Holdings (Pvt) Ltd, No. 5/41, Madiwela Road, Embuldeniya, Nugegoda. 6. JITF-KDESH JV (Pvt) Ltd, No.5/41, Madiwela Road, 7. Asian Development Bank (ADB) Sri Lanka Resident Missiom, 23, Independence Avenue, Colombo 07. 8. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. Respondents View More	L.T.B. Dehideniya, J.		In the matter of an Application for under and in terms of Article 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2022-11-23	SC/FR/46/2021	1. Balachandra Arachchige Don Nuwan Chathuranga Padmasiri, Sub Inspector Criminal Investigation Department P.O. Box 534, Colombo 01 2. Koskola Waththage Harsha Lakmal Kumara, Sub Inspector, Criminal Investigation Department, P.O. Box 534, Colombo 01. 3. Munasingha Arachchige Sajitha Chathusanka Bandara Karunathilaka, Sub Inspector, Police Station, Peliyagoda. Petitioners Vs. 1. C. D. Wickramaratne Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 2. Jagath Balapatabendi, Chairman 3. Indrani Sugathadasa, Member 4. V. Shivagnanasothy, Member 5. T. R. C. Ruberu, Member 6. Ahamod Lebbe Mohamed Saleem, Member 7. Leelasena Liyanagama, Member 8. Dian Gomes, Member 9. Dilith Jayaweera, Member 10. W. H. Piyadasa, Member All of the members of the Public Service Commission of Sri Lanka, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 11. K. R. Saranga Perera, Head of Division (Recruitment and Promotion Scheme Preparation Division) Police Headquarters Colombo 01 12. Wajira Gunawardena Director (Civil Administration) Police Headquarters Colombo 01 View More	Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2022-11-22	SC/FR/411/2021	Malka Denethi Attorney-at-Law No. 305/11, Janatha Mawatha, Werahera, Boralasgamuwa. Petitioner Vs. 1. K.S.K. Rupasinghe Senior Superintendent of Police, Nugegoda Police Division, Nugegoda. 2. Police Officer No. 48513 C/O Deputy Inspector General (Western – South), DIG Office – Western Province (South), Nugegoda. 3. K.G. Wijerathne Inspector of Police, Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Boralesgamuwa. 4. Asiri Jayasooriya Sub-Inspector, Miscellaneous Complaints Unit (MO Branch), Police Station, Boralesgamuwa. 5. C.D. Wickramarathna Inspector General of Police, Sri Lanka Police Headquarters, Colombo 1. 6. Rajeev Amarasooriya Attorney-at-Law, Secretary, Bar Association of Sri Lanka, No. 153, Mihindu Mawatha, Colombo 12. 7. Dona Anushka Dilani Kannangara No. 192/3, 2nd Lane, Egodawaththa, Boralesgamuwa. 8. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda PC J		In the matter of an Application under and by virtue of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2022-11-21	SC/APPEAL/78/2021	Uduruwangala Gedarage Charaka Pathum Galagedara, No. 151, Punagala Road, Dulgolla, Bandarawela. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Geethika Sudhirani Samaraweera, No. 153, Pungala Road, Bandarawela. 2. Janaka Sampath Samaraweera, Lining Tex, No. 144/4, Keysar Street, Colombo 11. Defendants AND BETWEEN Uduruwangala Gedarage Charaka Pathum Galagedara, No. 151, Punagala Road, Dulgolla, Bandarawela. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Geethika Sudhirani Samaraweera, No. 153, Pungala Road, Bandarawela. 2. Janaka Sampath Samaraweera, Lining Tex, No. 144/4, Keysar Street, Colombo 11. Defendant-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Geethika Sudhirani Samaraweera, No. 153, Pungala Road, Bandarawela. 1st Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. Uduruwangala Gedarage Charaka Pathum Galagedara, No. 151, Punagala Road, Dulgolla, Bandarawela. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent 2. Janaka Sampath Samaraweera, Lining Tex, No. 144/4, Keysar Street, Colombo 11. 2nd Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2022-11-21	SC/APPEAL/154/2017	Stella Gwendelline Hycinth Wijesinghe, No. 05, Railway Avenue, Nugegoda. Plaintiff Vs. Lalith Wickramarathne, No. 51/1, Stanley Thilakaratne Mawatha, Nugegoda. Defendant AND BETWEEN Lalith Wickramarathne, No. 51/1, Stanley Thilakaratne Mawatha, Nugegoda. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Stella Gwendelline Hycinth Wijesinghe, No. 05, Railway Avenue, Nugegoda. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Stella Gwendelline Hycinth Wijesinghe, No. 05, Railway Avenue, Nugegoda. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Lalith Wickramarathne, No. 51/1, Stanley Thilakaratne Mawatha, Nugegoda. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2022-11-21	SC/APPEAL/180/2011	Wedikkarayalage Nirosha Sanjeewani, Adurapotha, Kegalle. Plaintiff Vs. Hewavitharanage Podimenike, “Saman Nivasa”, No. 40, Hitinawatte, Colombo Road, Kegalle. Defendant AND BETWEEN Wedikkarayalage Nirosha Sanjeewani, Adurapotha, Kegalle. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. Hewavitharanage Podimenike, “Saman Nivasa”, No. 40, Hitinawatte, Colombo Road, Kegalle. Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Hewavitharanage Podimenike, “Saman Nivasa”, No. 40, Hitinawatte, Colombo Road, Kegalle. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Wedikkarayalage Nirosha Sanjeewani, Adurapotha, Kegalle. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2022-11-21	SC/APPEAL/233/2017	1. Kukule Kankanamge Chandrasena Yakupitiya, Bellana. 2. Edirisinghe Athukoralage Pushpalatha Yakupitiya, Bellana. Plaintiffs Vs. 1. Liyanage Don Buddhadasa Yakupitiya, Bellana. Defendant AND BETWEEN Liyanage Don Buddhadasa Yakupitiya, Bellana. Defendant-Appellant Vs. 1. Kukule Kankanamge Chandrasena Yakupitiya Bellana. 2. Edirisinghe Athukoralage Pushpalatha Yakupitiya, Bellana. Plaintiff-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Liyanage Don Buddhadasa Yakupitiya, Bellana. Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Kukule Kankanamge Chandrasena Yakutupitiya, Bellana. 2. Edirisinghe Athukoralage Pushpalatha Yakupitiya, Bellana. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondents View More	Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2022-11-21	SC/APPEAL/133/2015	Film Locations (Private Limited) No. 282/6, Kotte Road, Nugegoda. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Sri Lanka Mahaweli Authority, No. 500, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. M. Sirisena, Resident Project Manager, Victoria Office, Digana. 3. Taprobane Studio Ranch (Private) Limited, No 282/6, Kotte Road, Nugegoda. Defendants AND BETWEEN Sri Lanka Mahaweli Authority, No. 500, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. 1st Defendant-Petitioner Vs. Film Locations (Private Limited) No. 282/6, Kotte Road, Nugegoda. Plaintiff-Respondent M. Sirisena, Resident Project Manager, Victoria Office, Digana. 2nd Defendant-Respondent Taprobane Studio Ranch (Private) Limited, No 282/6, Kotte Road, Nugegoda. 3rd Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Film Locations (Private Limited) No. 282/6, Kotte Road, Nugegoda. Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Sri Lanka Mahaweli Authority, No. 500, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. 1st Defendant-Petitioner-Respondent M. Sirisena, Resident Project Manager, Victoria Office, Digana. 2nd Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2022-11-18	SC/FR/303/2013	K.A. Gunasena No. 18/6A, Nikape Road, Dehiwala PETITIONER Vs. 1. Public Service Commission No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 2. Justice Sathyaa Hettige, PC, Chairman, Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 2A. Mr. Dharmasena Dissanayaka, Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 3. Mrs. Kanthi Wijetunge, Member, Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 3A. Mr. A. Salam Abdul Waid, Member, Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05 3B. Prof. Hussain Ismail, Member, Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 4. Mr. Sunil S Sirisena, Member, Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 4A. Ms. D. Shirantha Wijayatilaka, Member, Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 4B. Mrs. Sudharma Karnarathna, Member, Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05 View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an application made in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2022-11-18	SC/FR/23/2021	K.P.K.L.P. Maduwanthi, No. 75/A, MC Road, Matale. Presently at: Quarters of Divisional Secretary, No. 107/3, Scout Land, Matale Petitioner Vs. 1. S.M.G.K. Perera, District Secretary, District Secretariat, Matale. 2. Hon. Justice Jagath Balapatabendi, Chairman 3. Mrs. Indrani Sugathadasa, Member 4. Mr. V. Shivagnanasothy, Member 5. Dr. T.R.C. Ruberu, Member 6. Mr. Ahamod Lebbe Mohamed Saleem, Member 7. Mr. Leelasena Liyanagama, Member 8. Mr. Dian Gomes, Member 9. Mr. Dilith Jayaweera, Member 10. Mr. W.H. Piyadasa, Member 2nd to 10th Respondents: All of: Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 11. The Secretary, Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 12. General Kamal Guneratne, Secretary to the Ministry of Defense, Home Affairs and Disaster Management, Nilamedura, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 05. 12(A). Hon. N.H.M. Chithrananda, Secretary to the State Ministry of Home Affairs, Nilamedura, Elivitigala Mawatha, Colombo 05. 13. J.J. Rathnasiri, Secretary View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2022-11-18	SC/SPL LA/224/2020	Sri Lanka Telecom PLC, Telecommunication Headquarters Building, Lotus Road, Colombo 01 SC/SPL/LA/No.224/2020 Case No. CA/WRIT/387/2014 Petitioner Vs. 1. Jagath P. Wijeweera, Director General of Customs, Sri Lanka Customs Department No.40, Main Street, Colombo 11. 1B.Chulananda Perera, Director General of Customs, Sri Lanka Customs, Head Office, Bristol Street, Colombo 01. 1C. P.S.M. Charles, Director General of Customs, Sri Lanka Customs, Head Office, Bristol Street, Colombo 01. 1D. Rtd. Major General G.V. Ravipriya, Director General of Customs, Sri Lanka Customs, Head Office, Bristol Street, Colombo 01. Customs, Head Office, Bristol Street, Colombo 01. 3. P.S.M. Charles, Former Director General of Customs, Sri Lanka Customs, Head Office, Bristol Street, Colombo 01. 4. M. Paskaran, Director General of Customs, Sri Lanka Customs Department No.40, Main Street, Colombo 11. 5. Saman de Silva, Deputy Director of Customs, Sri Lanka Customs Department No.40, Main Street, Colombo 11. 6. D.K.S. Ravindra, Deputy Superintendent View More	L.T.B. Dehideniya J		In the matter of an application made under Article 128(2) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka for Special Leave to Appeal against the Judgement dated 21st September 2020 of the Honourable Court of Appeal	Download
2022-11-18	SC/APPEAL/175/2016	Nandawathie Kodituwakku nee A.R Nandawathie, Landewelawatte, Karagahawela, Bandarawela. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Wanigasinghe Aratchchige Piyadasa, Waharakgoda, Ussapitiya 2. Ananda Ajith Chandralal, Landewelawatte, Karagahawela, Bandarawela. 3. Sumith Prasanna Rohitha, Landewelawatte, Karagahawela, Bandarawela. Defendants AND BETWEEN Nandawathie Kodituwakku nee A.R Nandawathie, Landewelawatte, Karagahawela, Bandarawela. Plaintiff- Appellant Vs. 1. Wanigasinghe Aratchchige Piyadasa, Waharakgoda, Ussapitiya 2. Ananda Ajith Chandralal, Landewelawatte, Karagahawela, Bandarawela. 3. Sumith Prasanna Rohitha, Landewelawatte, Karagahawela, Bandarawela. Defendants-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Wanigasinghe Aratchchige Piyadasa, Waharakgoda, Ussapitiya 1st Defendant- Respondent- Petitioner Vs. Nandawathie Kodituwakku nee A.R Nandawathie, Landewelawatte, Karagahawela, Bandarawela. Plaintiff- Appellant- Respondent 1. Ananda Ajith Chandralal, Landewelawatte, Karagahawela, Bandarawela. 2. Sumith Prasanna Rohitha, Landewelawatte View More	L.T.B. Dehideniya, J.			Download
2022-11-17	SC/APPEAL/220/2017	Lakshani Madusha Sammuarachchi, “Suramya”, Welimanna, Aranayake. Petitioner Vs. Surangi Deepika Jayawardhena, “Suramya”, Welimanna, Aranayake. Respondent AND BETWEEN 1. Nirmala Shiranthani Siriwardhena, 2/55, Welimanna, Aranayake. 2. Krishan Lakshman Siriwardhena, “Suramya”, Welimanna, Aranayake. Intervenient Petitioners Vs. 1. Lakshani Madusha Sammuarachchi Petitioner-Respondent 2. Surangi Deepika Jayawardhena Respondent-Respondent Both of, “Suramya”, Welimanna, Aranayake. AND BETWEEN 1. Nirmala Shiranthani Siriwardhena, 2/55, Welimanna, Aranayake. 2. Krishan Lakshman Siriwardhena, “Suramya”, Welimanna, Aranayake. Intervenient Petitioner-Petitioners Vs. 1. Lakshani Madusha Sammuarachchi Petitioner-Respondent-Respondent 2. Surangi Deepika Jayawardhena Respondent-Respondent-Respondent Both of, “Suramya”, Welimanna, Aranayake. AND NOW BETWEEN Lakshani Madusha Sammuarachchi, “Suramya”, Welimanna, Aranayake. Petitioner-Respondent-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. Nirmala Shiranthani Siriwardhena, 2/55, Welimanna, Aranayake. View More	Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2022-11-17	SC/APPEAL/18/2021	Hettiarachchige Don Sugath Nandana, Meda Arambe, Nawagamuwa, Devalegama. Plaintiff Vs. Caroline Hewa Abewickrama, Pussella, Devalegama, Kegalle. Defendant AND BETWEEN Caroline Hewa Abewickrama, Pussella, Devalegama, Kegalle. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Hettiarachchige Don Sugath Nandana, Meda Arambe, Nawagamuwa, Devalegama. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Caroline Hewa Abewickrama, Pussella, Devalegama, Kegalle. Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Hettiarachchige Don Sugath Nandana, Meda Arambe, Nawagamuwa, Devalegama. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2022-11-17	SC/APPEAL/170/2019	Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Plaintiff Vs. Ceylinco General Insurance Ltd, No. 69, Janadipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01. Defendant AND BETWEEN Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. Ceylinco General Insurance Ltd, No. 69, Janadipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01. Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Ceylinco General Insurance Ltd, No. 69, Janadipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2022-11-10	SC/APPEAL/169/2014	Kapukotuwa Mudiyanselage Jayatissa, No. 09/01, Neelapola, Seruwila. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Serunuwara. 2. District Secretary, District Secretariat, (Kachcheri) Trincomalee. 3. Deputy Commissioner of Lands, Office of the Additional Commissioner of Lands, Trincomalee. 4. Commissioner General of Lands, No. 07, Gregory’s Avenue, Land Commissioner General’s Department, Colombo 07. 5. Additional Commissioner of Land Development, No. 07, Gregory’s Avenue, Land Commissioner General’s Department, Colombo 07. 6. K. H. Sandya Kumari, No. 10, Neelapola, Neelagala. (via Kantale) 7. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN Kapukotuwa Mudiyanselage Jayatissa, No. 09/01, Neelapola, Seruwila. PETITIONER - APPELLANT Vs 1. Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Serunuwara. 2. District Secretary, District Secretariat, (Kachcheri) Trincomalee. 3. Deputy Commissioner of Lands, Office of the Additional Commissioner of Lands, Trincomalee. View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena		In the matter of an appeal under Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2022-11-08	SC/FR/356/2014	1. Don Piyasena Karunaratne, No. 01, Stadium Road, Anuradhapura. 2. Thamara Gunatunge, No.05, Stadium Cross Road, Anuradhapura. 3. Magilin Nona Hapangama, No.03, Stadium Cross Road, Anuradhapura. Petitioners Vs. 1. Anuradhapura Municipal Council, Anuradhapura. 2. H. P Somadasa, Mayor, Anuradhapura Municipal Council, Anuradhapura. 3. S.S.M Sampath Rohana Dharmadasa, Municipal Commissioner, Anuradhapura Municipal Council, Anuradhapura. 4. Honourable Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	L.T B. Dehideniya, J.		In the matter of an Application for under and in terms of Article 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2022-11-08	SC/APPEAL/48/2016	Disanayakage Lional Rajapaksha No 2/324, Asswedduma, Kuliayapitiya. Plaintiff Vs. 1. W.A Prema Swarnamali Bandara, No 324/A, Kurunegala Road, Kuliyapitiya. 2. Hettiarachchi Mudiyanselage Cyril Bandara, No 324/A, Kurunegala Road, Kuliyapitiya. 3. Singhage Nandawathi Podimanike, No 2/324, Asswedduma, Kuliayapitiya. 4. Disanayakage Harshani Trishila Rajapaksha, No 2/324, Asswedduma, Kuliayapitiya. Defendant AND 1. W.A Prema Swarnamali Bandara, No 324/A, Kurunegala Road, Kuliyapitiya. 2. Hettiarachchi Mudiyanselage Cyril Bandara, No 324/A, Kurunegala Road, Kuliyapitiya. 1st and 2nd Defendant Petitioner Vs. Disanayakage Lional Rajapaksha, No 2/324, Asswedduma, Kuliayapitiya. Plaintiff- Respondent 3. Singhage Nandawathi Podimanike, No 2/324, Asswedduma, Kuliayapitiya 4. Disanayakage Harshani Trishila Rajapaksha, No 2/324, Asswedduma, Kuliayapitiya. Defendant- Respondents AND NOW Disanayakage Lional Rajapaksha, No 2/324, Asswedduma, Kuliyapitiya Plaintiff- Respondent-Petitioner Vs. 1. W.A Prema Swarnamali Bandara, No 324/A, Kurunegala Road, Kuliyapitiya. View More	L.T.B. Dehideniya, J.		In the matter of an application for leave to appeal under and in terms of Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act, No. 54 of 2006, to be read with Article 128 of the Constitution.	Download
2022-11-04	SC/APPEAL/184/2019	Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. Complainant Vs. Kotuwe Gedara Sriyantha Dharmasena Accused And Now Kotuwe Gedara Sriyantha Dharmasena Accused-Appellant Vs. The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo. Respondent And Now Between Kotuwe Gedara Sriyantha Dharmasena Accused-Appellant-Petitioner (Presently incarcerated in Welikada Prison) Vs. The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne		In the matter of an application for Special Leave to Appeal in terms of Article 127 read with Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2022-10-27	SC/APPEAL/128/2019	B. A. H. M. Balasuriya, Public Health Inspector/ Authorized Officer, Pansiyagama. Complainant Vs. 1. W. R. M. Sumanathissa Bandara, Sumanathissa Boutique, Angulgamuwa, Pansiyagama. 2. Manager, Chanthima Distributors, No. 419, Dampitiya Watta, Thorayaya, Kurunegala. 3. Coca-Cola Beverages Sri Lanka Ayathanaya, Tekkawatta, Biyagama. Accused AND BETWEEN 1. W. R. M. Sumanathissa Bandara, Sumanathissa Boutique, Angulgamuwa, Pansiyagama. 2. Coca-Cola Beverages Sri Lanka Ayathanaya, Tekkawatta, Biyagama. 1st and 3rd Accused – Appellants Vs. B. A. H. M. Balasuriya, Public Health Inspector/ Authorized Officer, Pansiyagama. Complainant - Respondent Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Coca-Cola Beverages Sri Lanka Ayathanaya, Tekkawatta, Biyagama. 3rd Accused – Appellant - Appellant Vs. B. A. H. M. Balasuriya Public Health Inspector/ Authorized Officer, Pansiyagama. Complainant – Respondent – Respondent Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe		In the matter of an Application for Special Leave to Appeal from the Judgment pronounced on 12.11.2018 by the High Court of the North-Western Province Holden in Kurunegala in High Court Appeal No.56/2017 in terms of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act, No. 19 of 1990 read with Article 154P of the Constitution and Supreme Court Rules 1990.	Download
2022-10-18	SC/FR/13/2019	Wijesundara Mudiyanselage Naveen Nayantha Bandara Wijesundara, No. 296/19C, Shanthi Mawatha, High Level Road, Colombo 06. PETITIONER -Vs- 1. D. N. R. Sirirwardena, Registrar General of Companies, The Department of the Registrar of Companies Sri Lanka, No. 400, D. R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. 1(a). Sanjeewa Dissanayake, Registrar General of Companies, The Department of the Registrar of Companies Sri Lanka, No. 400, D. R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. Baqian Law Group Lanka (Pvt) Ltd, No. 11, Station Road, Bambalapitiya, Colombo 04. 3. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS 4. Kalinga N. Indatissa, President’s Counsel, The President, The Bar Association of Sri Lanka No. 153, Mihindu Mawatha, Colombo 12. And also, of No. 20, 1st Lane, Epitamulla Road, Pitakotte. 4(a). Saliya K.M. Pieris, PC, The President, The Bar Association of Sri Lanka, No. 153, Mihindu Mawatha, Colombo 12. And also of No. 79/3, Kuruppu Road, Colombo 08. 5. W. J. Shavindra Fernando, President View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena		In the matter of an application in terms of Article 126 read with Article 17 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2022-10-13	SC/FR/139/2012	1. Mahapitiya Gedera Shanuka Gihan Karunaratne (Minor) Shantha Stores, Nagahapola, Akuramboda. Appearing through his Next Friend: Mahapitiya Gedera Ananda Karunaratne (Father) Shantha Stores, Nagahapola, Akuramboda. 2. Purijjala Puwakpitiyegedara Amila Dilshan Puwakpitiya (Minor), Thalwatte Road, Nillannoruwa, Madupola. Appearing through his Next Friend: Purijjala Puwakpitiyegedera Neeladasa Puwakpitiya (Father), Thalwatte Road, Nillannoruwa, Madupola. PETITIONERS -VS- 1. Lory Koswatte Deputy Principal, M/Weera Keppetipola Madya Maha Vidyalaya, Pallepola, Akuramboda. 2. H.M. Gunasekera Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 3. Chief Inspector of Police Abeysinghe Officer-in-Charge, Mahawela Police Station, Mahawela. 4. N.K. Illangakoon Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 5. Hon. Attorney General Attorney Generals’ Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an application under Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2022-10-07	SC/APPEAL/116/2020	N. Dinesha Marita Amarasekera No. 736, Negombo Road, Maththumagala, Ragama. Plaintiff Vs. M.T. Theobald Perera “Sriyawasa”, St. Sebastian Mawatha, Kandana. Defendant And M.T. Theobald Perera (Deceased) 1(a). Hetti Kankanamlage Dona Filamina Jasintha 1(b). Jenita Samanthi Perera 1(c). Anil Susantha Perera 1(d). Amitha Chandima Perera 1(e). Manel Gayani Perera All of “Sriyawasa”, St. Sebastian Mawatha, Kandana. Substituted-Defendant- Appellants Vs. N. Dinesha Marita Amarasekera No. 736, Negombo Road, Maththumagala, Ragama. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN N. Dinesha Marita Amarasekera No. 736, Negombo Road, Maththumagala, Ragama. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. M.T. Theobald Perera (Deceased) 1(a). Hetti Kankanamlage Dona Filamina Jasintha 1(b). Jenita Samanthi Perera 1(c). Anil Susantha Perera 1(d). Amitha Chandima Perera 1(e). Manel Gayani Perera All of “Sriyawasa”, St. Sebastian Mawatha, Kandana. Substituted-Defendant- Appellant-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli		In the matter of an Appeal under and in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution and in terms of Section 5C of High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006, from the Judgment of the Provincial High Court of Civil Appeals of the Western Province holden in Negombo, dated 14th December,2018.	Download
2022-10-07	SC/APPEAL/117/2020	M.T. Theobald Perera “Sriyawasa”, St. Sebastian Mawatha, Kandana. Defendant And M.T. Theobald Perera (Deceased) 1(a). Hetti Kankanamlage Dona Filamina Jasintha 1(b). Jenita Samanthi Perera 1(c). Anil Susantha Perera 1(d). Amitha Chandima Perera 1(e). Manel Gayani Perera All of “Sriyawasa”, St. Sebastian Mawatha, Kandana. Substituted-Defendant- Appellants Vs. N. Dinesha Marita Amarasekera No. 736, Negombo Road, Maththumagala, Ragama. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN N. Dinesha Marita Amarasekera No. 736, Negombo Road, Maththumagala, Ragama. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. M.T. Theobald Perera (Deceased) 1(a). Hetti Kankanamlage Dona Filamina Jasintha 1(b). Jenita Samanthi Perera 1(c). Anil Susantha Perera 1(d). Amitha Chandima Perera 1(e). Manel Gayani Perera All of “Sriyawasa”, St. Sebastian Mawatha, Kandana. Substituted-Defendant- Appellant-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli		In the matter of an Appeal under and in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution and in terms of Section 5C of High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006, from the Judgment of the Provincial High Court of Civil Appeals of the Western Province holden in Negombo, dated 14th December,2018.	Download
2022-10-07	SC/FR/195/2022 AND SC/FR/212/2022	1. Dr. Athulasiri Kumara Samarakoon. 2. Soosaiappu Neavis Morais. 3. Dr. Mahim Mendis. Petitioners Vs. 1. Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe Minister of Finance 2022-Present. 2. Mahinda Rajapakse Former Cabinet Minister of Finance 2019 – 2020. 2A. Basil Rajapakse Former Cabinet Minister of Finance 2020 – 2022. 2B. Ali Sabri, PC Former Cabinet Minister of Finance 2022. 3. Prof. G.L. Peiris. 4. Dinesh Gunawardena. 5. Douglas Devenanada. 6. Dr. Ramesh Pathirana. 7. Prasanna Ranathunga. 8. Rohitha Abeygunawardena. 9. Dullas Alahapperuma. 10. Janaka Wakkumbura. 11. Mahinanda Aluthgamage. 12. Mahinda Amaraweera. 13. S.M. Chandrasena. 14. Nimal Siripala de Silva. 15. Johnston Fernando. 16. Udaya Gammanpila 17. Bandula Gunawardena. 18. Gamini Lokuge. 19. Vasudeva Nanayakkara. 20. Chamal Rajapakse. 21. Namal Rajapakse 22. Keheliya Rambukwella. 23. C.B. Ratnayake. 24. Pavithra Devi Wanniarachchi. 25. Sarath Weerasekera. 26. Wiman Weerawansa. 27. Janaka Bandara Tennakoon. The 1st to 27th Respondents are all former Members of the View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2022-10-06	SC/APPEAL/103/2018	Thiremuni Peter, Morakale- Opposite the School, Upper Kottaramulla. Plaintiff Vs. 1. A. S. Jayawardene, Secretary to the Treasury, The Secretariat, Colombo. 2. Daya Liyanage, Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, The Secretariat, Colombo. 3. Seemasahitha Wennappuwa Janatha Santhaka Pravahana Sevaya, Dummaladeniya, Wennappuwa. Defendants AND BETWEEN 1. A. S. Jayawardene, Secretary to the Treasury, The Secretariat, Colombo. 1A. Punchi Bandara Jayasundara, Secretary to the Treasury, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 1B. Ranepura Hewage Samantha Samaratunga, Secretary to the Treasury, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 2. Daya Liyanage, Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 2A. Sajith Ruchika Artigala, Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. Defendants – Appellants Vs. Thiremuni Peter, Morakale- Opposite the School, Upper Kottaramulla. Plaintiff - Respondent Seemasahitha Wennappuwa Janatha Santhaka Pravahana Sevaya, Dummaladeniya, Wennappuwa. Defendant - Respondent Sri Lanka View More	Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe		In the matter of an Application for Special Leave to Appeal against the order dated 15th February 2017 of the Court of Appeal Application No. CA 608/1999(F).	Download
2022-10-06	SC/APPEAL/23/2019	Ummu Yasmin Mulafer, No. 39/5, Railway Lane, Colombo 02 . Plaintiff Vs. 1. Merinnage Rupika Wijesingha, No. 9/D/193, Jayawadanagama, Battaramulla. 2. P. Sunil Lakshman Fernando, No. 3/D/47, Jayawadanagama, Battaramulla. Defendants AND Ummu Yasmin Mulafer, No. 39/5, Railway Lane, Colombo 02. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Merinnage Rupika Wijesingha, No. 9/D/193, Jayawadanagama, Battaramulla. 2. P. Sunil Lakshman Fernando, No. 3/D/47, Jayawadanagama, Battaramulla. Defendant-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Merinnage Rupika Wijesingha, No. 9/D/193, Jayawadanagama, Battaramulla. 1st Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Ummu Yasmin Mulafer, No. 39/5, Railway Lane, Colombo 02. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent P. Sunil Lakshman Fernando, No. 3/D/47, Jayawadanagama, Battaramulla. 2nd Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne		In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal under and in terms of the Article 128(2) of the Constitution read with Section 5C of the High Court of Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006.	Download
2022-10-05	SC/APPEAL/44/2016	1. Nawa Rajarata Appliances (Pvt) Ltd., No. 111, Kurunegala Road, Galewela. 2. K.D.G.S. Wijeratne. Managing Director, Nawa Rajarata Appliances (Pvt) Ltd., No. 111, Kurunegala Road, Galewela. Plaintiffs Vs Commercial Bank of Ceylon PLC, Commercial House, No. 21, Sir Razeek Fareed Mawatha, P.O. Box 856, Colombo 01. Defendant AND NOW BETWEEN Commercial Bank of Ceylon PLC, Commercial House, No. 21, Sir Razeek Fareed Mawatha, P.O. Box 856, Colombo 01. Defendant-Petitioner/Appellant Vs 1. Nawa Rajarata Appliances (Pvt) Ltd., No. 111, Kurunegala Road, Galewela. 2. K.D.G.S. Wijeratne. Managing Director, Nawa Rajarata Appliances (Pvt) Ltd., No. 111, Kurunegala Road, Galewela. Plaintiffs-Respondents View More	Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC. J.		In the matter of an Appeal from the Judgement of the Civil Appellate High Court of the Western Province holden in Colombo.	Download
2022-09-30	SC/FR/109/2014	1. Nadesan Balamurali 2. A. Anbalgan 3. R. Vijayakumaran (All members of the School Development Society Talawakelle Tamil Maha Vidyalaya, Talawakelle, ) Petitioners Vs. 1. W.J.L.S Fernando, Project Director, Upper Kotmale Hydro Power Project, Ceylon Electricity Board, No. 385, Fourth Floor, Landmark Building Galle Road, Colombo 03. 2. Ceylon Electricity Board, No. 72, Ananda Kumaraswamy Mawatha, Colombo 07 3. S.G.K Bodhimanna, Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat Office, Nuwaraeliya 4. M.G.A Piyadasa, Zonal Director Education, Zonal Education Office, Nuwaraeliya 5. H.M Wijayasiri, Provincial Director of Education, Provincial Department of Education, Central Province, Kandy 6. R. Krishnasamy, Principal, Tallawakelle Tamil Maha Vidyalaya, Talawakelle 7. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney Generals’ Department, Colombo 12 Respondents View More	L.T.B. Dehideniya, J.		In the matter of an Application for under and in terms of Article 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2022-09-30	SC/APPEAL/20/2021	Officer-In-Charge, Special Crime Investigation Unit, Police Station, Moratuwa. Complainant Vs. Rasika Deepal Bandara Dissanayake, No. 154, Uduwerella, Gampaha. Accused AND NOW Rasika Deepal Bandara Dissanayake, No. 154, Uduwerella, Gampaha. Accused-Appellant Vs 1. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent 2. Officer-In-Charge, Special Crime Investigation Unit, Police Station, Moratuwa. Complainant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Rasika Deepal Bandara Dissanayake, No. 154, Uduwerella, Gampaha. Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs 1. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent 2. Officer-In-Charge, Special Crime Investigation Unit, Police Station, Moratuwa. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent View More	S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J		In the matter of an application for Special Leave to Appeal in Terms of Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2022-09-29	SC/FR/13/2020	1. Paalawa Rankoth Gedara Kenudi Dilandi 02. Peramuna Kankanamge Achala Dilrukshi all of, No. H2/4, National Housing Scheme, (Commonly known as Chithra Lane Flats), Chithra Lane, Colombo 05. Petitioners Vs, 01. Sandamali Aviruppola, The Principal, Visakha Vidyalaya, No. 133, Vajira Road, Colombo -05. 02. Kalani Sooriyapperuma, The Deputy Principal, Administration, Visakha Vidyalaya, No. 133, Vajira Road, Colombo -05. 03. Sumudu Weerasinghe, The Deputy Principal, Education and Development, Visakha Vidyalaya, No. 133, Vajira Road, Colombo -05. 04. Jeevana Ariyarathna, The Deputy Principal, Co-Curricular and Extra Curricular, Visakha Vidyalaya, No. 133, Vajira Road, Colombo -05 05. Ranjith Chandrasekara, Director of National Schools Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Baththaramulla. 06. N.H.M. Chithrananda, Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Baththaramulla. 07. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution	Download
2022-09-29	SC/FR/135/2017	Liyanagamage Anoma Santhi, Welikanda, Ahungalla. Petitioner Vs, 1. W.A. Mahinda, Headquarters’ Inspector, 2. Sandaruwan, Police Constable 69864, 3. Bandara Karunathilake, Sub-Inspector, 1st to 3rd Respondents, all of Ambalangoda Police Station, Ambalangoda. 4. Pujith Jayasundara, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 5. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution	Download
2022-09-29	SC/FR/56/2018	Mr. M.N.M. Nafees 54/3, Haskampola, Siyambalagaskotuwa. Petitioner Vs, 1. Hon. Lakshman Kiriella MP The Minister of Higher Education, No. 18, Ward Place, Colombo 07. 1A. Hon. Kabir Hashim MP The Minister of Higher Education, No. 18, Ward Place, Colombo 07. Substituted 1A Respondent 1B. Wijeydasa Rajapakshe MP The Minister of Higher Education, No. 18, Ward Place, Colombo 07. Substituted 1B Respondent 1C. Hon Bandula Gunawardena MP The Minister of Higher Education and Cultural Affairs, No. 18, Ward Place, Colombo 07. Substituted 1C Respondent 1D. Hon. Prof. G.L. Peris The Minister of Higher Education, No. 18, Ward Place, Colombo 07. Substituted 1D Respondent 1E. Hon. Dinesh Gunawardena MP The Minister of Higher Education, The Ministry of Higher Education, No. 18, Ward Place, Colombo 07. Substituted 1D Respondent 2. University Grants Commission No. 20, Ward Place, Colombo 07. 3. Prof. Mohan de. Silva, The Chairman, University Grants Commission, No. 20, Ward Place, Colombo 07. 3A. Prof. Sampath Amarathunga The View More	Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution	Download
2022-09-28	SC/APPEAL/109/2017	Officer in Charge, Police Station, Wattegama. COMPLAINANT vs. Puwakgahakumbure Gedara William Wijesinghe, 120A, Kudugala Road, Wattegama. ACCUSED AND BETWEEN Puwakgahakumbure Gedara William Wijesinghe 120A, Kudugala Road, Wattegama. ACCUSED-APPELLANT Vs 1. Attorney-General Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENT 2. Officer in Charge, Police Station, Wattegama, COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Puwakgahakumbure Gedara William Wijesinghe, 120A, Kudugala Road, Wattegama. ACCUSED-APPELLANT-PETITIONER Vs 1. Attorney-General Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.		In the matter of an application under Section 9(a) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 10 of 1990.	Download
2022-09-28	SC/APPEAL/15/2019	1. M.S. Sithy Jawahira. 189, Hirimbura Cross Road Karapitiya – Galle 2. M.A.M. Riyas 189A, Hirimbura Cross Road Karapitiya – Galle. Petitioners-Appellants Vs. 1. Janaka Bandara Tennakoon Minister of Land and Land Development, Govijana Mandiraya 80/5, Rajamalwatte Avenue Battaramulla. 1(b) M.K.D.S. Gunawardena Minister of Land and Land Development, Govijana Mandiraya 80/5, Rajamalwatte Avenue Battaramulla. 1(c) John Amarathunga MP Minister of Land and Land Development, Govijana Mandiraya 80/5, Rajamalwatte Avenue Battaramulla. 2. Ravindra Hewawitharana District Secretary-Galle District Secretariat-Galle Galle 2(a) A.S.T. Kodikara District Secretary-Galle District Secretariat-Galle Galle 3. Anusha Batawala Gamage Divisional Secretary-Galle Four Gravets, Divisional Secretariat-Galle 3(a) W.S. Sathyananda Divisional Secretary-Galle Four Gravets, Divisional Secretariat-Galle 4. Urban Development Authority 6th and 7th Floors ‘Sethsiripaya’ – Battaramulla. Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC		In the matter of an application for Special Leave to Appeal made under and in terms of Article 128(2) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2022-09-26	SC/FR/163/2019	Janath S. Vidanage No. 37, W.A.D.Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. Petitioner Vs. 1. Pujith Jayasundara Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters Colombo 01. 2. Hemasiri Fernando Secretary, Ministry of Defence No. 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha Colombo 03. New Address: No. 11A, Sri Saranankara Road Pamankada East, Dehiwala. 3. Priyalal Dasanayake Deputy Inspector General of Police Special Security Division 440A, Dr. Colvin R.de Silva Mawatha Colombo 02. 4. Hon. Attorney General Attorney Generals’ Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Article 126 of the Constitution	Download
2022-09-26	SC/HC CALA/147/2022	Pattiyage Harsha Kamal Gomes Sole Proprietor of Vishmitha Enterprises No.18, Turbo Houses Pitawella Road Boralesgamuwa Plaintiff-Petitioner Vs. 1. Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation P.O. Box 2204, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 2. Sonala Digath Weerawickrema. Gunawardana The Chairman P.O. Box 2204, Independence Square, Colombo 07. Defendant-Respondents 2A. Asanka Priyanath Jayasuriya The Chairman P.O. Box 2204, Independence Square, Colombo 07. View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC		In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal in terms of Section 5(2) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 10 of 1996 read with Chapter LV111 of the Civil Procedure Code from the Order/reasons of the Commercial High Court of Colombo dated 31st May 2022 consequent to an order made in the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal under Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 as amended by Act No. 54 of 2006.	Download
2022-09-23	SC/APPEAL/63/2014	1. Amarasinghe Arachchige Somawathie 2. Muthuthanthrige Irene Fernando Both of No. 146/15, Kaldemulla, Moratuwa. PLAINTIFFS vs. 1. Mabima Vitharanage Sunil Wickremasinghe, No. 394, Radawana, Pugoda. 2. D.P. Tillekeratne, No. 95/3, Kirillawala, Weboda, Kadawatha. DEFENDANTS And D.P. Tillekeratne, No. 95/3, Kirillawela, Weboda, Kadawatha. 2ND DEFENDANT – PETITIONER vs. 1. Amarasinghe Arachchige Somawathie 2. Muthuthanthrige Irene Fernando Both of No. 146/15, Kaldemulla, Moratuwa. PLAINTIFFS – RESPONDENTS And between Dodampe Gamage Tillekeratne, No. 95/3, Kirillawala, Weboda, Kadawatha. 2ND DEFENDANT – PETITIONER – APPELLANT vs. 1. Amarasinghe Arachchige Somawathie 2. Muthuthanthrige Irene Fernando Both of No. 146/15, Kaldemulla, Moratuwa. PLAINTIFFS – RESPONDENTS – RESPONDENTS And now between Dodampe Gamage Tillekeratne, No. 95/3, Kirillawala, Weboda, Kadawatha. vs. 2ND DEFENDANT – PETITIONER – APPELLANT – APPELLANT 1. Amarasinghe Arachchige Somawathie 2. Muthuthanthrige Ire View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere		In the matter of an appeal under Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2022-09-23	SC/APPEAL/82/2020	Jayasinghe Arachchige Thilakeratne, Pannala Post, Galayaya Plaintiff Pothuwatawana Post, Pothuwatawana 6. Don George Lionel Senarath, Pannala Post, Galayaya 7. Warnakulasuriya Patrick Valentine Fernando, Sudharshni Ulu Mola, Negombo Road, Galayaya 8. Guruge Mervyn Dharnawardene, No. 884, Ja-ela Post, Weligampitiya 9. A.M. Shanthi Sagarika Kumari, Pannala Post, Galayaya 10. Ranhamige Sarath Wickremapala 11. W.M.U. Rohana Parakrama, Gonawila Post, Makandura 12. L.A. Lal Pathirana 13. M.M. Hemantha Kumara, Gonawila Post, Makandura 14. Herath Hitihami Appuhamilage Lenard Krishantha 15. Rajakaruna Mudiyanselage Chandrasiri Janaka of Mukalana 16. Ranasinghe Arachchilage Leena Damayanthi 17. Wijesuriya Arachchige Sheron Crishantha 18. Dombawala Hitihamilage Anura Crishantha 19. Dona Harriet Somalatha 20. Indrani Padmalatha 21. Indrani Sandhya, All of Pannala Post, Galayaya Defendants AND BETWEEN 1. A.M. Shanthi Sagarika Kumari, Pannala Post, Galayaya 2. Ranhamige Sarath Wickremapala, Pannala Post, Galayaya 3. W.M View More	Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2022-09-15	SC/APPEAL/88/2017	Kerewgoda Dona Shiromi, No. 56, St. Sebastian Mawatha, Kandana. Plaintiff Vs, 1. Hanwellage Don Francis, No. 1/56, St. Sebastian Mawatha, Kandana. 2. Hettige Don Newton Donatus, No. 1/56, St. Sebastian Mawatha, Kandana. Defendants 1. Hanwellage Don Francis, No. 1/56, St. Sebastian Mawatha, Kandana. 2. Hettige Don Newton Donatus, No. 1/56, St. Sebastian Mawatha, Kandana. Defendant-Appellants Vs, Kerewgoda Dona Shiromi, No. 56, St. Sebastian Mawatha, Kandana. Plaintiff-Respondent -And Now Between- Kerewgoda Dona Shiromi, No. 56, St. Sebastian Mawatha, Kandana. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs, 1. Hanwellage Don Francis, No. 1/56, St. Sebastian Mawatha, Kandana. 2. Hettige Don Newton Donatus, No. 1/56, St. Sebastian Mawatha, Kandana. Defendant-Appellant-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne		In the matter of an application for Special Leave to Appeal in terms of Article 128 (2) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2022-09-08	SC/APPEAL/184/2014	Gallage Saummehammy alias Somawathie, Gallage Mandiya, Doloswala, Nivithigala. Plaintiff. Vs. I. A. Dharmapala, Gallage Mandiya, Doloswala, Nivithigala. Defendant. AND BETWEEN I. A. Dharmapala, Gallage Mandiya, Doloswala, Nivithigala. Defendant - Appellant Vs. Gallage Saummehammy alias Somawathie, Gallage Mandiya, Doloswala, Nivithigala. Plaintiff - Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Gallage Saummehammy alias Somawathie, Gallage Mandiya, Doloswala, Nivithigala. Plaintiff – Respondent - Petitioner. Vs. I. A. Dharmapala, Gallage Mandiya, Doloswala, Nivithigala. Defendant –Appellant – Respondent. View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2022-09-07	SC/APPEAL/117/2017	Rajakannagedera Senarath Wijesinghe Parape, Rambukkana 2nd Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Rajakannagedera Lalith Chandana Thusitha Kumara, Parape, Rambukkana Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 1. Manathunga Arachchilage Piyadasa Parape, Rambukkana. 1A. Manathunga Arachchilage Ranjith Thilakasiri Manathunga 1B. Manathunga Arachchilage Sarath Nandasiri Manathunga. 1C. Lalitha Sriyawathie Manathunga All of Parape Rambukkana. 3. Rajakannagedera Premawathie Parape Rambukkana. 4. Manathunga Dewage Premawathie Parape Rambukkana. 5. Edirisinghe Dewage Edirisinghe Parape Rambukkana. Defendants-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC		In the matter of an Appeal against the judgement of the High Court of Civil Appeals of the Sabaragamuwa Province Holden at Kegalle in Appeal No. 36/2015(F).	Download
2022-09-07	SC/FR/18/2020	1. Dola Mullage Gunarathna, No.24, 4\' Cross Road, Walpola, Matara 2. Mallika Arachchige Lakshman No. 2/1, Police Officers Quarters, Jayathilaka Place, Maligawatta, Colombo 10. PETITIONERS VS. 1. K. W. E. Karalliyadda, Chairman, National Police Commission 1 a. Hon. Justice Jagath Balapatabendi Chairman, Public Service Commission 2. Savithree D. Wijesekera Member. National Police Commission 2a. Indrani Dugathadasa Member, Public Service Commission 3. Y.L.M. Zawahir Member, National Police Commission 3a. V. Shivagnanasothy Member, Public Service Commission 4. Tilak Collure Member, National Police Commission 4a. T.R.C. Ruberu Member, Public Service Commission 5. Gamini Navarathne, Member National Police Commission 5a. Ahamod Lebbe Mohamed Saleem, Member, Public Service Commission 6. Ashoka Wijethilaka Member, National Police Commission 6a. Leelasena Liyanagama Member, Public Service Commission 7. J. Jeyakumar Member, National Police Commission 7a. Dian Gomes Member, Public Service Commission 7b. Dilith Jayawee View More	S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J	Articles 12(1), 14(1)(g)	In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Article 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka in respect of the violations of Article 12(1) and 14(1)(g) of the Constitution	Download
2022-08-10	SC/APPEAL/239/2016	Pulukkutti Ralalage Karunaratne Baduwila Road Kidelpitiya. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Pulukkuttiralalage Dhanapala Baduwila Road, Kidelpitiya. 2. Lawaris Gunathilaka Baduwila Road, Kidelpitiya. 2A. Payagala Maha Liyanage Don Kawanis. Kidelpitiya Welmilla Junction, Bandaragama. 2B Yogama Widanalage Somawathie of 112/C. Saddatissa Mawatha Kidelpitiya Welmilla Junction. 3. David Gunathilaka Baduwila Road, Kidelpitiya 3A. Payagala Maha Liyanage Don Kawanis, Kidelpitiya Welmilla Junction, Bandaragama. 3B. Yogama Widanalage Somawathie of 112/C. Saddatissa Mawatha Kidelpitiya Welmilla Junction. 4. Adlyn Gunathilake Baduwila Road, Kidelpitiya. 4A. Yogama Widanalage Somawathie of 112/C. Saddatissa Mawatha Kidelpitiya Welmilla Junction. 5. Pulukkuttiralalage Sirisena Baduwila Road, Kidelpitiya. 6. Pulukkuttiralalage Thepanis alias Daniel, Baduwila Road, Kidelpitiya. 7. Payagala Mahaliyanage Don Victor, Baduwila Road, Kidelpitiya. 7A. Payagala Mahaliyanage Don Nihal, Baduwila Road, Kidelpitiya. View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC		In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal under section 5(c) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No 54 of 2006 read with Article 127 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2022-08-09	SC/FR/6/2011	F. A. Azeez 660/22, Main Street Matale Petitioner Vs. 1. H. M. Gunasekera Secretary, Ministry of Education & Higher Education, Isurupaya Battaramulla 1A Upali Marasinghe Secretary, Ministry of Education & Higher Education, Isurupaya Battaramulla 1B W. M. Bandusena Secretary, Ministry of Education & Higher Education, Isurupaya Battaramulla 1C Sunil Hettiarachchi Secretary, Ministry of Education & Higher Education, Isurupaya Battaramulla 1D N. H. M. Chitrananda Secretary, Ministry of Education & Higher Education, Isurupaya Battaramulla 2. M. S. Premawansa Secretary, Ministry of Education Central Provincial Council Gatambe, Peradeniya 2A P. B. Wijeratne Secretary, Ministry of Education Central Provincial Council Pallekelle, Kundasale 2B R. M. P. S. Ratnayake Secretary, Ministry of Education Central Provincial Council Pallekelle, Kundasale 2C Gamini Rajaratne Secretary, Ministry of Education Central Provincial Council Pallekelle, Kundasale 3. H. M. Wijesiri Herath Provincial Director of Educat View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Article 126 of the Constitution.	Download
2022-07-28	SC/APPEAL/177/2016	Subadhra Irene Mangalika Wijewickrama, No. 61/41 A, Manel Avenue, Old Kesbawa Road, Delkanda, Nugegoda. Plaintiff Vs D.S.B.S. Chandrawathi, Kegalle Road, Alawathura. Defendant AND BETWEEN D.S.B.S. Chandrawathi, Kegalle Road, Alawathura. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Subadhra Irene Mangalika Wijewickrama, No. 61/41 A, Manel Avenue, Old Kesbawa Road, Delkanda, Nugegoda. Plaintiff-Respondent AND BETWEEN Subadhra Irene Mangalika Wijewickrama, No. 61/41 A, Manel Avenue, Old Kesbawa Road, Delkanda, Nugegoda. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. D.S.B.S. Chandrawathi, Kegalle Road, Alawathura. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN D.S.B.S. Chandrawathi, Kegalle Road, Alawathura. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Subadhra Irene Mangalika Wijewickrama, No. 61/41 A, Manel Avenue, Old Kesbawa Road, Delkanda, Nugegoda. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2022-07-25	SC/APPEAL/164/2012	AHAMED LEBBE HADIAR ATHAMLEVVAI No. 1, Second Cross Street, Batticaloa. -PLAINTIFF Vs. 1. ADAMBAWA MAHMOOTHU, (Deceased) 2. SEYADU PATHTHUMMAH, (Deceased) 70/1, Main Street, Batticaloa. -DEFENDANTS FOUSIYA UMMAH ABDUL CADER 70/1, Main Street, Batticaloa. SUBSTITUTED-DEFENDANT AND NOW AHAMED LEBBE HADIAR ATHAMLEVVAI No. 1, Second Cross Street, Batticaloa. -PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-PETITIONER Vs. FOUSIYA UMMAH ABDUL CADER 70/1, Main Street, Batticaloa. -SUBSTITUTED-DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. L.T.B.Dehideniya, J			Download
2022-07-22	SC/APPEAL/146/2015	Gurunnanselage Dona Sandya Manohari Wimalatunga of No.32, Elapitiwala, Ragama. PLAINTIFF -VS- Rajathewa Mohotti Appuhamilage Nihal Seneviratne of Thiriwanegama, Kalagedihena. DEFENDANT AND BETWEEN Rajathewa Mohotti Appuhamilage Nihal Seneviratne of Thiriwanegama, Kalagedihena. DEFENDANT -APPELLANT -VS- Gurunnanselage Dona Sandya Manohari Wimalatunga of No.32, Elapitiwala, Ragama. PLAINTIFF -RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Gurunnanselage Dona Sandya Manohari Wimalatunga of No.32, Elapitiwala, Ragama. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT -VS- Rajathewa Mohotti Appuhamilage Nihal Seneviratne of Thiriwanegama, Kalagedihena. DEFENDANT -APPELLANT RESPONDENT View More	Hon. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J			Download
2022-07-22	SC/APPEAL/94/2020	Walihingage Karunarathne Silva, No.53/G, Gonagaha, Makawita. APPLICANT vs. Polytex Garments Ltd, Minuwangoda Road, Ekala, Ja-E1a. RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN Polytex Garments Ltd, Minuwangoda Road, Ekala, Ja-E1a. RESPONDENT – APPELLANT Vs Walihingage Karunarathne Silva, No.53/G, Gonagaha, Makawita. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Esquel Sri Lanka Ltd (Formerly known as Polytex Garments Ltd) Minuwangoda Road, Ekala, Ja-Ela. RESPONDENT – APPELLANT-PETITIONER Vs Walihingage Karunarathne Silva, No.53/G, Gonagaha, Makawita. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J			Download
2022-07-19	SC/FR/205/2022	Nagananda Kodituwakku General Secretary, Vinivida Foundation, 99, Subadrarama Road, Nugegoda. Petitioner Vs. 1. Election Commission Elections Secretariat, P.O. Box 02, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya. 2. Nimal G. Punchihewa Chairman, Election Commission, P.O. Box 02, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya. 3. S.B. Divarathna Member, Election Commission, P.O. Box 02, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya. 4. M. M. Mohomed Member, Election Commission, P.O. Box 02, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya. 5. K. P. P. Pathirana Member, Election Commission, P.O. Box 02, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya. 6. Mrs. P. S. M. Charles Member, Election Commission, P.O. Box 02, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya. 7. Sagara Kariyawasam General Secretary, Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna, 1316, Nelum Mawatha, Battaramulla. 8. Akila Viraj Kariyawasam General Secretary, United National Party, 400, Sirikotha, Pitakotte, Kotte. 9. Ranil Wickramasinghe, P View More	Hon. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J	Articles 17, 126, 3, 4, 12, 82(6), 125	In the matter of an application under and in terms of Articles 17 & 126 read with Articles 3, 4, 12, 82(6) and 125 of the Constitution	Download
2022-07-08	SC/APPEAL/210/2016	Ran Malu Fashions (Private) Limited, No. 3, Bullers Lane, Colombo 07. PETITIONER AND THEN BETWEEN Wallabha Jayathissa Liyanage Upali Wijayaweera, Acting Commissioner General of Labour, Department of Labour, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. INTERVINIENT-PETITITIONER Vs Ran Malu Fashions (Private) Limited, No 3, Bullers Lane, Colombo 07. PETITIONER-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN (IN THE SUPREME COURT) Expolanka Freight (Private) Limited No 10, Mile Post Avenue, Colombo 03. CREDITOR-APPELLANT Vs Wallabha Jayathissa Liyanage Upali Wijayaweera Acting Commissioner General of Labour Department of Labour, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. INTERVINIENT PETITITIONER-RESPONDEN Ran Malu Fashions (Private) Limited, No. 3, Bullers Lane, Colombo 07. PETITIONER-REPONDENT-REPONDENT P. E. A. Jayawickrama and G. J. David Liquidators of Ran Malu Fashions (Private) Ltd, C/O SJMS Associates, No. 11 Castle Lane, Colombo 04. LIQUIDATOR-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2022-07-04	SC/APPEAL/115/2019	Officer-in-Charge, Horana Police Station, Horana. Complainant Vs. Sirimanna Hettige Jayasena, 45, Srimaha Vihara Mawatha, Kalubowila, Dehiwala. Accused And Between Sirimanna Hettige Jayasena, 45, Srimaha Vihara Mawatha, Kalubowila, Dehiwala. Accused-Appellant Vs. Officer-in-Charge, Horana Police Station, Horana. Complainant-Respondent Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent And Now Between Sirimanna Hettige Jayasena, 45, Srimaha Vihara Mawatha, Kalubowila, Dehiwala. Accused-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Officer-in-Charge, Horana Police Station, Horana. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2022-06-24	SC/APPEAL/71/2017	Plaintiffs Vs. Jayakodi Arachchige Dona Patriciahamy No. 40, Naththandiya Road, Marawila. Mohamed Anver Mohamed Ashrof, No. 96, Central Road, Colombo 12. Defendants AND Mohamed Anver Mohamed Ashrof, No. 96, Central Road, Colombo 12. 2nd Defendant – Appellant Vs Merryl Ephram Henry De Almeida, No. 62/2, Old Kottawa Road, Mirihana, Nugegoda and 32 others Plaintiffs - Respondents Jayakodi Arachchige Dona Patriciahamy, No. 40, Naththandiya Road, Marawila. 1st Defendant – Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Mohamed Anver Mohamed Ashrof, No. 96, Central Road, Colombo 12. 2nd Defendant – Appellant – Petitioner/Appellant Vs Merryl Ephram Henry De Almeida, No. 62/2, Old Kottawa Road, Mirihana, Nugegoda and 32 others Plaintiffs – Respondents - Respondents Jayakodi Arachchige Dona Patriciahamy, No. 40, Naththandiya Road, Marawila. 1st Defendant – Respondent - Respondent View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2022-06-21	SC/FR/378/2017	Dr. Chanaka Harsha Talpahewa No. 380/56, Bullers Road, Colombo 07. Petitioner Vs, 1. Mr. Prasad Kariyawasam Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic Building, Colombo 01. 1A. Mr. Ravinatha Aryasinha Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic Building, Colombo 01. 2. Mr. Dharmasena Dissanayake Chairman- Public Service Commission 2A. Hon. Justice J. Balapatabendi (retired) Chairman- Public Service Commission 3. Prof. Hussain Ismail Member- Public Service Commission 3A. Mrs. Indrani Sugathadasa Member- Public Service Commission 4. Ms. Dhara Wijayatilake Member- Public Service Commission 4A. Mrs. Shivagnanasothy Member- Public Service Commission 5. Dr. Prathap Ramanujam Member- Public Service Commission 5A. Dr. T.R.C. Ruberu Member- Public Service Commission 6. Mr. V. Jegarasasingam Member- Public Service Commission 6A. Mr. Ahamod Lebbe Mohamed Saleem Member- Public Service Commission 7. Mr. Santi Nihal Seneviratne Member- Public View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2022-06-17	SC/APPEAL/42/2010	Visenthi Baduge Piyasiri, Peoples’ Bank, Mutiyangana Branch, Badulla Plaintiff Vs. Dissanayaka Mudiyanselage Gunarathna Banda, No.71, Tangalle Road, Beliatta Defendant AND Dissanayaka Mudiyanselage Gunarathna Banda, No.71, Tangalle Road, Beliatta Defendant-Appellant Visenthi Baduge Piyasiri, Peoples’ Bank, Mutiyangana Branch, Badulla Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW Visenthi Baduge Piyasiri, Peoples’ Bank, Mutiyangana Branch, Badulla Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Dissanayaka Mudiyanselage Gunarathna Banda, No.71, Tangalle Road, Beliatta Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. L.T.B. Dehideniya, J			Download
2022-06-16	SC/APPEAL/44/2019	1. Dilipan Thyagarajah, No.92, Kynsey Road, Colombo 08. 2. Dhara Levers alias Dhara Alycia Levers, No. 47, Graham Heights, Kingston 08, Jamaica. Plaintiffs Vs. 1. Liyanage Dilshan Keerthi Prasanna, No. 40, 44, Church Road, Colombo 02. 2. Merennage Kingsley de Costa, No. 6, Somadevi Road, Kirulapone Avenue, Colombo 05. 3. Niluka P. Withanachchi, The Registrar of Lands, Land Registry, Gampaha. Defendants And 1. Dilipan Tyagarajah, No.92, Kynsey Road, Colombo 08. 2. Dhara Levers alias Dhara Alycia Levers, No. 47, Graham Height, Kingston 08, Jamaica. Plaintiff-Petitioners Vs. 1. Liyanage Dilshan Keerthi Prasanna, No. 40, 44, Church Road, Colombo 02. 2. Merennage Kingsley de Costa, No. 6, Somadevi Road, Kirulapone Avenue, Colombo 05. 3. Niluka P. Withanachchi, The Registrar of Lands, Land Registry, Gampaha. Defendant-Respondents And Now Between 1. Dilipan Tyagarajah, No.92, Kynsey Road, Colombo 08. 2. Dhara Levers alias Dhara Alycia Levers, No. 47, Graham Height, Kingston 08, Jamaica. Plaintiff-Petitioner-Petitioner View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2022-06-16	SC/APPEAL/13/2019	R.A. Dharmadasa, No. 72/2/C ‘Sandamali,’ Parakandeniya Road, Pahala Imbulgoda, Imbulgoda. APPLICANT Vs. Board of Investment of Sri Lanka, World Trade Centre, 26th Floor, West Tower, Bank of Ceylon Mawatha, Colombo 1. RESPONDENT And between Board of Investment of Sri Lanka, World Trade Centre, 26th Floor, West Tower, Bank of Ceylon Mawatha, Colombo 1. RESPONDENT – APPELLANT Vs. R.A. Dharmadasa, No. 72/2/C ‘Sandamali,’ Parakandeniya Road, Pahala Imbulgoda, Imbulgoda. APPLICANT – RESPONDENT And Now Between R.A. Dharmadasa, No. 72/2/C ‘Sandamali,’ Parakandeniya Road, Pahala Imbulgoda, Imbulgoda. APPLICANT – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT Vs. Board of Investment of Sri Lanka, World Trade Centre, 26th Floor, West Tower, Bank of Ceylon Mawatha, Colombo 1. RESPONDENT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2022-06-16	SC/APPEAL/244/2014	T. T. P. Anthony Fernando, No. 150, Averiwatte Road, Wattala. Plaintiff Vs. 1. H.D. Felix Nevill Tirimanne, 1st Defendant (DECEASED) 1A. Lalani Patricia Tirimanne No.225, Kurukulawa, Ragama Substituted 1A Defendant 2. P. N. Wimalaratne, No. 150/2, Averiwatte Road, Wattala. Added 2nd Defendant AND P. N. Wimalaratne, No. 150/2, Averiwatte Road, Wattala. Added 2nd Defendant-Appellant Vs. T. T. P. Anthony Fernando, No. 150, Averiwatte Road, Wattala. Plaintiff-Respondent Lalani Patricia Tirimanne No.225, Kurukulawa, Ragama Substituted 1A Defendant Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN P. N. Wimalaratne, No. 150/2, Averiwatte Road, Wattala. Added 2nd Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. T. T. P. Anthony Fernando, No. 150, Averiwatte Road, Wattala. Plaintiff-Respondent Respondent Lalani Patricia Tirimanne No.225, Kurukulawa, Ragama Substituted 1A Defendant Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2022-06-16	SC/FR/429/2016	1. H.M.M. Sedara, No. 131/D, Pahala Biyanwala, Kadawatha. 2. K.A.P. De Silva, No. 25/1, Kowila Mawatha, Dadalla, Galle. 3. W.M.C. Peiris, No. 17/2, Kammala South, Waikkala. 4. D.D. Millaniya, No. 31, Kottawa Road, Miriswatta, Piliyandala. 5. R.W. Asoka Sriyani, No. 477/4, Batapola Road, Kurudugahahethakma, Elpitiya. 6. C.S. Gunatilaka, No. 58 C 2, Kanaththa Road, Asgiriya, Gampaha. 7. K.S. Abrew, No. 101/15, Bandarawatta, Gampaha. 8. G.G. Seneviratna, No. 78, Keerapana, Gampola. 9. M.T. Ramya Renuka, 5B, Eral Jayawickrama Mawatha, Hettiveediya, Weligama. 10. B.G. Kumudu Nelum, No. 145/C, Meewathura, Peradeniya. 11. N.P. Asoka, No. 22, “Prabashi”, Kuruduwatta, Welipitiya Weligama. 12. G.G. Dayani, Muththettuwa Watta, Nadugala Road, Matara. 13. B.L.N. Thamalika, No. 447/1/D, Pitipana North, Moragahahena Road, Homagama. 14. N.B. Silva, No. 191, Weluwana Road, Dematagoda, Colombo 09. 15. G.D.A. Ariyaratna, Suhada Mawatha, Nagoda, Kalutara. 16. K.M.P.K. Kodituwakku, No. 239/7, Devalegawa, Ratnapura. 17. P.D. Sriya View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2022-06-09	SC/CHC APPEAL/5/2010	The Sampath Bank Limited No.110, Sir James Peiris Mawatha, Colombo 02. PLAINTIFF Vs The Pay Phone Company (Pvt) Ltd. No.367, R.A De Mel Mawatha, and now at No.18, 5th Lane, Ratmalana. DEFENDANT AND NOW The Pay Phone Company (Pvt) Ltd. No.367, R.A De Mel Mawatha, and now at No.18, 5th Lane, Ratmalana. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Vs The Sampath Bank Limited No.110, Sir James Peiris Mawatha, Colombo 02. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J			Download
2022-06-09	SC/FR/311/2019	M.D. Malik Sachinthana, 231/1, Lucasgoda, Tissamaharama. PETITIONER vs 1. University Grants Commission, No. 20, Ward Place, Colombo 7. 2. Chairman, University Grants Commission, No. 20, Ward Place, Colombo 7. 3. Director, Advanced Technological Institute, Labuduwa, Galle. 4. Director General, Sri Lanka Institute of Advanced Technological Education, No. 320, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. 5. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.			Download
2022-06-07	SC/APPEAL/110/2016	Chamali Arunika de Zoysa, No.532/20 A, Siebel Place, Kandy Plaintiff Vs. 1.Lilani Oosha Ramanaden, No. 532/20 A, Siebel Place, Kandy. 2.Ranjithan Justin, Tambimuttu Casinader, 38, Denbigh Road, Armadale 3143, Victoria, Australia Appearing by his Attorney the 1st Defendant. 3.Victorine Sounderam Rogers, (dead) C/O Mrs. Y Nadaraja, 13, Ebenezer Avenue, Dehiwala. 3A. Daphne Seevaratnam, 146/8, Poorwarama Road, Colombo 05. Defendents 1. K. Sarojinidevi, 28/5, Central Road, Orr’s Hill, Trincomalee. 2. A. Sellathangam, 28/4, Central Road, Orr’s Hill, Trincomalee. 3. Chndramugam Mahendran, (dead) 28/3, Central Road, Orr’s Hill, Trincomalee. 3A.Mahenthiran Saraswathy, 28/3, Central Road, Orr’s Hill, Trincomalee. 4. J. Vartharajah, 24, Konespuram, Orr’s Hill, Trincomalee. 5. S. E Chandrabose, 26D5, Central Road, Orr’s Hill, Trincomalee. 6. N. Sritharan, 26F, Central Road, Orr’s Hill, Trincomalee. 7. A. Vallliamma, 26E, Central Road, Orr’s Hill, Trincomalee. 8. G. Parashakthi (dead) 26 D 1, Central Road, Orr’s Hill, Tri View More	Hon. L.T.B Dehideniya, J.			Download
2022-06-07	SC/CONT/6/2018	Ranjan Ramanayake No. A5, Housing Scheme for Members of Parliament, Madiwela, Sri-Jayawardenapura-Kotte. Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2022-05-31	SC/APPEAL/239/2017	Yahalawatte Wilbert, Medawaththa, Palawela, Udaniriella, Rathnapura. Accused-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2022-05-20	SC/APPEAL/127/2019	H.M. Chandrakanthi, Kohombagahawatta, Badulla golla, Medegama. Applicant Vs. K.M. Gamini Kumara, Lununeligahawatta, Helearawa, Pitadeniya, Medegama. Respondent AND BETWEEN K.M. Gamini Kumara, Lununeligahawatta, Helearawa, Pitadeniya, Medegama. Respondent-Appellant Vs. H.M. Chandrakanthi, Kohombagahawatta, Badulla golla, Medegama. Applicant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN H.M. Chandrakanthi, Kohombagahawatta, Badulla golla, Medegama. Applicant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. K.M. Gamini Kumara, Lununeligahawatta, Helearawa, Pitadeniya, Medegama. Respondent-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2022-05-20	SC/APPEAL/159/2016	1. Jayawardene Liyanage Gunadasa, No. 449, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 05. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Narangodage Amarapala, No. 449, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 05. Defendant AND BETWEEN 1. Jayawardene Liyanage Gunadasa, (Deceased) No. 449, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 05. Plaintiff-Appellant 1A. Gamekankanamge Gunawathie, No. 01/11, Samaranayake Road, Kolonnawa. 1B. Jayawardeneliyanage Prasanna, No. 01/11, Samaranayake Road, Kolonnawa. 1C. Jayawardeneliyanage Lasantha, No. 01/11, Samaranayake Road, Kolonnawa. 1D. Jayawardeneliyanage Achini No. 01/11, Samaranayake Road, Kolonnawa. Substituted Plaintiff-Appellants Vs. 1. Narangodage Amarapala, (Deceased) No. 449, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 05. Defendant-Respondent 1A. Indra Josephine Jayasinghe, No. 449/1A, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 05. 1B. Narangodage Ishan Dilantha, No. 449/1A, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 05. 1C. Narangodage Hasini Chathurani, No. 449/1A, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 05. Substituted Defendant-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1A. Indra Josephine Jayasing View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2022-05-20	SC/APPEAL/39/2017	1A. Palihawardana Arachchige Shiroma Dilrukshi Jayawardena 1B. Virendri Sajani Waranasuriya Jayawardena Both of No. 251/1, Dharmapala Mawatha, Colombo 7. Substituted Defendant-Respondent-Appellants Vs. 1. H.J. Shalana Rodrigo, No. 109/1, Gothami Road, Borella. 2. H.C.S. Romesh Rodrigo, No. 109/A, Gothami Road, Borella. 3. H.M. Sharon Rodrigo, No. 48/1, Gothami Road, Borella. 4. H.M. Shanali Rodrigo, No. 133/27, Gothami Road, Borella. 5. Union Chemist Property Development Limited, No. 460, Union Place, Colombo 2. Plaintiff-Petitioner-Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2022-05-20	SC/APPEAL/56/2020	1. Weerappuli Gamage Gamini Ranaweera, No. 415/18, High-Level Road, Delkanda, Nugegoda. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Matharage Davith Singho, Aluth Ihala, Mapalagama. Defendant AND BETWEEN 1. Matharage Davith Singho, (Deceased) Aluth Ihala, Mapalagama. Defendant-Appellant Vs. 1. Weerappuli Gamage Gamini Ranaweera, No. 415/18, High-Level Road, Delkanda, Nugegoda. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Weerappuli Gamage Gamini Ranaweera, No. 415/18, High-Level Road, Delkanda, Nugegoda. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1A. Matharage Dharmasiri, 1B. Matharage Mahinda, 1C. Matharage Premawathi, 1D. Matharage Shiriyawathie, All of Dehigodawatta, Aluth Ihala, Mapalagama. 1E. Matharage Ariyawathie of Bambarawana, Mattaka. 1F. Matarage Seetha of Gorakagashuduwa, Mapalagama. 1G. Matarage Renuka of Akuresse Gedara, Etahawilwatta, Mapalagama. Substituted Defendants-Appellants-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2022-05-20	SC/APPEAL/77/2016	Freedom of High Seas (Pvt) Limited, No.5, Soysa Mawatha, Templers Road, Mount Lavinia. Plaintiff Vs Kardin International (Pvt) Limited, No. 206, Attidiya Road, Attidiya, Dehiwala. Defendant AND BETWEEN Kardin International (Pvt) Limited, No. 206, Attidiya Road, Attidiya, Dehiwala. Defendant-Appellant Vs Freedom of High Seas (Pvt) Limited, No.5, Soysa Mawatha, Templers Road, Mount Lavinia. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Kardin International (Pvt.) Limited, No. 206, Attidiya Road, Attidiya, Dehiwala. Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner/Appellant Freedom of High Seas (Pvt.) Limited, No.5, Soysa Mawatha, Templers Road, Mount Lavinia. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Murdu N.B.Fernando, PC, J.			Download
2022-05-19	SC/FR/377/2015	1. Rita Rathnayake, 105/1a, Ginnaliya Road, Urubokka. 2. Rani Gunathilake Siriwardana, Padaukema, Tissamaharama. 3. Rathnaweera Patabandige Ramya, Miriswatta, Diyasyaya, Tissamaharama. 4. Wehella Hewage Shirani, Dikwella Niwasa, Koggala Road, Ruhunuridiyagama. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Y. Wickramasiri, Secretary to the Provincial Ministry of Education, Land and Land Development, Highways, Information, Rural and Estate Infrastructure Facilities of Southern Province, 2nd Floor, Talbot Town Shopping Complex, Dickson Junction, Galle. 2. H. W. Wijerathne, Chairman, Provincial Public Service Commission, 6th Floor, District Secretariat Office, Kaluwella, Galle. 2A. Gunasena Hewawitharana, Chairman, Provincial Public Service Commission, 6th Floor, District Secretariat Office, Kaluwella, Galle. 3. U. G. Vidura Kariyawasam Secretary, Provincial Public Service Commission, 6th Floo View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2022-05-05	SC/APPEAL/60/201	Kachchakaduge Frank Romeo Fernando, No. 17/28, Raja Mawatha, 3rd Kurana, Negombo. Applicant Vs Brandix Apparel Solutions Limited (Formerly Brandix Casualwear Ltd), No. 409, Galle Road, Colombo 03. (having a factory at 21, Temple Road, Ekala, Ja-ela). Respondent AND BETWEEN Kachchakaduge Frank Romeo Fernando, No. 17/28, Raja Mawatha, 3rd Kurana, Negombo. Applicant-Appellant Vs. Brandix Apparel Solutions Limited (Formerly Brandix Casualwear Ltd), No. 409, Galle Road, Colombo 03. (having a factory at 21, Temple Road, Ekala, Ja-ela). Respondent-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Brandix Apparel Solutions Limited (Formerly Brandix Casualwear Ltd) No. 409, Galle Road, Colombo 03. (having a factory at 21, Temple Road, Ekala, Ja-ela). Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Kachchakaduge Frank Romeo Fernando, No. 17/28, Raja Mawatha, 3rd Kurana, Negombo. Applicant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2022-05-05	SC/FR/427/2018	1. Jayasinghe Arachchilage Samantha Bandara Mangala Jayasinghe (PC 33476) Bomadawa Watta, Yogamuwakanda, Polgahawela. 2. Rajapaksha Mudiyanselage Chandana Kumara Rajapaksha (PC 22158) No. 37, Mellawa, Peiris Watta, Lihiriyagama, Pannala. 3. Ekanayake Arachchige Indika Thushara (PC 907) No. 84, Heartland Housing Scheme, Millennium City, Kotugoda. 4. Lokupotha Gamayalage Anton Wijayakumara (PC 18022) No. 3, \'Sadadana\', Panduwasnuwara, Hettipola. 5. Samarakoon Herath Mudiyanselage Nilu Sudarma Samarakoon (PC 36136) Kaduruwella, Wadakada. 6. Thennakoon Mudiyanselage Gamini Vijitha Abeykoon (PC 36039) Hitinawatta, Kudagama, Dombemada, Rambukkana. 7. Gamaralalage Saman Pushpakumara (PC 36030) \'Desi Villa\', Wathura, Kegalle. 8. Dissanayake Mudiyanselage Jayasiri Dissanayake (PC 28003) Jaya Mawatha, Ihala Kagama, Maradankadawala. 9. W.D.A.K. Weerasinghe (PC 38724) 9/200, Welampela, Arawatta, Mahiyanganaya. 10. S.D. Jayarathne Samarasin View More	Hon. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J			Download
2022-04-08	SC/APPEAL/59/2021	The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant Vs. Asselage Sujith Rupasinghe, No. 30/6, Nadun Uyana, Katukurundugasyaya, Mirigama. Accused AND BETWEEN Mrs. P.M. Ranasinghe, 21B, Alfred Place, Colombo 3. Aggrieved Party – Petitioner Vs 1. Asselage Sujith Rupasinghe, No. 30/6, Nadun Uyana, Katukurundugasyaya, Mirigama. Accused – Respondent 2. The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant – Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Mrs. P.M. Ranasinghe, 21B, Alfred Place, Colombo 3. Aggrieved Party – Petitioner – Appellant Vs. 1. Asselage Sujith Rupasinghe, No. 30/6, Nadun Uyana, Katukurundugasyaya, Mirigama. Accused – Respondent – Respondent 2. The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant – Respondent – Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2022-04-05	SC/FR/346/2017	1. Kekulandara Mudiyanse le Huri Arawe Gedara Sudath, 19/1, Watagoda Temple Road, Aruppala, Kandy 2. Kekulandara Mudiyanse le Huri Arawe Gedara Kusal Annuththara Kekulandara, 19/1, Watagoda Temple Road, Aruppala, Kandy 3. Kekulandara Mudiyanse le Huri Arawe Gedara Maithree Annuththara Kekulandara 19/1, Watagoda Temple Road, Aruppala, Kandy PETITIONERS Vs. 1. E.P.T.K. Ekanayake, Director of Education, Department of Education, Central Province, Kandy 2. S.A.K. Kulatunga, Assistant Director of Education, Department of Education, Central Province, Kandy 3. M.W. Wijeratne, Zonal Director, Zonal Education Office, Kandy 4. R. Rajapakse, Principal, Kandy Maha Vidyartha Viduhala, Kandy 4A. M.R.P. Mayadunne, Principal, Kandy Maha Vidyartha Viduhala, Kandy 5. P.B. Wijayaratne, Secretary, Chief Ministry, Central Province, Kandy 5A. R.M.P.S. Ratnayake, Secretary, Chief Ministry, Central Province, Kandy 6. Hon. Sarath Ekanayaka, Central Province Chief Minister, Central Province Chief Ministry, Digana Road, Kundasale 7. Hon View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2022-04-05	SC/FR/64/2014	Werage Sunil Jayasekera, 38, Susara, Kadawathagama, Kadugannawa. 2. Amarakoon Mudiyanselage Keerthi Amarakoon, “Amara Sevana”, Varahakkogada, Danturei. 3. Sampath Priyadarshana Gunathilake, “Narmada”, Hammalawa, Kuliyapitiya. 4. Kariyawasam Don Jayantha Weerasinghe, 08/A, Abihamani, Vaharakkogada, Danturei. 5. Murukkuvadura Tilaka Asela Wijerathna, 34/6 A, Sri Seewala Road, Nalluruwa, Panadura. 6. Amarakoon Achchilage Somapala Amarakoon, 25/3E, Gohagoda Road, Katugastota. 7. Obada Kankanamlage Lalith Kumara, 131, Pelahela, Dompe. 8. Atapattu Mudiyanselage Thilak Nanda Wijerathne, 488/2, Halbarawa, Talahena, Malambe. 9. Widanagamage Shantha Kumara Wickramanayake, Totupala Road, Weragampitiya, Matara. 10. Meemendra Kumara Aberathna, Weliyaya Road, Digana, Mahawa. 11. Singahalage Gamini Weerasinghe, 345/B, Denipagoda, Muruthugahamulla, Gampola. 12. Jayakody Arachchige Pradeep Lalantha Priya, 33/1, Koskandawala, Yakkala. 13. Chandana Elanperuma Kodituwakku, “Samaya”, Samagi Mawatha, Walgama, Matara. 14. Bopage Pr View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2022-04-01	SC/APPEAL/80/2016	Ushettige Vinodanie Preethika Dayadarie Perera of No. 532, Weligampitiya, Ja-Ela. PLAINTIFF VS Herathpathirannehelage Ranjan Herath of Punchi Vileththewa, Mugunawatawana. DEFENDANT AND BETWEEN Herathpathirannehelage Ranjan Herath of Punchi Vileththewa, Mugunawatawana. DEFENDANT-PETITIONER VS Ushettige Vinodanie Preethika Dayadarie Perera of No. 532, Weligampitiya, Ja-Ela. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN Herathpathirannehelage Ranjan Herath of Punchi Vileththewa, Mugunawatawana. DEFENDANT-PETITIONER-APPELLANT VS Ushettige Vinodanie Preethika Dayadarie Perera of No. 532, Weligampitiya, Ja-Ela. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Herathpathirannehelage Ranjan Herath of Punchi Vileththewa, Mugunawatawana. DEFENDANT-PETITIONER-APPELLANT-APPELLANT VS Ushettige Vinodanie Preethika Dayadarie Perera of No. 532, Weligampitiya, Ja-Ela. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2022-03-30	SC/APPEAL/66/2018	Inter Company Trade Union, No. 259/9, Sethsiri Mawatha, Koswatta, Thalangama. On behalf of Yakupitiyage Senavirathne, Kudagama Liyanage Kapila Udayanga, Sunil Bandara, Heenpatilage Wimal Premarathne. Applicants Vs, Trico Maritime (Pvt) Ltd., 50K, Cyril C. Perera Mawatha, Colombo 13. Respondent And then between Inter Company Trade Union, No. 259/9, Sethsiri Mawatha, Koswatta, Thalangama. On behalf of Yakupitiyage Senavirathne, Kudagama Liyanage Kapila Udayanga, Sunil Bandara, Heenpatilage Wimal Premarathne. Applicant-Appellant Vs, Trico Maritime (Pvt) Ltd., 50K, Cyril C. Perera Mawatha, Colombo 13. Respondent-Respondent And Now between Trico Maritime (Pvt) Ltd., 50K, Cyril C. Perera Mawatha, Colombo 13. Respondent-Respondent-Appellant Vs, Inter Company Trade Union, No. 259/9, Sethsiri Mawatha, Koswatta, Thalangama. On behalf of Yakupitiyage Senavirathne, Kudagama Liyanage Kapila Udayanga, Sunil Bandara, Heenpatilage Wimal Premarathne. Applicant-Appellant-Respondent View More	HON. VIJITH K. MALALGODA PC, J			Download
2022-03-25	SC/RE/2/2019	Indika Roshan Francis, No. 252/12A, Pahala Karagahamuna, Kadawatha. Plaintiff Vs. 1.Bulathsinghalage Lal Cooray, 2.Rajapaksha Pathirannahelage Priyadarshani Both of No. 10/6, Pahala Karagahamuna, Kadawatha. Defendants And between Indika Roshan Francis, No. 252/12A, Pahala Karagahamuna, Kadawatha. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Bulathsinghalage Lal Cooray, 2. Rajapaksha Pathirannahelage Priyadarshani Both of No. 10/6, Pahala Karagahamuna, Kadawatha. Defendant-Respondents And now between Indika Roshan Francis, No. 252/12A, Pahala Karagahamuna, Kadawatha. Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. 1. Bulathsinghalage Lal Cooray, 2. Rajapaksha Pathirannahelage Priyadarshani Both of No. 10/6, Pahala Karagahamuna, Kadawatha. Defendant-Respondent-Respondents View More	HON. L.T.B DEHIDENIYA, J			Download
2022-03-24	SC/APPEAL/96/2013	Senok Trade Combines (Pvt) Ltd. 03, R.A. De Mel Mawatha, Colombo 05. Petitioner-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Mirama, Beach Hotel Limited 137, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC		In the matter of an appeal with Leave of the Supreme Court first had and obtained in terms of section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special provisions) (Amendments) Act No 54 of 2006 read with Article 127 and 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2022-03-23	SC/FR/116/2021	1. R. L. Buddhika Yangani Henri, 2. Hewa Bettage Sadiv Sasmin (minor) The Petitioners of; 294/A/1, Matara Gedarawatta, Gunersekara Mawatha, Puvakwatta, Kuburugamuwa. Petitioners Vs. 1. Francis Welege, Principal, Rahula College, Matara. (Chairman) 1A. Sudath Samarawickrama, Principal, Rahula College, Matara. 2. Padmini Ganewatta, Principal Primary Section 3. Nuwan Senaka Representative of the Old Boys Association The 1st to the 3rd Respondent of; Interview Board, Rahula College, Matara 4. H.D.B.L. Gunathilaka, Additional Director of Minister, Isurupaya 5. P.A.U. Dulmani 6. P.K. Nanayakkara, Deputy Vice Principal of Sujatha Vidyalaya 7. C.R. Vikramanayaka, Representative of the School Development Committee 8. Manuranga De Silva, Representative of the Old Boys Association The 4th to 8th Respondents of; Appeals Board, Rahula College, Matara 9. Director- National Schools, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 10. Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla 11. Hon. Attorney General; Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorf, Colombo 12. View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2022-03-22	SC/APPEAL/119/2017 WITH SC/APPEAL 120/2017	1. Sathsindu Forwarding & Security (Pvt) Limited, No. 80, Navam Mawatha, Colombo 02. 2. Bagnold Associates Limited, No. 85, Grace Church Street, London, EC3 0AA, United Kingdom. CLAIMANTS Vs. Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, P.O Box No. 595, Church Street, Colombo 01. RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN 1. Sathsindu Forwarding & Security (Pvt) Limited, No. 80, Navam Mawatha, Colombo 02. 2. Bagnold Associates Limited, No. 85, Grace Church Street, London, EC3 0AA, United Kingdom. CLAIMANT-PETITIONERS Vs. Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, P.O Box No. 595, Church Street, Colombo 01. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, P.O Box No. 595, Church Street, Colombo 01. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Sathsindu Forwarding & Security (Pvt) Limited, No. 80, Navam Mawatha, Colombo 02. 2. Bagnold Associates Limited, No. 85, Grace Church Street, London, EC3 0AA, United Kingdom. CLAIMANT-PETITIONER-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2022-03-18	SC/APPEAL/149/2016	1. P. Shanthakumar of Kugan Motors, 52, Second Cross Street, Vavuniya. 2. M. H. D. Mailvaganam 65, Mill Road, Vavuniya. 3. M. Murugathas, Island Lodge, 97, Bazaar Street, Vavuniya. 4. T. Thirunavukkarasu, Pillaiyar Stores, 69, Mill Road, Vavuniya. 5. K. Nithiyananthan, Mala Distributors, No.113, Mill Road, Vavuniya. 6. S. Shanmugaratnam, No. 171, Kandasamy Kovil Road, Vavuniya. 7. B. Annalingam, Kugan’s Honda House, No.110, Bazaar Street, Vavuniya. 8. A.Sabanathan, City Trade Corporation, Sathiya Building, 12, 15, First Cross Street, Vavuniya. 9. S. Theiventhiran, New Mala Battery Trading Centre, 87, Mill Road, Vavuniya. 10. S. N. Nathan, Second Cross Street, Vavuniya. 11. N. Suntharampillai, M. Kasipillai & Sons, Mill Road, Vavuniya. 12. K.A. Senthilnathan, J.P, First Cross Street, Vavuniya. PLAINTIFFS Vs 1. Rasa Vijendranathan No.127, Kandasamy Kovil Road, Vavuniya. 2. Joy Mahil Mahadeva No.2, Foundation House Lane, Colombo 10. Presently at 79, Kandasamy Kovil Road, Vavuniya. 3. Senthini Dharmaseelan, Chint View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J			Download
2022-03-18	SC/HC CALA/378/17	Ransegoda Wimalasiri Thero, of Morawaka Sriwijaya Pirivena known as Ganegoda Rajamahaviharaya, Morawaka Plaintiff Vs. Dellawa Sisiela Thero (Deceased), of Ganegoda Rajamahaviharaya, Morawaka Defendent Dellawa Suneetha Thero, of Ganegoda Rajamahaviharaya, Morawaka Substituted Defendant AND BETWEEN Dellawa Suneetha Thero, of Ganegoda Rajamahaviharaya, Morawaka Substituted-Defendant-Appellant Vs. Ransegoda Wimalasiri Thero, of Morawaka Sriwijaya Pirivena known as Ganegoda Rajamahaviharaya, Morawaka Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Ransegoda Wimalasiri Thero (Deceased), of Morawaka Sriwijaya Pirivena known as Ganegoda Rajamahaviharaya, Morawaka Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Dellawa Suneetha Thero, of Ganegoda Rajamahaviharaya, Morawaka Substituted Defendant-Appellant-Respondent An application for substitution on behalf of the deceased Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner Thero Edandukitha Gnanasiri Thero, Sri Wijaya Piriven Wiharaya, Morawaka Petitioner Vs. Dellawa Suneetha Thero, of Ganegoda Rajamahaviharaya, Morawaka View More	HON. L.T.B DEHIDENIYA, J			Download
2022-02-24	SC/APPEAL/199/2017	1. Subramaniam Ramasamy No. 68, Colombo Road, Kandy. 2. Balasubramaniam Vaitheeswaran No.74, Colombo Road, Kandy. PETITIONERS Vs. V. R. Soundarajan No. 40, Venkarasamy Road, ChettianKottam, Erode 63800 Tamil Nadu- South India. RESPONDENT AND In the matter of an Appeal against the order dated 19/11/2014 delivered in case No. 1240/L/2012 under the Civil Procedure Code. V. R. Soundarajan No. 40, Venkarasamy Road, ChettianKottam, Erode 63800 Tamil Nadu- South India. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Subramaniam Ramasamy No. 68, Colombo Road, Kandy. 2. Balasubramaniam Vaitheeswaran No.74, Colombo Road, Kandy. PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS AND NOW In the matter of an application under Section 839 of the Civil Procedure Code. Nadesan Sathasivam No. 128/11, Vihara Lane, Mulgampola, Kandy. PETITIONER Vs V. R. Soundarajan No. 40, Venkarasamy Road, Chettian Kottam, Erode 6380 Tamil Nadu- South India. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT 1. Subramaniam Ramasamy No. 68, Colombo Road, Kandy. 2. Balasubramaniam Vaitheeswaran No.74, Colombo View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2022-02-23	SC/APPEAL/157/2019	Avenra Gardens (Private) Limited, No. 22/5, Muhahunaupitiya, Negambo. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Global Project Funding AG Samstagernstrasse, CH- 8832, Wollerau, Switzerland. 2. My Star Spain S L C/Padre Thomas Montana, 36-2-46023, Valencia, Spain. 3. CAIXA Bank SA, Main Brach, Barcelona ES, Spain. 4. Seylan Bank PLC, Head Office, Seylan Tower, No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Defendants AND NOW BETWEEN 4. Seylan Bank PLC, Head Office, Seylan Tower, No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Defendant-Petitioner Vs. 1. Global Project Funding AG Samstagernstrasse, CH- 8832, Wollerau, Switzerland. 2. My Star Spain S L C/Padre Thomas Montana, 36-2-46023, Valencia, Spain. 3. CAIXA Bank SA, Main Brach, Barcelona ES, Spain. Defendant-Respondents Avenra Gardens (Private) Limited, No. 22/5, Muhahunaupitiya, Negambo. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2022-02-23	SC/APPEAL/74/2019	Walimunidewage Indrasena, No. 23, Radawana Road, Kirindiwela. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Walimuni Dewage Wijewardena, Raddalana, Welpalla. 2. Ganegodage Wijeratne, No. 23, Radawana Road, Kirindiwela. Defendants AND BETWEEN 1. Walimuni Dewage Wijewardena (Deceased), Raddalana, Welpalla. 1st Defendant-Appellant (Deceased) 1a(1). Piyadasa Dissanayake (Deceased), No. 739, Sudarshana Mawatha, Kelaniya. 1a(1)1. Thalagala Thilaka, No. 739, Sudarshana Mawatha, Kelaniya. 1a(1)2. Thalagala Thilaka, No. 739, Sudarshana Mawatha, Kelaniya. 1a(1)3. Shamith Niranjan, No. 739, Sudarshana Mawatha, Kelaniya. 1a(1)4. Chandima Subashini Kanchana Dissanayake, No. 739, Sudarshana Mawatha, Kelaniya. 1a(2). Abeyratne Dissanayake, No. 2/B, Hiswella, Kirindiwela. Substituted 1st Defendant-Appellant 2. Ganegoda Wijeratne, No. 23, Radawana Road, Kirindiwela. 2nd Defendant-Appellant Vs. Walimunidewage Indrasena, No. 23, Radawana Road, Kirindiwela. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2022-02-22	SC/FR/222/2016	Viraj Priyankara Abeyratne, No.179, Wijaya Road, Kolonnawa. Petitioner Vs. 1. Ceylon Electricity Board, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, P.O. Box 50, Colombo 02. 2. W.D.A.S. Wijepala, The Chairman, Ceylon Electricity Board, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, P.O. Box 50, Colombo 02. 3. M.C. Wickramasekara, The General Manager, Ceylon Electricity Board, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, P.O. Box 50, Colombo 02. 4. S.S. Kahanda, Deputy General Manager, Southern Province, Ceylon Electricity Board, No. 167, Matara Road, Galle. 12. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2022-02-21	SC/APPEAL/130/2015	1. C. Karunanayake Principal, WP/GP Veyangoda Maha Vidyalaya, Veyangoda. 2. A.M.R.B. Amarakoon Commissioner General of Examinations, Department of Examinations, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. 3. Honourable Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Defendants - Appellants - Appellants Vs. Mannapperuma Mohotti Appuhamilage Thushari Ranga Mannapperuma No. 19, Udammita, Veyangoda. Plaintiff - Respondent - Respondent View More	HON. YASANTHA KODAGODA, PC, J			Download
2022-02-21	SC/FR/147/2018	1. M.M.F Rizna 2. M.N.M Arham (minor) The Petitioners of No. 103/43, Abdul Wahab Mawatha, Thalapitiya, Galle. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. P.P.W Seneviratne Principal, Vidyaloka College, Galle. 2. Jayantha Wickramanayake, Director-National Schools, Ministry of Education Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 3. Sunil Hettiarachchi, Secretary Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 4. Hon. Attorney General; Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorf, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Article 17 & 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2022-02-11	SC/APPEAL/67/2017	O.L.M. MACAN MARKAR LIMITED No: 26, Gall Face Court Sir Mohamed Macan Markar Mawatha Colombo 03. PLAINTIFF -VS- AL-HAMBRA HOTEL LIMITED No. 30, Sir Mohamed Macan Markar Mawatha, Colombo 03 DEFENDANT AND AL-HAMBRA HOTELS LIMITED No. 30, Sir Mohamed Macan Markar Mawatha, Colombo 03 DEFENDANT - PETITIONER -VS- O.L.M MACAN MARKAR LTD No. 26, Galle Face Court, Sir Mohamed Macan Markar Mawatha, Colombo 03. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND NOW AL-HAMBRA HOTELS LTD. No. 30, Sir Mohamed Macan Marker Mawatha Colombo 03. DEFENDANT- PETITIONER- APPELLANT Vs. O.L.M MACAN MARKAR LTD No. 26, Galle Face Court, Sir Mohamed Macan Markar Mawatha Colombo 03. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT View More	HON. L.T.B DEHIDENIYA, J			Download
2022-01-21	SC/APPEAL/77/2013	Galdeniyalage Ukkuwa of Polpitiya, Metikumbura Plaintiff Vs. 01. Galdeniyalage Podina 02. Parapayalage Devadasa 03. Parapayalage Karunawathie All of Polpitiya, Metikumbura Defendants AND BETWEEN 01. Galdeniyalage Podina (deceased) 01.a). Parapayalage Devadasa 01.b). Parapayalage Karunawathie All of Polpitiya, Metikumbura Substituted-Defendant-Appellants 02. Parapayalage Devadasa 03. Parapayalage Karunawathie All of Polpitiya, Metikumbura 2nd & 3rd Defendant-Appellants Vs. Galdeniyalage Ukkuwa(deceased) Galdeniyalage Jasintha of Polpitiya, Metikumbura Substituted-Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN 01. Galdeniyalage Podina(deceased) 01a). Parapayalage Devadasa 01b). Parapayalage Karunawathie All of Polpitiya, Metikumbura SubstitutedDefendant-Appellants View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli		In the matter of an Appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of Section 5 C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No.19 of 1990 as amended by the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No.54 of 2006.	Download
2022-01-21	SC/FR/4/2017	K. M. R. Perera, 51/1, Northpole Residencies, Apartment 5/1, Peter’s Lane, Dehiwala. PETITIONER vs. 1) Dharmadasa Dissanayake, Chairman. 1A) Justice Jagath Balapatabendi, Chairman. 2) A.W.A. Salam. 2A) Hussain Ismail. 2B) Indrani Sugathadasa. 3) D. Shirantha Wijayatilake. 3A) Prathap Ramanujam. 3B) Dr. T.R.C. Ruberu. 4) V. Jegarajasingam. 4A) Ahamed Mohammed Saleem. 5) Santi Nihal Seneviratne. 5A) Sudarma Karunaratne. 5B) Leelasena Liyanagama. 6) S. Rannuge. 6A) Dian Gomes. 7) D.L. Mendis. 7A) Dilith Jayaweera. 8) Sarath Jayatilake. 8A) G.S.A. De Silva. 2nd, 2A, 2B, 3rd, 3A, 3B, 4th, 4A, 5th, 5A, 5B, 6th, 6A, 7th, 7A, 8th & 8A Respondents are members of the Public Service Commission. 9) H.M.G. Seneviratne. 9A) M.A.B. Senaratne. 9B) Daya Senarath, Secretary. 1st, 1A, 2nd, 2A, 2B, 3rd, 3A, 3B, 4th, 4A, 5th, 5A, 5B, 6th, 6A, 7th, 7A, 8th, 8A, 9th, 9A & 9B, Respondents are at Public Service Commission, No 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 10) K.S.C. Dissanayake, Director General, Overseas Administration Division. View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2022-01-21	SC/FR/55/2017	K. M. R. Perera, 51/1, Northpole Residencies, Apartment 5/1, Peter’s Lane, Dehiwala. PETITIONER vs. 1) Dharmadasa Dissanayake, Chairman. 1A) Justice Jagath Balapatabendi, Chairman. 2) A.W.A. Salam. 2A) Hussain Ismail. 2B) Indrani Sugathadasa. 3) D. Shirantha Wijayatilake. 3A) Prathap Ramanujam. 3B) Dr. T.R.C. Ruberu. 4) V. Jegarajasingam. 4A) Ahamed Mohammed Saleem. 5) Santi Nihal Seneviratne. 10B) Sumith Dissanayake, Director General, Human Resources and Mission Management, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 11) Esala Weerakoon. 11A) Ravinatha Ariyasinghe. 11B) Admiral Jayanath Colombage, Secretary. 10th, 10A, 10B, 11th, 11A & 11B Respondents are at Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Republic Building, Colombo 1. 12) Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere			Download
2022-01-20	SC/APPEAL/131/2016	Rambandi Deveyalage Gamini Pushpalatha of Kandegedara, Devalegama. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Wickrema Arachchilage Suneetha, ‘Jeewana’ Devalegama. 2. Kapuwella Gamlath Ralalage Abeywickrema of Kandegedara, Devalegama. Defendants AND BETWEEN Rambandi Deveyalage Gamini Pushpalatha of Kandegedara, Devalegama. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Wickrema Arachchilage Suneetha, ‘Jeewana’ Devalegama. 2. Kapuwella Gamlath Ralalage Abeywickrema of Kandegedara, Devalegama. Defendant-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Rambandi Deveyalage Gamini Pushpalatha of Kandegedara, Devalegama. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Wickrema Arachchilage Suneetha, ‘Jeewana’ Devalegama. 2. Kapuwella Gamlath Ralalage Abeywickrema of Kandegedara, Devalegama. Defendant-Respondent-Respondents View More	HON. MAHINDA SAMAYAWARDHENA, J			Download
2022-01-20	SC/APPEAL/6/2021	Juwan Hettige Sriyalatha Silva, No.19/80, New Neegrodharama Road, Kalutara North. Plaintiff Vs. Meemanage Duneetha Chandrakanthi Silva, No. 19/80, New Neegrodharama Road, Kalutara North. Defendant AND BETWEEN Juwan Hettige Sriyalatha Silva, No.19/80, New Neegrodharama Road, Kalutara North. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. Meemanage Duneetha Chandrakanthi Silva, No. 19/80, New Neegrodharama Road, Kalutara North. Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Meemanage Duneetha Chandrakanthi Silva, No. 19/80, New Neegrodharama Road, Kalutara North. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Juwan Hettige Sriyalatha Silva, No.19/80, New Neegrodharama Road, Kalutara North. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	HON. MAHINDA SAMAYAWARDHENA, J			Download
2022-01-20	SC/APPEAL/61/2014	D.M. Sumanawathie, No. 267, 5th Village, Siyambalanduwa. Plaintiff Vs. D.M. Susiripala, Kongaspitiya, Kandaudapanguwa. Defendant AND BETWEEN D.M. Sumanawathie, No. 267, 5th Village, Siyambalanduwa. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. D.M. Susiripala, Kongaspitiya, Kandaudapanguwa. Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN D.M. Susiripala, Kongaspitiya, Kandaudapanguwa. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. D.M. Sumanawathie, No. 267, 5th Village, Siyambalanduwa. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	HON. MAHINDA SAMAYAWARDHENA, J			Download
2021-12-17	SC/HC CALA/303/2019	Suriya Arachchige Inoka Udayangani, Pebottuwa, Ratnapura. Plaintiff Vs, Kombu Mudiyanselage Thanuja Dilhani, Near the School, Pebottuwa, Ratnapura. Defendant And then Suriya Arachchige Inoka Udayangani, Pebottuwa, Ratnapura. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. Kombu Mudiyanselage Thanuja Dilhani, Near the School, Pebottuwa, Ratnapura. Defendant-Respondent And Now Between Kombu Mudiyanselage Thanuja Dilhani, Near the School, Pebottuwa, Ratnapura. Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner Vs, Suriya Arachchige Inoka Udayangani, Pebottuwa, Ratnapura. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2021-12-17	SC/APPEAL/11/2013	Pannala Appuhamilage Kosala Surin Wickramasinghe Appearing by his next friend Panapola Kankanamlage Seetha Kumarihamy of Nawathalwatte, Thalwatte. Plaintiff Vs 1. Pannala Appuhamilage Sumanaweera Wickramasinghe 2. Pannala Appuhamilage Karunaratne Wickramasinghe 3. Pannala Appuhamilage Subadra Wickramasinghe 4. Pannala Appuhamilage Vinusha Lakmal Wickramasinghe 5. Samarasinghe Arachchige Somadasa 6. H.P. Rathnawathi 7. Praveen Wickramasinghe All of Thalangama, Ambepussa. Defendants AND Samarasinghe Arachchige Somadasa Thalangama, Ambepussa. 5th Defendant-Appellant Vs Pannala Appuhamilage Kosala Surin Wickramasinghe Appearing by his next friend Panapola Kankanamlage Seetha Kumarihamy of Nawathalwatte, Thalwatte. Plaintiff-Respondent 1. Pannala Appuhamilage Sumanaweera Wickramasinghe 2. Pannala Appuhamilage Karunaratne Wickramasinghe 3. Pannala Appuhamilage Subadra Wickramasinghe 4. Pannala Appuhamilage Vinusha Lakmal Wickramasinghe 6. H.P. Rathnawathi 7. Praveen Wickramasinghe All of Thalangama, Ambepussa. Defe View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC.J			Download
2021-12-17	SC/APPEAL/172/2016	Kalukapuge Thomas Perera, 612, Desingghhe Mawatha, Thalangama South, Battaramulla Plaintiff Vs. 1. Kalukapuge Engalthina, 2. Kalukapuge Simiyan, Both of No.612, Desinghe Mawatha, Thalangama South, Battaramulla 3.Lanka Lands Company Ltd No.347, Union Place, Colombo 02 Defendents AND BETWEEN Lanka Lands Company Ltd No.347, Union Place, Colombo 02 3rd Defendant Appellant Vs. Kalukapuge Thomas Perera, 612, Desinghe Mawatha, Thalangama South, Battaramulla Plaintiff-Respondent (Deceased) Kalukapuge Karthelis Perera 622/A, Desinghe Mawatha, Thalangama South, Battaramulla Substituted Plaintiff -Respondent 1. Kalukapuge Engalthina, 2. Kalukapuge Simiyan, Both of No.612, Desinghe Mawatha, Thalangama South, Battaramulla 1st and 2nd Defendant-Respondents AND BETWEEN Communication and Business Equipment (Pvt) Ltd, (Now known as Apogee International(Pvt) Ltd) No.99/6 Rosmead Place, Colombo 07 Petitioner Vs. Lanka Lands Company Ltd, (Now not a legal person) No.347, Union Place, Colombo 02 3rd Defendant- Appellant - Respon View More	Hon. L.T.B. Dehideniya, J.			Download
2021-12-17	SC/CHC/APPEAL/35/2008	MMBL Teas (Pvt) Ltd., No. 300, Galle Road, Colombo 3. PLAINTIFF Vs 1. British Ceylon Produce Export (Pvt) Ltd., No. 351/1, Dewanampiyatissa Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. Abdul Hafeel Ahamed Abbas, No. 619/12, Baseline Road, Colombo 09, Presently of No. 573, Sudarma Mawatha, Wanawasala, Kelaniya. 3. Najiur Rahman Abbas, No. 619/12, Baseline Road, Colombo 09. DEFENDANTS AND NOW MMBL Teas (Pvt) Ltd., No. 300, Galle Road, Colombo 3. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs 1. British Ceylon Produce Export (Pvt) Ltd., No. 351/1, Dewanampiyatissa Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. Abdul Hafeel Ahamed Abbas, No. 619/12, Baseline Road, Colombo 09, Presently of No. 573, Sudarma Mawatha, Wanawasala, Kelaniya. 3. Najiur Rahman Abbas, No. 619/12, Baseline Road, Colombo 09. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2021-12-17	SC/FR/269/2021	01. Rajaye Thakserukaruwange Sangamaya rcfha ;lafiarelrejkaf.a ix.uh (Government Valuers Association) No.146/C/3, 4th Lane, Rajasinghe Mawatha, Korathota, Kaduwela. 02. D. M. Senevirathna General Secretary, Rajaye Thakserukaruwange Sangamaya (Government Valuers Association) No.146/C/3, 4th Lane, Rajasinghe Mawatha, Korathota, Kaduwela. And 218/39, Moragahawatte, Yakahatuwa, Horampella, Minuwangoda. 03. K. G. Nevil Indrajeewa 146/C/3, 4th Lane, Rajasinghe Mawatha, Korathota, Kaduwela. 04. D. Keerthi Abeysekera, 7/6, Pragathi Mawatha, Katuwana Road, Homagama. 05. N. S. Lakshman Rajapaksha No.6A, G. H. Perera Mawatha, Raththanapitiya, Boralesgamuwa. 06. R.L.Jjayantha, 59/12, School Lane, Rukmale, Pannipitiya. Petitioners Vs. 1. P. P. D. S. Muthukumarana Government Chief Valuer, 748, Maradana Road, Colombo 10. 2. Hon. Mahinda Rajapaksa, Minister of Economic Policies & Plan Implementation Ministry of Economic Policies & Plan Implementation 3. Anusha Palpita Secretary, Ministry of Economic Policies & Plan Implementa View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2021-12-16	SC/FR/336/2016	1. G. T. D. Nishantha Kumara, Kahagollawatte, Pol Abeygoda, Ussapitiya. & 43 others PETITIONERS vs. 1. J. P. Wijeweera, Secretary, Ministry of Law and Order and Southern Development, Floor No. 13 Stage II Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. & 73 others RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2021-12-16	SC/FR/404/2016	1. Hapuhinne Karunadhipathi Divaratne Wasala Mudiyanselage Janaka Bandara Hapuhinna, No. 128/7, Kalugala Road, Katugastota. 2. Liyanage Arachchige Ravi Samantha Kosala, C10, Police Quarters, Courts Road, Gampaha. 3. Pradeep Lakshman Wettasinghe, No. 327/33, Sethsiri Uyana, Ganemulla Road, Kadawatha. 4. Gammadde Thandakkarage Ramyasiri Bokkawaladeniya, Midigama, Ahangama. 5. Jayakody Arachchcige Thushitha Jayakody, No. 109/3, Kumbaloluwa, Veyangoda. 6. Harischandrage Madawa Atula Lewangama, Gonna, Kohilegedara, Pothuhera. 7. Ranasingha Arachchcige Samantha Kumara, Rathupaskatiya, Diyakobala Bibila. 8. Zainul Abdeen Haleelur Rahman, No. 88/A, Al Mannar Road, Maruthamunai – 2 9. Nilmini Nihal Jayasiri Samararaja, Karandawa, Kuratihena Hettipola. PETITIONERS 1. K. W. E. Karaliyadda, Chairman, National Police Commission. 2. Ashoka Wijethilaka, Member, National Police Commission. 3. Savithree Wijesekara, Member, National Police Commission. 4. Y. L. M. Zawahir, Member, National Police Commission. 5. Gamini Nawarathne, View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2021-12-16	SC/APPEAL/46/2016	Seylan Bank PLC, No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Appellant Vs. The Commissioner General of Inland Revenue, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Seylan Bank PLC, No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Appellant-Appellant Vs. The Commissioner General of Inland Revenue, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2021-12-16	SC/FR/383/2016	1. Kaluwahandi Garwin Premalal Silva, Galle Road, Devinigoda, Rathgama. 2. Siyabalapitiyage Don Kusum Chandra Siyabalapitiya, No. 253, Samadi Mawatha, Welagedara Uyana, Kurunegala. 3. Ranasinghe Patikiri Koralalage Anura Wasantha Kumara Ranasinghe, No. 90/5, Ranasinghe Mawatha, Meegahawatta, Siyambalape. 4. Diwale Mahagedara Nilupul Chandana Somasinghe, No. 53/01, Bodhiyangana Mawatha, Bowala. 5. Mohammed Ramzil Noordeen, No. 113, Diddeniya Watta, Dambokka, Boyagane. 6. Mangala Saman Kumara Wickramanayake, Balapaththawa, Awissawella Road, Galigamuwa Town. 7. Doowage Chanaka Pradeep Kumarasinghe, Perakum Mawatha, Medalanda Watta, Kurunegala. 8. Dewanarayanage Ravindra Sampath Dharmadasa, No. 260, Hulangamuwa Road, Matale. 9. Hettiarachchige Nevil Verginton De Silva, No. 124/4/A, Bank Place, Himbutana, Mulleriyawa. 10. Hettiarachchige Don Kamal Sanjeewa Perera, No. 795, Kularathna Mawatha, Colombo 10. 11. Hettiarachchi Halpe Kankanamlage Jagath Chaya Samarasinghe, No. 39/06, Wakunagoda Road, Galle. 12. Welivita View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2021-12-16	SC/APPEAL/181/2014	1. Gayani Manohari Balasuriya (Minor) 2. Hubert Balasuriya (Next Friend) Both of No. 52, Old Road, Veralupe, Ratnapura. Plaintiffs Vs. 1. Ramanayake Arachchilage Lakshman Ramanayake. 2. Ramanayake Sarathchandra Ramanayake. 3. Ramanayake Arachchilage Appuhamy. All of No. 329/1, Kalawana Defendants AND 1. Ramanayake Arachchilage Lakshman Ramanayake. 2. Ramanayake Sarathchandra Ramanayake. 3. Ramanayake Arachchilage Appuhamy. (Deceased) 3A. Ramanayake Arachchilage Lakshman Ramanayake. 3B. Ramanayake Sarathchandra Ramanayake All of 329/1, Kalawana. Defendant-Appellants Vs. 1. Gayani Manohari Balasuriya (Minor) 2. Hubert Balasuriya (Next Friend) Both of No. 52, Old Road, Veralupe, Ratnapura. Plaintiff-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Gayani Manohari Balasuriya (Deceased) 1(A). Wijesinhage Priyantha Anuradha Wijesinghe 1(B). Sanuka Damsath Wijesinghe Both of 1/4/D/1, Kospelawinna Road, Weraluppa, Ratnapura. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellants Vs. 1. Ramanayake Arachchilage Lakshman Ramanayake. 2. Ramanayake Sarathchandra View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2021-12-16	SC/FR/350/2016	1. Saman Ratnayake, 11/4, Jeswel Place, Mirihana, Nugegoda. 2. Suresh Prasanna Kumara Warnasooriya, 17, Tourbo Housing Scheme, Pitawella Road, Boralesgamuwa. 3. Janaka Indrajit de Alwis Goontileke, 35, Nanda Mawatha, Nugegoda. 4. Liyanage Samansiri Sigera, No. 232/01/A, Makola South, Makola. 5. Kariyawasam Don Anandasiri Weerasinghe, 17/2, Railway Station Lane, Udahamulla, Nugegoda. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. National Police Commission 2. Siri Hettige, (Chairman) 3. P. H. Manatunga, (Member) 4. Savithree Wijesekara, (Member) 5. Y. L. M. Zawahir, (Member) 6. Anton Jayanadan, (Member) 7. Tilak Collure, (Member) 8. Frank de Silva, (Member) 9. N. Ariyadasa Cooray, (Secretary) 1st to 9th are of National Police Commission, Block No. 9 BMICH Premises, Baudhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 10. Pujith Jayasundara, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 11. B. M. Basnayaka, Chairman, Committee to inquire into Political Victimization, Ministry of Law and Order and Southern Development, Floor No. 13, Stage II, S View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2021-12-15	SC/FR/83/2018	Sriyanee Dhammika Kumari Semasinghe, 424/16, Samagi Mawatha, Hokandara. Petitioner Vs, 1. Mr. Dharmasena Dissanayaka, Chairman, 2. Mr. A. Salam Abdul Waid, Member 2a. Prof. Hussian Ismail, Member 3. Ms. D. Shirantha Wijayatilaka, Member 3a. Ms. Sudarma Karunarathna, Member 4. Dr. Prathap Ramanujam, Member 5. Mrs. V. Jegarasasingam, Member 6. Mr. Santi Nihal Seneviratne, Member 6a. Mr. G. S. A. de. Silva P.C, Member 7. Mr. S. Ranugge, Member 8. Mr. D. L. Mendis, Member 9. Mr. Sarath Jayathilaka, Member 10. Mr. H. M. Gamini Seneviratna, Secretary, 10a. M. A. B. Daya Senarath, Secretary, 11. H. A. D. C. Jayasekera, Senior Assistant Secretary, The 1st to 11th Respondents of; Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatte Road, Battaramulla. 12. Mr. Sarath Dissanayake, Director General Overseas, Administration Division. 12a. Mr. M. K. Pathmanathan, Additional Director General. 13. Mr. Prasad Kariyawasam, The Secretary, 13a. Mr. Ravinatha Aryasinha, The Secretary, 13b. Admiral Prof. Jayanath Colombage, Secreta View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2021-12-15	SC/APPEAL/208/2012	Veerasamy Sivathasan Pillaiyar Kovil, Uppukulam, Mannar. 1st Accused – 1st Appellant – Appellant Vs. Honourable Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant – Respondent – Respondent View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J			Download
2021-12-14	SC/APPEAL/44/2015	1. Rupasinghe Arachchige Don Ananda, Kumara Rupasinghe of Mawalgama, Waga.(Deceased) 1a. Welikala Lalitha 1b. Roshan Chinthala Rupasinghe 1c. Roshan Lakmal Rupasinghe all of 128/A, Miriyawatte, Mawalgama, Waga 2. Rupasinghe Arachchige Don Sarath Kumara Ruupasinghe of Mawalagama, Waga. 3. Rupasinghe Arachchige Don Esonsingho of Kudagama, Avissawella. 3a. Rupasinghe Arachchige Don Robert Rupasinghe. PLAINTIFF -VS- 1. Rupasinghe Arachchige Don Jayawardane Rupasinghe. 2. Rupasinghe Arachchige Don Albertsinghe of Mawalgama, Waga. 3. Rupasinghe Arachchige Dona Violet. 4. Hewawasam Puwakpitiyage don Karunarathne. 5. Rupasinghe Arachchige Don Leelarathene, and 15 others Defendants. DEFENDANTS 1. Rupasinghe Arachchige Don Ananda, Kumara Rupasinghe of Mawalgama, Waga.(Deceased) 1a. Welikala Lalitha 1b. Roshan Chinthala Rupasinghe 1c. Roshan Lakmal Rupasinghe all of 128/A, Miriyawatte, Mawalgama, Waga 2. Rupasinghe Arachchige Don Sarath Kumara Ruupasinghe of Mawalagama, Waga. 3. Rupasinghe Arachchige Don Esonsingho of Kudagama View More	L.T.B. Dehideniya, J.		In the matter of an application for Special Leave to Appeal against the order dated 20.10.2014 in the Court of Appeal of the Democratic Socialist republic of Sri Lanka in Case No: CA/831/99(F).	Download
2021-12-13	SC/APPEAL/92/2020	Trans Orbit Global Logistics (Pvt) Limited, No. 260/5B, 1st Floor, Dr. Danister De Silva Mawatha, Colombo 09. Plaintiff Vs. People’s Bank, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Defendant AND NOW BETWEEN Trans Orbit Global Logistics (Pvt) Limited, No. 260/5B, 1st Floor, Dr. Danister De Silva Mawatha, Colombo 09. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. People’s Bank, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Defendant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2021-12-08	SC/APPEAL/186/2018	Kahandawela Knitwear Industries (Pvt) Limited, 770, Pannipitiya Road, Battaramulla. Plaintiff Vs. Swan Feather (Pvt) Limited, 566, Lake Road, Boralesgamuwa Defendant THERE AFTER Kavin Polymers (Pvt) Limited, 566, Lake Road, Boralesgamuwa Claimant Vs. Kahandawela Knitwear Industries (Pvt) Limited, 770, Pannipitiya Road, Battaramulla. Plaintiff – Respondent Supreme Court Case No. SC/Appeal/186/18 HCCA Mt.Lavinia Case No. WP/HCCA/MT/44/2017/LA DC Mt.Lavinia Case No. 4116/03/M 2 Swan Feather (Pvt) Limited, 566, Lake Road, Boralesgamuwa View More	Hon. L.T.B. Dehideniya, J.			Download
2021-12-07	SC/APPEAL/55/2017	Ravindra Kahanda Kumara Weragama, Welgala Estate, Weragama, Kaikawela, Matale. Petitioner Vs. M.A.S. Weerasinghe, Commissioner General of Agrarian Development, Department of Agrarian Development, No. 42, Sir Marcus Fernando Mawatha, Colombo 07. Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Ravindra Kahanda Kumara Weragama, Welgala Estate, Weragama, Kaikawela, Matale. Petitioner-Appellant Vs. M.A.S. Weerasinghe, Commissioner General of Agrarian Development, Department of Agrarian Development, No. 42, Sir Marcus Fernando Mawatha, Colombo 07. Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2021-12-06	SC/FR/531/2012	Lakshika Dilani Kulathunga, No.06, 1st Lane Galpotta Road, Koswatte. Petitioner Vs. 1. Sisira, Officer in Charge Community Police Unit police station Kottawa. 2. Upali Sub Inspector of Police Acting Officer in Charge police station Kottawa. 3. Mr. Saliya de Silva Senior Superintendent of Police Nugegoda Office of the Senior Superintend of Police Mirihana. 4. Senapathi Assistant Superintendent of Police Homagama South Office of the Assistant Superintend of Police Homagama. 5. Inspector General of Police, Sri Lanka Police Headquarters Colombo 12. 6. Honorable Attorney General Department of the Attorney General, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC			Download
2021-12-01	SC/FR/109/2021	1. Centre for Environmental Justice, (Guarantee Limited), No. 20/A, Kuruppu Road, Colombo 08. 2. Withanage Don Hemantha Ranjith Sisira Kumara, Director and Senior Advisor, Centre for Environmental Justice, No. 20 A, Kuruppu Road, Colombo 08. 3. Edirisinghe Arachchilage Sanjaya Edirisinghe, No. 30/6, Ragama Road, Kadawatha. 4. Panchali Madurangi Panapitiya, No. 565/44, Mihindu Mawatha, Malabe. 5. Weerakkdoy Appuhamilage Manoja Jayaswini Weerakkody, No. 256/34C, Ruhunupura, Thalawathugoda. Petitioners Vs. 1. Hon. Mahinda Rajapaksa, Minister of Buddhasasana, Religious and Cultural Affairs, and Urban Development and Housing, and Economic Policies and Implementation, No. 135, Srimath Anagarika Dharmapala Mawatha, Colombo 07. 2. Hon. R.M.C.B. Ratnayake, Minister of Wildlife and Forest Conservation, Ministry of Wildlife and Forest Conservation, No. 1090, Sri Jayawardenapura Mw, Rajagiriya. 3. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2021-12-01	SC/APPEAL/162/2015	Sadayan Kanapathi Sandrakala Kadithalamulla, Polgahawela Plaintiff Vs. Mohammed Saththas Issathul Sareena, No.10, Kurunegala Road, Bandawa, Polgahawela Defendant AND Sadayan Kanapathi Sandrakala Kadithalamulla, Polgahawela Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. Mohammed Saththas Issathul Sareena, No.10, Kurunegala Road, Bandawa, Polgahawela Defendant-Respondent AND NOW Mohammed Saththas Issathul Sareena, No.10, Kurunegala Road, Bandawa, Polgahawela Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Sadayan Kanapathi Sandrakala Kadithalamulla, Polgahawela Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. L.T.B. Dehideniya, J			Download
2021-11-30	SC/APPEAL/113/2010	Asarappulige Solomon, of Bowatte, Yakwila Plaintiff -Vs.- 1. Herath Mudiyanselage Senaratne, 2. Herath Mudiyanselage Wijetilleke, 3. Herath Mudiyanselage Ran Menika, 4. Adhikari Mudiyanselage Wijesena, 5. Adhikari Mudiyanselage Jayasekera, 5a.Adhikari Mudiyanselage Ananda Jayaratne All of Bowatte, Yakwila Defendant AND BETWEEN Asarappulige Solomon, of Bowatte, Yakwila. Plaintiff-Appellant 4d.Adhikari Mudiyanselage Punyawathie, 4e.Adhikari Mudiyanselage Kirthi Ashoka, 5.Adhikari Mudiyanselage Jayasekera, 5a.Adhikari Mudiyanselage Ananda Jayaratne All of Bowatte, Yakwila Defendant-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2021-11-30	SC/APPEAL/166/2018	1. D.M. Gunadasa, No. 22, Sumanatissa Mawatha, Padukka Road, Horana. 2. D.M. Wijepala, Bambaragaha Ulpatha, Kuruwitenne. Plaintiffs Vs. D.M. Somawathie alias Samawathie, 4th Mile Post, Galkotuwawatta, Ketawala, Landewela. Defendant AND BETWEEN 1. D.M. Gunadasa, No. 22, Sumanatissa Mawatha, Padukka Road, Horana. 2. D.M. Wijepala, (Deceased) Bambaragaha Ulpatha, Kuruwitenne. 2A. Senadeera Siriyalatha, 2B. Raveendra Pushpakumara, Dissanayaka, 2C. Piyal Kumara Dissanayaka, 2D. Vajira Kumara Dissanayaka, All of, Bambaragaha Ulpatha, Kuruwitenne. Plaintiff-Appellants Vs. D.M. Somawathie alias Samawathie, (Deceased) 4th Mile Post, Galkotuwawatta, Ketawala, Landewela. Defendant-Respondent D.M. Upali Kusumsiri Bandara, 4th Mile Post, Galkotuwawatta, Ketawala, Landewela. Substituted Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN D.M. Gunadasa, No. 22, Sumanatissa Mawatha, Padukka Road, Horana. 1st Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 2A. Senadeera Siriyalatha, 2B. Raveendra Pushpakumara, Dissanayaka, 2C. Piyal Kumara Dissanayaka, 2 View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2021-11-29	SC/APPEAL/237/2014	Seylan Bank PLC, (formerly Seylan Bank Limited) No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Having branch at No. 315-317, Old Moor Street, Colombo 12. Plaintiff Vs. Mohamed Rasheed Mohamed Farook, No. 185, Old Moor Street, Colombo 12. Defendant AND NOW In the matter of an application under sections 754(2) and 757 of the Civil Procedure Code read together with section 5A of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act, No. 54 of 2006. Seylan Bank PLC, (formerly Seylan Bank Limited) No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Having branch at No. 315-317, Old Moor Street, Colombo 12. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. Mohamed Rasheed Mohamed Farook, No. 185, Old Moor Street, Colombo 12. Defendant-Respondent AND NOW In the matter of an appeal under section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act, No. 54 of 2006. Seylan Bank PLC, (formerly Seylan Bank Limited) No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Having branch at No. View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2021-11-26	SC/APPEAL/116/2013	Mohomad Mohideen Mohomad Shakeer Mohideen, No. 57, Kandy Road, Thihariya. Plaintiff Vs. Warnakulasuriya Mahawaduge Emalin Peiris, No. 593, Havelock Road, Pamankada, Colombo 05. Defendant AND BETWEEN Warnakulasuriya Mahawaduge Emalin Peiris, (Deceased) No. 593, Havelock Road, Pamankada, Colombo 05. Defendant-Appellant Wannakuwatta Mitiwaduge Agnes Sirimawathie, No. 593, Havelock Road, Pamankada, Colombo 05. Substituted Defendant-Appellant Vs. Mohomad Mohideen Mohomad Shakeer Mohideen, No. 57, Kandy Road, Thihariya. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Wannakuwatta Mitiwaduge Agnes Sirimawathie, No. 593, Havelock Road, Pamankada, Colombo 05. Substituted Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Mohomad Mohideen Mohomad Shakeer Mohideen, (Deceased) No. 57, Kandy Road, Thihariya. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 1. Sithy Fareeda, 2. Fathima Fareesha, 3. Mohamed Rukshan, 4. Mohamed Mizran, All of, No. 66/17/2, Ali Jinnah Maatha, Thihariya. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2021-11-26	SC/FR/343/2019	1. Herath Mudiyanselage Dilshan Mahela Herath, No.39, Boyagama, Peradeniya. 2. Liyanage Lakni Eshini Perera, 350/2, Sanasa Lane, Nagahawila Road, Kotikawatte. 3. Gajanayaka Mudalige Ashani Mihika Bastiansz, No. 27/6C, Deepananda Mawatha, Waidya Road, Dehiwala. 4. Galawata Henegedara Pamodya Madhubhashini Guruge Niwasa, Wattakgoda, Weligama. 5. Halpandeniya Hewage Charith Madhuranga, No.109/7 Dehiwala Road, Maharagama. 6. Kuruwalana Prabhavi Arushika Chathubashini, “Ramani”, Dharmapala Mawatha, Naththandiya. 7. Weliweriya Liyanage Don Achinthya Sahan Wijesinghe, No.42/B2, Awriyawatta, Sisila Uyana, Alubomulla, Panadura. 8. Wannakuwaththa Mitiwaduge Sachini Shehara Perera, No.42/12A, 6th Lane, Nagoda, Kalutara. 9. Nambu Nanayakkara Palliyaguruge Nayanathara Palliyaguru, “Sri Manthi”, Rikillagaskada. 10. Athapaththu Arachchige Sanduni Athapaththu, 93/46, 1st Lane, Pragathipura, Madiwela, Kotte. 11. Wijendra Gamalath Acharige Karunadika Nimaya Veenavi Morayas. 270/Hettiwaththa, Thambagalla, Kakkapalliya. 12. Gamva View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2021-11-19	SC/APPEAL/36/2014	Jayasinghe Pathman Godamuna Road, Hittahatiya, Indipalegoda, Pitigagala Plaintiff Vs. Korale Kandanamge Somapala Naranowita, Porowagama Defendant Between Korale Kandanamge Somapala Naranowita, Porowagama Defendant-Appellant Vs. Jayasinghe Pathman Godamuna Road, Hittahatiya, Indipalegoda, Pitigagala Plaintiff-Respondent Now Jayasinghe Pathman Godamuna Road, Hittahatiya, Indipalegoda, Pitigagala Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Korale Kandanamge Somapala(deceased) Naranowita, Porowagama Defendant-Appellant Respondent 1. Korale Kankanamage Lal Pathmasiri Naranowita, Porowagama 2. Petikiri Koralalage Pemawathi Naranowita, Porowagama (Substituted)Defendant- View More	Hon. L.T.B. Dehideniya, J			Download
2021-11-16	SC/APPEAL/53/2021	1. K. M. Hema Celsia Fernando, No. 48, St Joseph’s Street, Negombo. 2. N. H. Lourds Sulani Jayasinghe, No. 48/1, St Joseph’s Street, Negombo. PLAINTIFFS. Vs. K. Madhuri Anuradha Rodrigo, No. 48/2, St Joseph’s Street, Negombo. DEFENDANT. AND BETWEEN 1. K. M. Hema Celsia Fernando, No. 48, St Joseph’s Street, Negombo. 2. N. H. Lourds Sulani Jayasinghe, No. 48/1, St Joseph’s Street, Negombo. PLAINTIFF - APPELLANTS. Vs. K. Madhuri Anuradha Rodrigo, No. 48/2, St Joseph’s Street, Negombo. DEFENDANT - RESPONDENT. AND NOW BETWEEN K. Madhuri Anuradha Rodrigo, No. 48/2, St Joseph’s Street, Negombo. DEFENDANT - RESPONDENT - APPELLANT. Vs. 1. K. M. Hema Celsia Fernando, No. 48, St Joseph’s Street, Negombo. 2. N. H. Lourds Sulani Jayasinghe, No. 48/1, St Joseph’s Street, Negombo. PLAINTIFF - APPELLANT - RESPONDENTS. View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2021-11-12	SC/FR/79/2016	N.K. Sooriyabandara D 30, Old Galaha road, Peradeniya. PETITIONER Vs 1. University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 2. Prof. Upul B. Dissanayake Vice Chancellor. 3. (b) Prof. S.H.P. Parakrama Karunaratne, Deputy Vice Chancellor. 4. (a) Dr. M. Alfred. 5. (a) Prof. O.G. Dayaratne Bandara 6. Prof. W.M. Tilakaratne. 7. Prof. Leelananda Rajapaksha. 8. Prof. V.S. Weerasinghe. 9. (a) Prof. D.K.N.P. Pushpakumara. 10. Prof H.B.S Ariyaratne 11. Prof. D.B.M. Wickramaratne. 12. (a) Prof. N.A.A.S.P. Nissanka. 13. (a) Prof. Anoma Abeyratne. 14. Prof. S.R. Kodituwakku. 15. Mrs. K.D. Gayathri M. Abeygunasekera. 16. Dr. Ranil Abeysinghe. 17. (a) Prof. C.M. Maddumabandara. 18. Mr. U.W. Attanayake. 19. (a) Prof. I.M.K. Liyanage. 20. Mr. G.S.J. Dissanayake. 21. Mr. E.H.M. Palitha Elkaduwa. 22. Mr. Upul Kumarapperuma. 23. Prof. P.B. Meegaskumbura. 24. Dr. Mohamed Thaha Ziyard Mohamed. 25. Prof. K.N.O. Dharmadasa. 26. Dr. Selvy Tiruchandran. 27. (c) Maneesha Seneviratne. 27. (i) Mr. Rawana Wijeratne. 28. Mr. Lal Wijenayake. 29. (a) Dr. View More	Hon. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J			Download
2021-11-11	SC/APPEAL/79/2017	Weherage Joan Rohini Peiris Nilwala Estate, Akkara Panaha, Kimbulapitiya Road, Negombo. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Weherage Herbert Stanely Peiris 2. Weherage Helan Chandani Peiris 3. Chakrawarthige Dona Mary Inoka all of Palawiya, Puttlam 4. Hatton National Bank No.482. T.B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo. 5. Weherage Christy Lionel Peiris 6. Weherage Roy Maxwell Peiris Palawiya, Puttlam. Defendants AND Weherage Christy Lionel Peiris Palawiya, Puttlam. 5th Defendant-Appellant Vs. Weherage Joan Rohini Peiris Palawiya, Puttlam. Plaintiff-Respondent 1. Weherage Herbert Stanly Peiris 2. Weherage Helan Chandani Peiris 3. Chakrawarthige Dona Mary Inoka Dilrukshi Both of Palawiya, Puttlam. 4. Hatton National Bank No.482. T.B.JayaMawatha, Colombo. 5. Weherage Roy Maxwell Peiris Palawiya, Puttlam. Defendants – Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Weherage Joan Rohini Peiris Palawiya, Puttlam. Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner/Appellant Vs. Weherage Christy Lionel Peiris 49/5, Palawiya, Colombo Road, Palawiya, Puttlam. 5thDefendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC. J			Download
2021-11-10	SC/FR/184/2018	Herath Mudiyanselage Podi Kumarihami, No. 237, Pooja Nagaraya, Mahiyanganaya. Petitioner Vs. 1. Officer-in-Charge, Mahiyanganaya Police Station, Mahiyanganaya. 2. Senadheera, Police Officer, Mahiyanganaya Police Station, Mahiyanganaya. 3. Wimalasena, Police Officer, Mahiyanganaya Police Station, Mahiyanganaya. 4. Senior Superintendent of Police, Office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Badulla. 5. Pujith Jayasundara, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 6. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulfsdrop, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2021-11-08	SC/APPEAL/24/2020	Bastian Koralalage Kingsley Rodrigo, No. 616/D, Karaththawela, Nugape, Bopitiya. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Bastian Koralalage Camillus Sunny Rodrigo, No. 616/B, Karaththawela, Nugape, Bopitiya. 2. W.D. Sumudu Madhuwantha, No. 685, Nugape, Bopitiya. 3. J. Edward Perera, Nugape, Bopitiya, Pamunugama. Defendants NOW BETWEEN 1. Bastian Koralalage Camillus Sunny Rodrigo, No. 616/B, Karaththawela, Nugape, Bopitiya. 1st Defendant-Petitioner Vs. Bastian Koralalage Kingsley Rodrigo, No. 616/D, Karaththawela, Nugape, Bopitiya. Plaintiff-Respondent 2. W.D. Sumudu Madhuwantha, No. 685, Nugape, Bopitiya. 3. J. Edward Perera, Nugape, Bopitiya, Pamunugama. Defendant-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Bastian Koralalage Camillus Sunny Rodrigo, No. 616/B, Karaththawela, Nugape, Bopitiya. 1st Defendant-Petitioner-Petitioner Vs. Bastian Koralalage Kingsley Rodrigo, No. 616/D, Karaththawela, Nugape, Bopitiya. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 2. W.D. Sumudu Madhuwantha, No. 685, Nugape, Bopitiya. 3. J. Edward Perera, Nugape, Bopitiya, Pamunuga View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2021-11-05	SC/APPEAL/115/2015	Hewayalage Margaret, Thalgasmote, Veyangoda. (Deceased) Plaintiff Weerakkody Samaradivakarage Hemachandra Manel Indika No.6/58, Court Road, Gampaha. Substituted – Plaintiff Vs. 1. Manikpura Dewage Soma, “Claristan”, Helen Mawatha, Wennappuwa. 2. Manikpura Dewage Sapin, Thalgasmote, Veyangoda. (Deceased) 2A. Manikpura Dewage Soma, “Claristan”, Helen Mawatha, Wennappuwa. 3. Manikpura Dewage Cyril Piyaratne, No.255, Thalgasmote, Veyangoda. Defendants And Between in the Provincial High Court of Western Province Manikpura Dewage Cyril Piyaratne, No.255, Thalgasmote, Veyangoda. 3rd Defendant-Appellant Vs. Weerakkody Samaradivakarage Hemachandra Manel Indika No.6/58, Court Road, Gampaha. Substituted – Plaintiff-Respondent 1. Manikpura Dewage Soma, “Claristan”, Helen Mawatha, Wennappuwa., Presently at ‘Shrinath’, Sandalankawa, Sandalankawa. 2A. Manikpura Dewage Soma, “Claristan”, Helen Mawatha, Wennappuwa; Presently at ‘Shrinath’, Sandalankawa, Sandalankawa. 1st and 2A Defendant- Respondents And Now Between in the Su View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2021-11-05	SC/APPEAL/144/2016	1. M. A. Sugathadasa, (deceased) 1A. Chandra Jayaweera, 2. Jayaweera Arachchige Chandra Podimenike All of Barandawatta, Henduwawa. Keppetiwalana Plaintiffs Vs. Abesinghe Mudiyanselage Ranjith Gamini Abeysinghe Athuruwala Dambadeniya Defendant And 1A. Chandra Jayaweera, 2. Jayaweera Arachchige Chandra Podimenike All of Barandawatta, Henduwawa. Keppetiwalana Plaintiff-Appellants Vs. Abesinghe Mudiyanselage Ranjith Gamini Abeysinghe Athuruwala Dambadeniya Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Abesinghe Mudiyanselage Ranjith Gamini Abeysinghe (Now deceased) Athuruwala Dambadeniya Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner. 1A. Edirisinghe Mudiyanselage Sumana Mallika 1B. Abeysinghe Mudiyanselage Wimantha Indeewara Abeysinghe 1C. Kasun Thisara Abeysinghe 1D. Isuri Palika Abeysinghe Substituted-Defendant-Respondent-Appellants Vs. 1A. Chandra Jayaweera, 2. Jayaweera Arachchige Chandra Podimenike All of Barandawatta, Henduwawa. Keppetiwalana Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli			Download
2021-11-05	SC/FR/257/2016	Gayani Amitha Wickramasekara, “Dhampalle Gedara” Welpitiya, Weligama. Petitioner Vs. 1. Dharmasena Dissanayake, Chairman, Public Service Commission. 2. Salam Abdul Waid, Member, Public Service Commission. 3. D. Shiranthi Wijayatilaka, Member, Public Service Commission. 4. Dr. Prathap Ramanujam, Member, Public Service Commission. 5. V. Jegarasasingam, Member, Public Service Commission. 6. Santi Nihal Seneviratne, Member, Public Service Commission. 7. S.Ranugge, Member, Public Service Commission. 8. D.L. Mendis, Member, Public Service Commission. 9. Sarath Jayathilaka, Member, Public Service Commission. 10. H.M.G. Senevirathne, Secretary, Public Service Commission. 1st to 10th Respondents are of No:177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 11. Mr. J.J. Ratnasiri, Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration And Management, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 12. Ms. K.V.P.M.J. Gamage, Director General of Combined Services, Ministry of Public Administration And Management, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 13. Hon. View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC J.			Download
2021-11-03	SC/APPEAL/45/2014	Gardihewa Kodikara Mallika Ratnapremi Fonseka No. 380B, Preeethipura, Kalalgoda, Pannipitya Applicant Vs. Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation Limited, No. 21, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. Respondent AND BETWEEN Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation Limited, No. 21, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. Respondent-Appellant Vs. Gardihewa Kodikara Mallika Ratnapremi Fonseka No. 380B, Preeethipura, Kalalgoda, Pannipitya Applicant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation Limited, No. 21, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. Respondent-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Gardihewa Kodikara Mallika Ratnapremi Fonseka No. 380B, Preeethipura, Kalalgoda, Pannipitya Applicant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2021-10-29	SC/APPEAL/26/2021	the matter of an Application for Special Leave to Appeal against the order of the Court of Appeal in case baring No. CA Writ 416/17 in terms of Article 128 (2) of the Constitution Mr. Jaliya Wickramasuriya, 6525, Riada Ct. Mc Donough, GA 30253, USA Petitioner Vs, 1. Hon. Thilak Marapana, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Colombo 01. 2. Prasad Kariyawasam, Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Colombo 01. 3. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents And Between Now Mr. Jaliya Wickramasuriya, 6525, Riada Ct. Mc Donough, GA 30253, USA Petitioner-Petitioner Vs, 1. Hon. Thilak Marapana, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Colombo 01. 1A. Hon. Dr. Sarath Amunugama, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Colombo 01. 1B. Hon. Dinesh Gunawardena, Minister of Foreign Relations, Silk Development, Employment and Labour Relations, Ministry of Foreign Relations, Republic Building, Sir Baron Jayathilaka Mawatha, Colombo 01. Substituted Respondent-Respondent 2. Prasad Kariyawasam, Secretary, Ministry of Forei View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2021-10-28	SC/APPEAL/19/2015	Dehiwattage Rukman Dinesh Fernando, No. 552/A, Dandugama Road, Ja-Ela. Applicant Vs. Union Apparel (Pvt) Ltd, No. 184/01, Negombo Road, Mudukatuwa, Marawila. Respondent AND BETWEEN Union Apparel (Pvt) Ltd, No. 184/01, Negombo Road, Mudukatuwa, Marawila. Respondent-Appellant Vs. Dehiwattage Rukman Dinesh Fernando, No. 552/A, Dandugama Road, Ja-Ela. Applicant AND NOW BETWEEN Union Apparel (Pvt) Ltd, No. 184/01, Negombo Road, Mudukatuwa, Marawila. Respondent-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Dehiwattage Rukman Dinesh Fernando, No. 552/A, Dandugama Road, Ja-Ela. Applicant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2021-10-28	SC/FR/270/2016	G.G.H.N. Gunasekera, 95/35, Sumudu Place, Samagi Mawatha, Magammana, Homagama. Petitioner Vs, 1. Chief Secretary, Provincial Council of the Western Province, Office of the Chief Secretary - Western Province, “Sravasthhi Mandiraya”, 32, Sri Marcus Fernando Mawatha, Colombo 07. Presently at No. 204, Western Provincial Council Office Complex, Level 4, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Battaramulla. 2. Deputy Chief Secretary (Planning), Provincial Council of the Western Province, Office of the Chief Secretary - Western Province, “Sravasthhi Mandiraya”, 32, Sri Marcus Fernando Mawatha, Colombo 07. Presently at No. 204, Western Provincial Council Office Complex, Level 4, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Battaramulla. 3. Director (Planning), Provincial Council of the Western Province, Office of the Chief Secretary - Western Province, “Sravasthhi Mandiraya”, 32, Sri Marcus Fernando Mawatha, Colombo 07. Presently at No. 204, Western Provincial Council Office Complex, Level 4, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Battaramulla. 4. Deputy C View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2021-10-27	SC/FR/52/2021	1. Welikadage Nadeeka Priyadarshani Perera 2. Ranmuthu Chamodya Hansani (Minor) 1st and 2nd Petitioners above, both of No. 43/6B, R.E. De Silva Road, Heppumulla, Ambalangoda. Petitioners Vs 1. Prof. G. L. Peiris Hon. Minister of Education 2. Prof. K. Kapila C. K. Perera Secretary, Ministry of Education 1st and 2nd Respondents above, both of Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 3. Hasitha Kesara Veththimuni, Principal, Dharmashoka Vidyalaya, Galle Road, Ambalangoda. 4. B. Anthony 5. T. M. Dayarathne 6. L. N. Madhavee Dedunu 7. N. Channa Jayampathy 4th to 7th Respondents above, all of Members of Interview Board (Admission to Year 1) C/O Dharmashoka Vidyalaya, Galle Road, Ambalangoda. 8. Gamini Jayawardhane 9. Rekha Mallwarachchi 10. J. P. R. Malkanthi 11. S. A. B. L. S. Arachchi 12. Rasika Prabodha Hendahewa 8th to 12th Respondents above, all of Members of Board of Appeal (Admission to Year 1) C/O Dharmashoka Vidyalaya, Galle Road, Ambalangoda. 13. Kithsiri Liyanagamage Director- National Schools, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2021-10-21	SC/APPEAL/101/2018	Waduge Sumanasiri Fernando, No. 7/1, D.S. Senanayake Mawatha, Panadura. Plaintiff. Vs. K. Dayananda Perera No. 315, Suduwella Road, Wekada, Panadura. Defendant. AND K. Dayananda Perera No. 315, Suduwella Road, Wekada, Panadura. Defendant – Appellant. Vs. Waduge Sumanasiri Fernando, No. 7/1, D.S. Senanayake Mawatha, Panadura. Plaintiff – Respondent. AND NOW BETWEEN K. Dayananda Perera No. 315, Suduwella Road, Wekada, Panadura. Defendant – Appellant – Petitioner. Vs. Waduge Sumanasiri Fernando, No. 7/1, D.S. Senanayake Mawatha, Panadura. Plaintiff – Respondent – Respondent. View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2021-10-21	SC/HC CALA/119/2015	Hettige Don Thilakaratne of Dodamulla, Galapatha. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Kumarapattiyage Don Allis Pieris of Panapitiya, Waskaduwa 2. Bamunuge Premawathie 3. Amarathungage Don Siriwardena 4. Kahawalage Nandawathie 5. Amarathungage Don Lionel 6. Hettige Don Allis Singho All of, Dodamulla, Galapatha. 7. Ariyapala Wilbert Amarathunga of Paraduwa, Galapatha. 8. Amarathungage Dona Pyaseeli 9. Amarathungage Don Karunasena 10. Amarathungage Don Cyril Buddhadasa 11. Amarathungage Don Chandradasa 12. Amarathungage Don Tissa 13. Amarathungage Don Gamini 14. Amarathungage Dona Susila Khanthi 15. Amarathungage Dona Jayanthi 16. Hettige Don Lilson 17. Amarathungage Dona Masilin Nona 18. Amarathungage Dona Karunawathie 19. Amarathungage Dona Wimalawathie 20. Amarathungage Don Carolis 21. Mallika Amarathunga 22. Lambert Amarathunga 23. Leelaratne Amarathunga 24. Pattiyawatage Henry Perera All of Dodamulla, Galapatha. Defendants AND BETWEEN Hettige Don Thilakaratne of Dodamulla, Galapatha. Plaintiff – Appellant Vs. 1. Kumara Patti View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2021-10-21	SC/HCLA/40/2018	Green Lanka Shipping Limited Green Lanka Tower, 46/46, Nawam Mawatha, Colombo 02. Evergreen Marine Corporation (Taiwan) Limited No.166, Sec 2, Mingsheng East Road, Taipei 104, Taiwan, Republic of China. Petitioner AND NOW Green Lanka Shipping Limited Green Lanka Tower, 46/46, Nawam Mawatha, Colombo 02. Company Ordered to be Wound Up - Petitioner VS 1. Evergreen Marine Corporation (Taiwan) Limited No.166, Sec 2, Mingsheng East Road, Taipei 104, Taiwan, Republic of China. Petitioner- Respondent 2. Mercantile Investments & Finance PLC No. 236, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Creditor- Respondent 3. G.J David SJMS Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 03, No.11, Castle Lane, Colombo 04. Liquidator- Respondent View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC. J.			Download
2021-10-21	SC/FR/46/2018	Gurusinghe Senevirathnage Tharindu Priyan Akalanka. No.18, Missaka Mawatha, Mihinthale. PETITIONER Vs 1. Wijesinghe, Police Sergeant 26852 Circuit Crime Investigation Division. Anuradhapura. 2. Dharmasiri, Police Sergeant 16876, Circuit Crime Investigation Division. Anuradhapura. 3. Wanninayake, Police Constable 6998, Circuit Crime Investigation Division, Anuradhapura. 4. Asanka, Police Constable 39938, Circuit Crime Investigation Division, Anuradhapura. 5. Udayantha, Police Constable 38491, Circuit Crime Investigation Division, Anuradhapura. 6. Amila, Police Constable 48059, Circuit Crime Investigation Division, Anuradhapura. 7. Sirimal, Police Constable 62953, Circuit Crime Investigation Division, Anuradhapura. 8. Uddhika, Police Constable Driver 33601, Circuit Crime Investigation Division, Anuradhapura. 9. Nawarathne, Chief Inspector, Circuit Crime Investigation Division, Anuradhapura. 10. Thilina Hewapathirana, Superintendent of Police, Circuit Crime Investigation Division, Anuradhapura. 11. Sandun Gahawa View More	Hon. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J			Download
2021-10-15	SC/APPEAL/66/2011	1. Irene Leticia Haththotuwa, 2. Gamage Don Mayurasinghe Haththotuwa, Both of No.162/10, Rajagiriya Road, Rajagiriya. Plaintiffs Vs. 1. Warnakulasuriya Wargakkarige Lalitha Fernando, 2. Hettiarachchige Upali Perera Wijegunasekara, (Deceased) Both of No.166, Rajagiriya Road, Rajagiriya. Defendants AND BETWEEN Warnakulasuriya Wargakkarige Lalitha Fernando, No.166, Rajagiriya Road, Rajagiriya. Defendant-Appellant Vs. 1. Irene Leticia Haththotuwa, 2. Gamage Don Mayurasinghe Haththotuwa, Both of No.162/10, Rajagiriya Road, Rajagiriya. Plaintiff-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Irene Leticia Haththotuwa, 2. Gamage Don Mayurasinghe Haththotuwa, (Deceased) 2A. Nadira Yasanthi Haththotuwa, Both of No.162/10, Rajagiriya Road, Rajagiriya. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellants Vs. Warnakulasuriya Wargakkarige Lalitha Fernando, No.166, Rajagiriya Road, Rajagiriya. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2021-10-15	SC/APPEAL/81/2020	Liyana Arachchige Sujatha Hatnapitiya Wijesundara, “Sujeewa”, Watappitiya, Parakaduwa. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Hatnapitiya Gamaethi Ralalage Elisabeth Weerasinghe, (Deceased) “Sinha Niwasa”, Watappitiya, Parakaduwa. 1A. Wijesinghe Arachchillage Pushpa Ranjanie Dharmaratne Wijesinghe, “Siri Niwasa”, Parakaduwa. 2. J.M. Dayananda, (Deceased) Pothgul Vihara Mawatha, Muwagama, Ratnapura. 2A. Manori Samarakoon, No.8, Pothgul Vihara Mawatha, Muwagama, Ratnapura. 3. Weerasinghe Arachchillage Pushpa Ranjanie Dharmaratne Wijesinghe, “Sisila Niwasa”, Parakaduwa. 4. Weerasinghe Arachchillage Sujatha Nandanie Weerasinghe, Pathberiya, Parakaduwa. 5. Kuruwita Gamalathge Priyanka Gamlath, Thalavitiya, Parakaduwa. Defendants AND BETWEEN Liyana Arachchige Sujatha Hatnapitiya Wijesundara, “Sujeewa”, Watappitiya, Parakaduwa. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1A. Wijesinghe Arachchillage Pushpa Ranjanie Dharmaratne Wijesinghe, “Siri Niwasa”, Parakaduwa. 2A. Manori Samarakoon, No.8, Pothgul Vihara Mawatha, Muwagama, Ratnapura. 3. Weerasinghe Arac View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2021-10-15	SC/APPEAL/32/2021	B.K. Winson De Paul Rodrigo, No. 73, Thimbirigasyaya, Hendala, Wattala. Plaintiff Vs. 1. K.D.H Ferdinandez, 2. Annette Fernando, Both of No. 3/12, Weliamuna Road, Hendala, Wattala. Defendants AND BETWEEN 1. K.D.H Ferdinandez, 2. Annette Fernando, Both of No. 3/12, Weliamuna Road, Hendala, Wattala. Defendant-Appellants Vs. B.K. Winson De Paul Rodrigo, No. 73, Thimbirigasyaya, Hendala, Wattala. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN B.K. Winson De Paul Rodrigo, (Deceased) No. 73, Thimbirigasyaya, Hendala, Wattala. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Bridget Rodrigo, No. 73, Thimbirigasyaya, Hendala, Wattala. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. K.D.H Ferdinandez, (Deceased) 1A. Ernard Treshiya Fernando, 2. Annette Fernando, All of No. 3/12, Weliamuna Road, Hendala, Wattala Defendant-Appellant-Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2021-10-15	SC/APPEAL/39/2021	1. T.I.G. Suriyaarachchi, 2. D.N. Suriyaarachchi, 3. P.N. Suriyaarachchi, All of Halpathota, Baddegama. Plaintiffs Vs. 1. L.C. Liyanage alias Gunawardena, No. 5/5A, Sri Naga Vihara Road, Pagoda, Nugegoda. 2. People’s Bank, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Defendants AND BETWEEN 1. T.I.G. Suriyaarachchi, 2. D.N. Suriyaarachchi, 3. P.N. Suriyaarachchi, All of Halpathota, Baddegama. Plaintiff-Appellants Vs. 1. L.C. Liyanage alias Gunawardena, No. 5/5A, Sri Naga Vihara Road, Pagoda, Nugegoda. 2. People’s Bank, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Defendant-Respondents AND BETWEEN 1. T.I.G. Suriyaarachchi Halpathota, Baddegama. 1st Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. L.C. Liyanage alias Gunawardena, No. 5/5A, Sri Naga Vihara Road, Pagoda, Nugegoda. 2. People’s Bank, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Defendant-Respondent- Respondents 2. D.N. Suriyaarachchi, 3. P.N. Suriyaarachchi, (Deceased) 3A. K.G. Ananda Ratnasiri, All of Halpathota, Baddegama. 2nd and 3rd Plaintiff View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2021-10-15	SC/APPEAL/101/2017	Sri Lanka Mahaweli Authority, No. 500, T.B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10. Plaintiff Vs. Dharshani Construction, No. 42, Pothgull Road, Polonnaruwa. Under the sole ownership of Amarasiri Masakorala, No. 18, Habarana Road, Polonnaruwa. Defendant AND BETWEEN Sri Lanka Mahaweli Authority, No. 500, T.B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. Dharshani Construction No. 42, Pothgull Road, Polonnaruwa. Under the sole ownership of Amarasiri Masakorala, No. 18, Habarana Road, Polonnaruwa. Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Dharshani Construction, No. 42, Pothgull Road, Polonnaruwa. Under the sole ownership of Amarasiri Masakorala, No. 18, Habarana Road, Polonnaruwa. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Sri Lanka Mahaweli Authority, No. 500, T.B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2021-10-15	SC/APPEAL/23/2021	Commercial Leasing and Finance PLC, (Formerly known and named as Commercial Leasing and Finance Limited) No. 68, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 04. Plaintiff Vs. Niranjan Canagasooriyam, No. 12, Palm Grove, Colombo 03. Defendant AND NOW BETWEEN Niranjan Canagasooriyam, No. 12, Palm Grove, Colombo 03. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Commercial Leasing and Finance PLC, (Formerly known and named as Commercial Leasing and Finance Limited) No. 68, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 04. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2021-10-15	SC/APPEAL/208/2014	G.B. Piyadasa, Baddewewa Udakella, Near the Primary Court, Embilipitiya. Plaintiff Vs. G.W. Dayasena, Near Concrete Yard, New Town, Embilipitiya. Defendant AND BETWEEN G.B. Piyadasa, Baddewewa Udakella, Near the Primary Court, Embilipitiya. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. G.W. Dayasena, Near Concrete Yard, New Town, Embilipitiya. Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN G.B. Piyadasa, Baddewewa Udakella, Near the Primary Court, Embilipitiya. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. G.W. Dayasena, Near Concrete Yard, New Town, Embilipitiya. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2021-10-15	SC/APPEAL/2/2019	1. Maligaspe Koralalage Arwin Peter Nanayakkara, (Deceased) 1A. Kariyawasam Hegoda Gamage Uma, Both of Panagamuwa, Wanchawala. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Epage Dayananda, 2. Epage Jeedrick, (Deceased) 2A. Mandalawattage Alisnona, 3. Dolamulla Kankanamge Selenchihamy, (Deceased) 3A. Maligaspe Koralage Bartin Nanayakkara, 4. M.K. Bartin Nanayakkara, Pinnaketiyawatta, Panagamuwa, Wanchawala. 5. Thomas Udugampala, Panagamuwa, Wanchawala. 6. S.P. Gunawardena, Panagamuwa, Kalahe, Wanchawala. 7. M.K.A. Nanayakkara, Pinnaketiyawatta, Panagamuwa, Wanchawala. 8. D.L. Karunawathie, Panagamuwa, Wanchawala. Presently at, No. 39/3, Morris Road, Milidduwa, Galle. Defendants AND BETWEEN 4. M.K. Bartin Nanayakkara, (Deceased) Pinnaketiyawatta, Panagamuwa, Wanchawala. 4A. Maligaspe Koralage Leelani Priyanthi, Kalahe, Wanchawala. 5. Thomas Udugampala, Panagamuwa, Wanchawala. 7. M.K.A. Nanayakkara, Pinnaketiyawatta, Panagamuwa, Wanchawala. 4th, 5th and 7th Defendant-Appellants Vs. 1A. Kariyawasam Hegoda Gamage Uma, Panagamuwa, Wanchawala. View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2021-10-15	SC/APPEAL/161/2019	1. Geekiyanage Sardha Maheshini Amarasinghe, 2. Dona Kusuma Sardhalatha Amarasinghe, Both of “Sisira”, Sisirawatte, Narammala. Plaintiffs Vs. 1. Geekiyanage Nirosha Prasadini Kahandawarachchi (nee Amarasinghe), 2. Chanaka Ravindra Kahandawarachchi, Both of No. 2, Esther Place, Park Road, Colombo 05. 3. Geekiyanage Thanuja Sanjeewani Amarasinghe, No.14, Vijitha Road, Nedimala, Dehiwala. 4. Commercial Bank, Bristol Street, Colombo 01. Defendants AND BETWEEN 1. Geekiyanage Nirosha Prasadini Kahandawarachchi (nee Amarasinghe), 2. Chanaka Ravindra Kahandawarachchi, Both of No. 2, Esther Place, Park Road, Colombo 05. 1st and 2nd Defendant-Appellants Vs. 1. Geekiyanage Sardha Maheshini Amarasinghe, 2. Dona Kusuma Sardhalatha Amarasinghe, Both of “Sisira”, Sisirawatte, Narammala. Plaintiff-Respondents 3. Geekiyanage Thanuja Sanjeewani Amarasinghe, No.14, Vijitha Road, Nedimala, Dehiwala. 4. Commercial Bank, Bristol Street, Colombo 01. 3rd and 4th Defendant-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Geekiyanage Sardha Maheshini A View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2021-10-15	SC/HC/CALA/36/2021	Ruwa Anouka De Silva, No. 79/14, Dr. C.W.W. Kannangara Mawatha, Colombo 07. Plaintiff Vs. Saman Karl Jayasinghe, No. 3, Park Avenue, Borella, Colombo 08. Presently at 1201, Canal Street Apt. 362, New Orleans, LA 70112, United States of America. Defendant AND BETWEEN Saman Karl Jayasinghe, No. 3, Park Avenue, Borella, Colombo 08. Presently at 1201, Canal Street Apt. 362, New Orleans, LA 70112, United States of America. Defendant-Petitioner Vs. Ruwa Anouka De Silva, No. 79/14, Dr. C.W.W. Kannangara Mawatha, Colombo 07. Plaintiff-Respondent Registrar General, Registrar General’s Department, No. 234/A3, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Battaramulla. Respondent AND BETWEEN Saman Karl Jayasinghe, No. 3, Park Avenue, Borella, Colombo 08. Presently at 1201, Canal Street Apt. 362, New Orleans, LA 70112, United States of America. Defendant-Petitioner-Petitioner Vs. Ruwa Anouka De Silva, No. 79/14, Dr. C.W.W. Kannangara Mawatha, Colombo 07. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Saman Karl Jayasinghe, No. 3, Park Av View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2021-10-14	SC/APPEAL/75/2012	Ceylon Bank Employees’ Union, (on behalf of B. D. Niroshan), No. 20, Temple Road, Maradana, Colombo 10. APPLICANT Vs. Hatton National Bank PLC, Head Office, No. 479, T. B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. RESPONDENT AND THEN BETWEEN Hatton National Bank PLC, Head Office, No. 479, T. B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. Ceylon Bank Employees’ Union, (on behalf of B. D. Niroshan), No. 20, Temple Road, Maradana, Colombo 10. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Ceylon Bank Employees’ Union, (on behalf of B. D. Niroshan), No. 20, Temple Road, Maradana, Colombo 10. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT -Vs- Hatton National Bank PLC, Head Office, No. 479, T. B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. RESPONDENT- APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2021-10-04	SC/APPEAL/28/2017	Mayandi Suhumaran, Ward No. 03, Udappu. Plaintiff Vs. Mookan Sathiyaseelan, Ward No. 03, Udappu. Defendant AND BETWEEN Mayandi Suhumaran, Ward No. 03, Udappu. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. Mookan Sathiyaseelan, Ward No. 03, Udappu. Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Mayandi Suhumaran, Ward No. 03, Udappu. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Mookan Sathiyaseelan, Ward No. 03, Udappu. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2021-10-04	SC/APPEAL/132/2010	Herath Mudiyanselage Sarath Chandra Herath, Postal Division of Mahawewa, Mahawewa Plaintiff Vs. 1. Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Kusumawathie, C/O, A.M. Jayathilaka, Postal Division of Kottaramulla, Paluwelgala. 2. Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Somawathie, Near the Aswedduma Temple, Postal Division of Kuliyapitiya. 3. Herath Mudiyanselage Gamini Herath, Postal Division of Welipennagahamulla, Gallahemulla. 4. Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Jayasinghe Ratnayake, Yakwila, Kithalahitiyawa. 5. Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Abeyarathana, Postal Division of Yakwila, Kithalahitiyawa. 6. Jahapu Appuhamilage Malanie Hemalatha, Postal Division of Yakwila, Kithalahitiyawa. 7. Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Priyanthika Mali Ratnayake, Postal Division of Yakwila, Kithalahitiyawa. 8. Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Inoka Shamalee Ratnayake, Postal Division of Yakwila, Kithalahitiyawa. 9. Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Harischandra, Postal Division of Yakwila, Kithalahitiyawa. 10. Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Lakshman Kithsiri Ratnayake, Postal Division of Yakwila, Ki View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2021-09-29	SC/APPEAL/222/2016	Kuruwita Arachchillage Jagath Kumara Abeythunga, A27, Galpatha, Ruwanwella. PLAINTIFF Vs 1. Kuruwita Arachchillage Jayatilake Kiriporuwa, Ampagala 2. Agas Pathirennehelage Gunaratna, Galpatha, Ruwanwella. DEFENDANTS AND BETWEEN 1. Kuruwita Arachchillage Jayatilake Kiriporuwa, Ampagala 2. Agas Pathirennehelage Gunaratna, Galpatha, Ruwanwella. DEFENDANT- APELLANTS Vs Kuruwita Arachchillage Jagath Kumara Abeythunga, A27, Galpatha, Ruwanwella. PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Kuruwita Arachchillage Jayatilake Kiriporuwa, Ampagala 2. Agas Pathirennehelage Gunaratna, Galpatha, Ruwanwella. DEFENDANT-APELLANTS- APPELLANTS Vs Kuruwita Arachchillage Jagath Kumara Abeythunga, A27, Galpatha, Ruwanwella. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT View More	Hon. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J			Download
2021-09-29	SC/APPEAL/55/2016	1. Wickramasinghe Mudiyanselage Podimenike. 2. Wickramasinghe Mudiyanselage Menikhamy. 3. Wickramasinghe Mudiyanselage Dolimenika. All of Hanthihawa, Halmillawewa. PLAINTIFFS -VS- 1. Wickramasinghe Mudiyanselage Peiris Singho. 2. Wickramasinghe Mudiyanselage Podinona 3. Wickramasinghe Mudiyanselage Kirimenika 4. Wickramasinghe Mudiyanselage Piyadasa 5. Wickramasinghe Mudiyanselage Jinadasa 6. Wickramasinghe Mudiyanselage Dingirimenika 7. Wasala Mudiyanselage Rosalin Nona. All of Hanthihawa, Halmillawewa. DEFENDANTS AND BETWEEN 2. Wickramasinghe Mudiyanselage Menikhamy. 3. Wickramasinghe Mudiyanselage Dolimenika. All of Hanthihawa, Halmillawewa. 2ND AND 3RD PLAINTIFFS - APPELLANTS -VS- 1. Wickramasinghe Mudiyanselage Podimenike. (Deceased) 1A. Rajapaksha Mudiyanselage Dassanayake Both of Hanthihawa, Halmillawewa SUBSTITUTED 1ST PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENT 1. Wickramasinghe Mudiyanselage Peiris Singho (Deceased). 1A. Wasala Mudiyanselage Rosalin Nona 2. Wickramasinghe Mudiyanselage Podinona 3. Wickramasinghe Mudiyans View More	Hon. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.			Download
2021-08-06	SC/APPEAL/132/2016	Suriyarachchige Raju of No. 4, Suriyagama, Haburugala Applicant Vs. Barberyn Reef Hotel Ltd., Beruwala Respondent And Barberyn Reef Hotel Ltd., Beruwala Respondent-Appellant Vs. Suriyarachchige Raju of No. 4, Suriyagama, Haburugala Applicant-Respondent And Now Suriyarachchige Raju of No. 4, Suriyagama, Haburugala Applicant-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Barberyn Reef Hotel Ltd., Beruwala Respondent-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2021-08-06	SC/FR/104/2016	Kasthuri Achchilage Chamarie Samaradisa No. 1, Algamawatta, Danowita PETITIONER VS. 1. Prasantha Welikala Chief Inspector of Police Officer in Charge Police Station Nittambuwa 2. P.C. 39009 Priyantha 3. P.C. 67518 Ranil 4. P.C. 77184 Dinuka 5. P.C. 40134 Ruwan 6. Tharindu Kokawala Sub Inspector All of Nittambuwa Police Station Nittambuwa 7. N.K Ilangakoon 7A. Pujith Jayasundara Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters Colombo 01 8. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12 RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J			Download
2021-08-04	SC/APPEAL/191/2016	Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Wennappuwa. Plaintiff Vs. Wijesinghe Dewage Lalith Indrawansa Rupasinghe, ‘Nishanthi Arts’, Suhadha Mawatha, Potuwila, Madampe. Accused AND NOW BETWEEN Wijesinghe Dewage Lalith Indrawansa Rupasinghe, ‘Nishanthi Arts’, Suhadha Mawatha, Potuwila, Madampe. Petitioner-Petitioner Vs. 1. Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Wennappuwa. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 2. Attorney Genaral, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2021-08-03	SC/APPEAL/31/2019	Pathirana Mudiyanselage Leelawathie, Divula Watta Kehelwathugoda, Dewalegama. PLAINTIFF (Deceased) 1a. Vitharanage Indunil Priyantha, 1b. Vitharanage Biso Menike, 1c. Vithranage Hiran, All of Kehelwathugoda, Dewalegama. 1d. Vitharanage Anura, Horanapola, Kuliyapitiya. 1e. Vitharanage Nadeera, Kehelwathugoda, Dewalegama. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFFS Vs. Peramuna Gamlath Ralalage Gunerathne, Divula Watta, Kehelwathugoda, Dewalegama. DEFENDANT (Deceased) 1a. Soma Gunarathne, 1b. Pushpa Kumuduni Kumari Gunarathne, 1c. Chandra Sisira Kumara Gunarathne, 1d. Geethani Kumari Gunarathne, 1e. Damayanthi Kumari Gunarathne. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANTS AND BETWEEN (In the Provincial High Court of Sabaragamuwa) 1a. Soma Gunarathne, 1b. Pushpa Kumuduni Kumari Gunarathne, 1c. Chandra Sisira Kumara Gunarathne, 1d. Geethani Kumari Gunarathne, 1e. Damayanthi Kumari Gunarathne. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS Vs. 1a. Vitharanage Indunil Priyantha, 1b. Vitharanage Biso Menike, 1c. Vitharanage Hiran, All of Kehelwathugoda, Dewalegama. 1d. V View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2021-07-29	SC/FR/257/2018	Charith Eshanka Hopwood, No. 60/5, Kerawalapitiya Road, Hendala, Wattala. Petitioner Vs. 1. Inspector of Police Gunawardena, Officer-in-Charge, Minor Offences Branch, Police Station, Ragama. 2. Chief Inspector of Police Gunasekera, (Acting Officer-in-Charge), Police Station, Ragama. 3. Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 4. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne			Download
2021-07-27	SC/HC CALA/51/2017	P. M. Dissanayake, Deputy Commissioner, Unit 14, Department of Inland Revenue, Colombo 02. Complainant Vs. Gifuulanka Motors (Pvt.) Limited, No. 50/2, Vijaya Road, Gampaha. Respondent And Between Gifuulanka Motors (Pvt.) Limited, No. 50/2, Vijaya Road, Gampaha. Respondent-Petitioner Vs. P. M. Dissanayake, Deputy Commissioner, Unit 14, Department of Inland Revenue, Colombo 02. Complainant-Respondent Kalyani Dahanayake, Commissioner General of Inland Revenue, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Respondent And Now Between Gifuulanka Motors (Pvt.) Limited, No. 50/2, Vijaya Road, Gampaha. Respondent-Petitioner-Petitioner Vs. P. M. Dissanayake, Deputy Commissioner, Unit 14, Department of Inland Revenue, Colombo 02. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent Ivan Dissanayake, Commissioner General of Inland Revenue, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2021-07-26	SC/FR/388/2010	Herath Mudiyanselage Wasantha Anura Kumara of Thammitagama, Nagollagama. Petitioner Vs. 1. Headquarters Inspector Channa Abeyratne Police Station, Maho. 2. Sub-Inspector of Police Ananda Police Station, Maho. 3. Police Sergeant 55008 Asanka Police Station, Maho. 4. Police Constable 55037 Navaratne Police Station, Maho. 5. Deputy Inspector General of Police North Western Province, D. I. G’s Office, Kurunegala. 6. Mahinda Balasuriya, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Fort, Colombo 1. 7. The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2021-07-15	SC/CONT/3/2016	1) Hee Jung Kim Alias Kim Hee Jung No. 51A-24/2-23rd Floor Empire Tower Baybrooke Place, Colombo 2 And also No 47, Alexandra Place, Colombo 07 And Hoiryong Poonglin Iwant Apt 203- 701 Howon-dong 308 139 Uijeongbusi Kyeongkido South Korea 2) Some Rupali Jayasinghe No 8/5, Pansalahena Road Kolonnawa Petitioners Vs Don Bandumali Jayasinghe [nee Welikala] No. 40/19 Longden Place, Colombo 7 Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2021-07-14	SC/FR/449/2017	1. Jayamuni Anuradha Nilmini Vijesekara, “Mihinish” 259/1/2B, Rassapana Road, Ihala Bomiriya, Kaduwela. PETITIONER -Vs- 1. Sumedha Thushanga, Police Constable, Peiliyagoda Police Station, Peliyagoda. 2. Indika Priyadharshana, Police Constable, Peiliyagoda Police Station, Peliyagoda. 3. Chanaka Rukman, Police Constable, Peiliyagoda Police Station, Peliyagoda. 4. Ajith Jayalal, Police Constable, Peiliyagoda Police Station, Peliyagoda. 5. Lahiru Roshan, Police Constable, Peiliyagoda Police Station, Peliyagoda. 6. Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Western Province, Colombo 01 7. Hon. Attorney-General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp Street, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2021-07-09	SC/APPEAL/133/2016	Jathika Sevaka Sangamaya, (On behalf of P. Titus Jayantha) No. 416, Kotte Road, Pitakotte. APPLICANT -VS- Sri Lanka Transport Board, No.200, Kirula Road, Colombo 05. RESPONDENT AND Sri Lanka Transport Board, No.200, Kirula Road, Colombo 05. RESPONDENT- APPELLANT -VS- Jathika Sevaka Sangamaya, (On behalf of P. Titus Jayantha) No. 416, Kotte Road, Pitakotte. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN P. Titus Jayantha. Kudagammana, Giriulla. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT- APPELLANT -VS- Sri Lanka Transport Board, No.200, Kirula Road, Colombo 05. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT- RESPONDENT View More	Hon. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J			Download
2021-07-09	SC/APPEAL/43/2019	Rajagopal Rajendran, No. 84, Main Street, Norwood. As the Power of Attorney holder of the Licensee of Udaya Wine Stores, namely Liyanage Charitha, No. 14, Gouravilla Colony, Upcot. PETITIONER Vs 1. D.G.M.V. Hapuarachchi, Director General of Excise, Department of Excise, No. 34, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 2. Wasantha Dissanayake, Deputy Commissioner of Excise, No. 34, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN Rajagopal Rajendran, No. 84, Main Street, Norwood. As the Power of Attorney holder of the Licensee of Udaya Wine Stores, namely Liyanage Charitha, No. 14, Gouravilla Colony, Upcot. PETITIONER-APPELLANT VS 1. D.G.M.V. Hapuarachchi, Commissioner General of Excise, Department of Excise, No. 34, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. L.K.G. Gunawardane, Commissioner General of Excise, Department of Excise, No. 34, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 1A ADDED RESPONDENTRESPONDENT Mrs. K.H.A. Meegasmulla, Commissioner General of Excise, Department of Excise, No. 34, W.A.D View More	Hon. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J			Download
2021-07-09	SC/APPEAL/61/2020	Dhinayadura Jinadasa, Moonugoda Road, Seenigama, Hikkaduwa Applicant Vs. The Trustee, Sri Devol, Maha Devalaya, Seenigama, Hikkaduwa. Respondent And Between Dhisenthuwa Handi Sarath, The Trustee, Sri Devol, Maha Devalaya, Seenigama, Hikkaduwa. Respondent-Appellant Vs. Dhinayadura Jinadasa, Moonugoda Road, Seenigama, Hikkaduwa Applicant-Respondent And Now Between Dhinayadura Jinadasa, Moonugoda Road, Seenigama, Hikkaduwa Applicant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Dhisenthuwa Handi Sarath, The Trustee, Sri Devol, Maha Devalaya, Seenigama, Hikkaduwa. Respondent-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2021-07-09	SC/FR/187/2014	1. D. H. B. Edirisinghe 2/57, Melpati watta, Kotawala, Kaduwela. 2. P. M. Ratnapala 87, Bellantara Road, Dehiwala. 3. M. D. S. A. Perera Pahala Kosgama, Kosgama. 4. N. M. A. Amaradewa 232/6, Imaduwa Road, Kurunduwatte, Ahangama. 5. W. P. S. K. Fernando Mount Pleasant, Hapugala, Wakwella. 6. L. P. S. Kumara 62-3, Ginthota Road, Kalegana, Galle. 7. P. Ariyasena 1st Lane, Kalutara Road, Moranthuduwa. 8. Sri Lanka Accountants’ Service Association, 335-3/1, Olcott Mawatha, Colombo 10. Petitioners Vs, 1. B. M. S. Batagoda Former Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, Ministry of Finance and Planning the Secretariat, Colombo 01. 2. Dayasiri Fernando Former Chairman, Public Service Commission, No, 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 3. Palitha M. Kumarasinghe Former Member of the Public Service Commission, No, 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 4. Sirimavo A. Wijerathne Former Member of the Public Service Commission, No, 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 5. M. D. W. Ariyawansa Former Member of the View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC			Download
2021-07-07	SC/APPEAL/159/2018	Agampodi Wijepala de Soyza, Katuwila, Ahungalla. ACCUSED - APPELLANT – APPELLANT -Vs- 1. Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Ahungalla. COMPLAINANT - RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT 2. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2021-07-07	SC/HCLA/50/2020	Kaluappu Hannadi Lalith Priyantha 58/5, Nellammahara Road, Godagamuwa, Maharagama. APPLICANT Vs. Asia Broadcasting Corporation (Private) Limited Level 35 and 37, East Tower, World Trade Center, Colombo 01. RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN Asia Broadcasting Corporation (Private) Limited Level 35 and 37, East Tower, World Trade Center, Colombo 01. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. Kaluappu Hannadi Lalith Priyantha 58/5, Nellammahara Road, Godagamuwa, Maharagama. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Asia Broadcasting Corporation (Private) Limited Level 35 and 37, East Tower, World Trade Center, Colombo 01. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-PETITIONER -Vs- Kaluappu Hannadi Lalith Priyantha 58/5, Nellammahara Road, Godagamuwa, Maharagama. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2021-07-06	SC/APPEAL/198/2012	Vidanalage Dingiri Banda (Deceased), of Kurunegoda, Kotiyakumbura. Plaintiff Vithanalage Senathileke of Kurunegoda, Kotiyakumbura. Substituted Plaintiff Vs. 1. Henaka Ralalage Punchi Banda alias Vijitha Bandara, Kurunegoda, Kotiyakumbura. 2. Henaka Ralalage Podi Appuhamy (Deceased), No. 29, Kurunegoda, Kotiyakumbura. 2A. Henaka Ralalage Wimalasiri Menike, No. D27, Kurunegoda, Kotiyakumbura. 3. V.P.C. Vitharana, No. D34, Kurunegoda, Kotiyakumbura. 4. Henaka Ralalage Somarathne, No. D33, Kurunegoda, Kotiyakumbura. 5. Henaka Ralalage Wijeratne (Deceased), No. D33/1, Kurunegoda, Kotiyakumbura. 5A. Henka Ralalage Sriyani Wijeratne, No. 400/1, Kadurugashena, Hiyare East, Hiyare, Galle. 6. Henaka Ralalage Dingiri Appuhamy (Deceased), Kurunegoda, Kotiyakumbura. 6A. Henaka Ralalage Piyarathne, Kurunegoda, Kotiyakumbura. 7. Henaka Ralalage Mohotti Appuhamy (Deceased), Kurunegoda, Kotiyakumbura. 7A. Henaka Ralalage Kamalawathie, No. D29, Kurunegoda, Kotiyakumbura. 8. Henaka Ralalage Gunathilake, Kurunegoda, Kotiyakumbur View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2021-07-06	SC/FR/452/2011	Peduru Arachchige Janaka Pushpakumara (LL 27759), No.29, Sisil Uyana, Panamura Road, Thelbaduara, Embilipitiya. Petitioner Vs. 1. Director General, (Electric and Electronic Division) Sri Lanka Navy Headquarters, Colombo 01. 2. Director General, (Personnel and Training) Sri Lanka Navy Headquarters, Colombo 01. 3. Commander of the Navy, Sri Lanka Navy Headquarters, Colombo 01. 4. Lieutenant Commander T.R. Dahanayake, Sri Lanka Navy Headquarters, Colombo 01. 5. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12 Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2021-06-30	SC/FR/94/2013	1. Hettiarachchige Srimathi Devika Tissera 2. Welgamage Yoshika Nadishani Perera 3. Welgamage Vishan Madusha Perera All of No. 505/B, Yakkaduwa, Ja-Ela and No. 441/B, Niwandama, Ja-Ela Petitioners Vs. 1. Police Constable Madagammeddegedara Nirosha Sanjeewa Jayasekara (88696), Police Station, Ja-Ela. 2. Police Constable Rajakaruna Mudiyanselage Saman Sanjeewa Bandara (79186), Police Station, Ja-Ela. 3. Police Constable Fernando (29644), Police Station, Ja-Ela. 4. Inspector of Police Weerathilake, Officer-in-Charge (Minor Offences Branch), Police Station, Ja-Ela. 5. Chief Inspector Chandana Kandewatta, Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Ja-Ela. 6. Udaya Hemantha, Assistant Superintendent of Police (Peliyagoda), ASP’s Office, Peliyagoda. 7. Senior Superintendent of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 8. The Honourable Attorney General, Department of the Attorney General, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2021-06-30	SC/CHC APPEAL/3/2006	Viacom International Inc., 1515, Broadway, New York, United States of America. Plaintiff Vs. 1. The Maharaja Organisation Limited, No.146, Dawson Street, Colombo 02. 2. The Director General of Intellectual Property, 3rd Floor, “Samagam Medura”, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. Defendants AND NOW BETWEEN The Maharaja Organisation Limited, No.146, Dawson Street, Colombo 02. 1st Defendant-Appellant Vs. 1. Viacom International Inc., 1515, Broadway, New York, United States of America. Plaintiff-1st Respondent 2. The Director General of Intellectual Property, 3rd Floor, “Samagam Medura”, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2nd Defendant-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2021-06-30	SC/APPEAL/34/2017	Sri Lanka National Cooperative Council Limited No.455, Cooperative House, Galle Road, Colombo 03 Plaintiff Vs 1. Perera Ramanayake Don Vipula Perera No 60/34, Yadessa Cemetery Road, Siddamulla, Piliyandala 2. Radiant Trading Company (Private) Limited No 1 B, 1-1-10, 9th Lane Colombo 3 3. Radiant AC Cabs (Private) Limited No 1 B, 1-1-10, 9th Lane Colombo 03 4. Lakpathirana Ajith Rohana Kumara No.24/4, Gammana Road, Maharagama 5. Gurunnaselage Don Dulani Chandima Wijesinghe No.60/34, Yadessa Cemetery Road Siddamulla, Piliyandala 6. Ranwalage Sudath Priyantha No.195/32, Weliwita Road, Malabe Defendants AND NOW BETWEEN Sri Lanka National Cooperative Council Limited No.455, Cooperative House, Galle Road, Colombo 03 Plaintiff-Petitioner-Appellant Vs 1. Perera Ramanayake Don Vipula Perera No 60/34, Yadessa Cemetery Road, Siddamulla, Piliyandala 2. Radiant Trading Company (Private) Limited No 1 B, 1-1-10, 9th Lane Colombo 3 3. Radiant AC Cabs (Private) Limited No 1 B, 1-1-10, 9th Lane Colombo 03 4. Lakpathirana Ajith View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2021-06-30	SC/CHC APPEAL/4/2002	The Maharaja Organisation Limited, No.146, Dawson Street, Colombo 02. Petitioner Vs. 1. Viacom International Inc., 1515, Broadway, New York, United States of America. 2. The Director General of Intellectual Property, “Samagam Medura”, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN The Maharaja Organisation Limited, No.146, Dawson Street, Colombo 02. Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Viacom International Inc., 1515, Broadway, New York, United States of America. 2. The Director General of Intellectual Property, “Samagam Medura”, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2021-06-30	SC/CHC APPEAL/28/2003	Viacom International Inc., 1515, Broadway, New York, United States of America. Plaintiff Vs. 1. The Maharaja Organisation Limited, No.146, Dawson Street, Colombo 02. 2. The Director General of Intellectual Property, 3rd Floor, “Samagam Medura”, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. Defendants AND NOW BETWEEN Viacom International Inc., 1515, Broadway, New York, United States of America. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. The Maharaja Organisation Limited, No.146, Dawson Street, Colombo 02. 2 The Director General of Intellectual Property, 3rd Floor, “Samagam Medura”, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. Defendant-Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2021-06-28	SC/APPEAL/155/2014	Officer in Charge Special Crimes Division, Colombo. Complainant vs. Mananage Susil Dharmapala No. 132C, Pitumpe Road, Padukka. Accused AND BETWEEN Mananage Susil Dharmapala No. 132C, Pitumpe Road, Padukka. Accused Appellant vs Officer in Charge Special Crimes Division, Colombo. Complainant Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Mananage Susil Dharmapala No. 132C, Pitumpe Road, Padukka. Accused Appellant Appellant vs. Officer in Charge Special Crimes Division, Colombo. Complainant Respondent Respondent View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J			Download
2021-06-28	SC/APPEAL/70/2017	Pannipitiya Medical Services (Pvt.) Ltd. No. 334/4, Hokandara Road, Moraketiya, Pannipitia. Plaintiff Vs. Nadeeka Udayani Dharmapala No. 61/4, Thapassarakanda, Kalawana. Defendant AND Nadeeka Udayani Dharmapala No. 61/4, Thapassarakanda, Kalawana. Defendant – Appellant Vs. Pannipitiya Medical Services (Pvt.) Ltd. No. 334/4, Hokandara Road, Moraketiya, Pannipitia. Plaintiff – Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Pannipitiya Medical Services (Pvt.) Ltd. No. 334/4, Hokandara Road, Moraketiya, Pannipitia. Plaintiff – Respondent - Appellant Vs. Nadeeka Udayani Dharmapala No. 61/4, Thapassarakanda, Kalawana. Defendant – Appellant - Respondent View More	Hon. YASANTHA KODAGODA, PC, J.			Download
2021-06-23	SC/FR/216/2014	W. A. D. S. Wanasinghe, Hanthinawa, Halmillawewa Kurunegala. PETITIONER -Vs- 01. Kamal Paliskara Assistant Superintendent of Police (II) Nugegoda. 02. Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 03. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2021-06-23	SC/CHC APPEAL/14/2014	People’s Merchant PLC, (formerly People’s Merchant Bank PLC), No. 21, Navam Mawatha, Colombo 03. PETITIONER -Vs- Udaya Saman Subhasinghe, No. 125/5/1, Monarathenna Watta, Palliya Road, Bogamuwa, Yakkala. RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Udaya Saman Subhasinghe, No. 125/5/1, Monarathenna Watta, Palliya Road, Bogamuwa, Yakkala. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT -Vs- People’s Merchant PLC, (formerly People’s Merchant Bank PLC), No. 21, Navam Mawatha, Colombo 03. PETITIONER-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2021-06-18	SC/APPEAL/93/2017	Geethani Nilushika Samarawickrama, Polgedara, Denipitiya. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Waruni Harshani Samarawickrama, No. 15/2, Gomas Park, Colombo 05. 2. Dilhar Agasha Jinadasa, No. 260, Park Road, Colombo 05. 3. Nishamani Serosha Jinadasa, No. 260, Park Road, Colombo 05. 4. Indrani Samarawickrama, 5. Nanda Samarawickrama, 6. Adarawathi Samarawickrama, 7. Malani Samarawickrama, 8. Eujin Samarawickrama, 9. Kananke Suriarachchi Liyanage Indika Thilak Kumara, All of Elagawa Gedara, Eluwawila, Denipitiya. 10. Nihal Ranjith Samarawickrama, No. 13/3, Sri Mahabodhi Road, Dehiwala. Defendants AND BETWEEN 4. Indrani Samarawickrama, 5. Nanda Samarawickrama, 6. Adarawathi Samarawickrama, 7. Malani Samarawickrama, 8. Eujin Samarawickrama, 9. Kananke Suriarachchi Liyanage Indika Thilak Kumara, All of Elagawa Gedara, Eluwawila, Denipitiya. 10. Nihal Ranjith Samarawickrama, No. 13/3, Sri Mahabodhi Road, Dehiwala. 4th-10th Defendant-Petitioners Vs. Geethani Nilushika Samarawickrama, Polgedara, Denipitiya. Plaintiff-Respondent 1. Warun View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2021-06-17	SC/APPEAL/154/2016	Lulwala Hewayalage Tilanganee Weerasuriya, 182/A/1 Suraweera Mawatha, Walpola, Ragama. 1b and 2a Substituted Defendants- Respondents-Petitioner Vs. Kirigalbadage Gamini Chandrasena No. 186, Boystown Road, Walpola, Batuwatte. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC			Download
2021-06-10	SC/APPEAL/138/2016	1. Ambawatta Hewage Sisira Kumara, 2. Habaraduwa Pandigamage Mallika, 3. Ambawatta Hewage Chamila Kumari, All of ‘Athkam Niwasa’, Juwanpullegewatta, Petiyagoda, Kelaniya. Plaintiffs Vs. 1. Ambawatta Hewage Dayliya Kanthi, 2. Buluwa Hewage Ratnasiri, Both of No. 5, Melagoda, Wanchawala, Galle. Defendants AND BETWEEN 1. Ambawatta Hewage Sisira Kumara, 2. Habaraduwa Pandigamage Mallika, 3. Ambawatta Hewage Chamila Kumari, All of ‘Athkam Niwasa’, Juwanpullegewatta, Petiyagoda, Kelaniya. Plaintiff-Appellants Vs. 1. Ambawatta Hewage Dayliya Kanthi, 2. Buluwa Hewage Ratnasiri, Both of No. 5, Melagoda, Wanchawala, Galle. Defendant-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Ambawatta Hewage Sisira Kumara, 2. Habaraduwa Pandigamage Mallika, 3. Ambawatta Hewage Chamila Kumari, All of ‘Athkam Niwasa’, Juwanpullegewatta, Petiyagoda, Kelaniya. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellants Vs. 1. Ambawatta Hewage Dayliya Kanthi, 2. Buluwa Hewage Ratnasiri, Both of No. 5, Melagoda, Wanchawala, Galle. Defendant-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2021-06-10	SC/APPEAL/52/2018	1. Herath Mudiyanselage Podi Nilame, 2. Herath Mudiyanselage Seneviratne, (Deceased) 2A. H.M. Podinilame, All of Bogala Road, Kotiyakumbura. Plaintiffs Vs. 1. Walpola Kankanamalage Gunarathne of Morawawka, Ruwanwella. 2. E.N. Margret Nona of Pattiyamulla, Kotiyakumbura. (Deceased) 2A. Hapuarachchilage Susantha Rohan Hapuarachchi of Pattiyamulla, Kotiyakumbura. 3. Dadagama Ralalage Sumanawathie Menike of Ampe, Kotiyakumbura. 4. Kanthi Asoka of Ampe, Kotiyakumbura. 5. Hapuarachchilage Susantha Rohan Hapuarachchi of Pattiyamulla, Kotiyakumbura. 6. H.M. Chandrasekara of No. 20, Parawatte Janapadaya, Kotiyakumbura. 7. H.M. Chandrawathie Herath, C/O W.A. Gunathilake of Delgamuwa, Warakapola. 8. H.M. Sumanawathie, C/O S.S. Chandrasekara of No. 20, Parawatta Janapadaya, Kotiyakumbura. 9. H.M. Anula Herath, C/O V.G.R.S. Raja of Udapelpita, Weragala, Warakapola. 10. M.N. Saliya Niroshane Herath of No. 10965, Police Official Quarters, Peduru Kotuwa, Trincomalee. Defendants AND BETWEEN 2A. Hapuarachchilage Susantha Rohan View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2021-06-10	SC/APPEAL/53/2016	1. Vithanage Dona Sreema Sarani Swarnalatha Perera, No. 10/B 105/10, Mattegoda Niwasa Housing Scheme, Polgasowita. 2. Violet Gunawickrema, “Dimuthu”, Palatuwa, Malimbada. Plaintiffs Vs. 1. Kamalawathie Munasinghe alias M.A. Kamalawathie, 2. W.D. Padmasiri alias Hemasiri Perera, Both of No. C-B 12/14, Ranpokunagama, Nittambuwa. 3. Sithy Raleena Siddique, No. 146/18, Aramaya Road, Dematagoda. Defendants AND BETWEEN 1. Kamalawathie Munasinghe alias M.A. Kamalawathie, (deceased) 1A. W.D. Padmasiri alias Hemasiri Perera, No. C-B 12/14, Ranpokunagama, Nittambuwa. 2. W.D. Padmasiri alias Hemasiri Perera, No. C-B 12/14, Ranpokunagama, Nittambuwa. 3. Sithy Raleena Siddique, No. 114, Kollonnawa Road, Dematagoda. Defendant-Petitioners Vs. 1. Vithanage Dona Sreema Sarani Swarnalatha Perera, No. 10/B 105/10, Mattegoda Housing Scheme, Polgasowita. 2. Violet Gunawickrema, “Dimuthu”, Palatuwa, Malimbada. Plaintiff-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Kamalawathie Munasinghe alias M.A. Kamalawathie, (deceased) 1A. W.D. Padmasiri al View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2021-06-10	SC/APPEAL/57/2019	Algama Appuhamylage Don Wasantha Lankanayake, Bayawa, Awulegama. Plaintiff Vs. Algama Appuhamylage Don Ananda Algama, Hingurugamuwa, Awulegama. Defendant AND BETWEEN Algama Appuhamylage Don Wasantha Lankanayake, Bayawa, Awulegama. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. Algama Appuhamylage Don Ananda Algama, Hingurugamuwa, Awulegama. Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Algama Appuhamylage Don Ananda Algama, Hingurugamuwa, Awulegama. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Algama Appuhamylage Don Wasantha Lankanayake, Bayawa, Awulegama. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2021-06-10	SC/APPEAL/75/2013	Weerasinghe Thilakaratne, Indilanda, Galpatha. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Mathota Arachchige Shiran Mahinda, Indilanda, Galpatha. 2. Vinietha Chandralatha Edussuriya, Dapiligoda, Agalawatta. Defendants AND BETWEEN 1. Mathota Arachchige Shiran Mahinda, Indilanda, Galpatha. 2. Vinietha Chandralatha Edussuriya, Dapiligoda, Agalawatta. Defendant-Appellants Vs. Weerasinghe Thilakaratne, Indilanda, Galpatha. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Weerasinghe Thilakaratne, Indilanda, Galpatha. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. Mathota Arachchige Shiran Mahinda, (Deceased) 1A. Gamage Dona Kamani Chandra Kumari, Both of Indilanda, Galpatha. 2. Vinietha Chandralatha Edussuriya, Dapiligoda, Agalawatta. Defendant-Appellant-Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2021-06-02	SC/APPEAL/118/2018	Walpola Liyanage Premarathne, No. 131/1, Udamadura, Talawa. Plaintiff Vs. Abeydeera Arachchige Charlotte Kalamawathie No. 15, Nildannahinna Defendant AND Abeydeera Arachchige Charlotte Kalamawathie No. 15, Nildannahinna Defendant – Appellant Vs. Walpola Arachchige Premarathne, No. 131/1, Udamadura, Talawa. Plaintiff – Respondent AND Abeydeera Arachchige Charlotte Kalamawathie No. 15, Nildannahinna Defendant – Appellant - Petitioner Vs. Walpola Arachchige Premarathne, No. 131/1, Udamadura, Talawa. Plaintiff – Respondent – Respondent AND NOW Abeydeera Arachchige Charlotte Kalamawathie No. 15, Nildannahinna Defendant – Appellant – Appellant Vs. Walpola Arachchige Premarathne, No. 131/1, Udamadura, Talawa. Plaintiff – Respondent - Respondent (Deceased) 1a. M.M.G. Karunawathie, 1b. W.L. Nandawathie, 1c. W.L. Rupawathie, 1d. W.L. Kamalawathie, 1e. W.L. Ariyawathie 1f. W.L. Gunarathne, 1g. W.L. Thusarika Kumari, 1h. W.L. Chandra Kumari, 1i. W.L. Lalitha Kumari, 1j. W.L. Devika Kumari All at No. 48, Udamadura, Talawa View More	Hon. Murdu N. B. Fernando, PC J,			Download
2021-06-02	SC/APPEAL/127/2014	Yasasiri Kasturiarachchi No.19, Nugegoda Road, Pepiliyana, Boralasgamuwa. Plaintiff -Vs- Peoples’ Bank No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Defendant AND BETWEEN Yasasiri Kasturiarachchi No.19, Nugegoda Road, Pepiliyana, Boralasgamuwa. Plaintiff-Petitioner -Vs- People’s Bank No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Defendant- Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Yasasiri Kasturiarachchi No.19, Nugegoda Road, Pepiliyana, Boralasgamuwa. Plaintiff- Petitioner- Petitioner/ Appellant -Vs- People’s Bank No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC. J.			Download
2021-06-02	SC/APPEAL/128/2016	Keragalage Aron Perera (Deceased), Nakadamulla, Ranala. Plaintiff Pathmalatha Keragala, Nakadamulla, Ranala. Substituted Plaintiff Vs. 1. Meeriyagallage Soidahami (Deceased), Nakadamulla, Ranala. 1A. Keragalage Caroline Perera (Deceased), No. 43, Sumanasekarapura, Walipillawa, Dadigamuwa. 1B. M.D. Somasiri, No. 43, Sumanasekarapura, Walipillawa, Dadigamuwa. 2. Keragalage Luwis Singho, Nakadamulla, Ranala. 3. Keragalage Misihami, Nakadamulla, Ranala. 4. Keragalage Asinona (Deceased), Nakadamulla, Ranala. 4A. W. Mahawatta, Nakadamulla, Ranala. 5. Keragalage Alis Nona (Deceased), Nakadamulla, Ranala. 5A. Edirisinghe Arachchige Chintha Nilmini Edirisinghe, No. 157, Nakadamulla, Ranala. 6. Keragalage Julis Singho (Deceased), Nakadamulla, Ranala. 6A. Sujeewa Janak Prasanna Keragala, Nakadamulla, Ranala. 7. Lokuhiraluge Podihami, Nakadamulla, Ranala. 8. Meeriyagallage Jane Nona (Deceased), Nakadamulla, Ranala. 8A. Horana Gamage William Singho (Deceased), Nakadamulla, Ranala. 8B. Horana Gamage Caroline Nona, Nakadamu View More	Hon. Justice Janak De Silva			Download
2021-06-02	SC/APPEAL/68/2015	IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MAHO. Rangallage Sirimawathie Navaratne. No. 17/6, Malkaduwawa, Circular Road, Kurunegala. Plaintiff. Vs. Semasinghe Wanninayake Mudyanselage Kamalawathie, Rest House Road, Ebalagodayagama, Nikaweratiya. Defendant. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. Rangallage Sirimawathie Navaratne. No. 17/6, Malkaduwawa, Circular Road, Kurunegala. Plaintiff – Appellant. Vs. Semasinghe Wanninayake Mudyanselage Kamalawathie, Rest House Road, Ebalagodayagama, Nikaweratiya. Defendant – Respondent. IN THE SUPREME COURT. Rangallage Sirimawathie Navaratne. No. 17/6, Malkaduwawa, Circular Road, Kurunegala. Plaintiff – Appellant – Appellant. Vs. Semasinghe Wanninayake Mudyanselage Kamalawathie, Rest House Road, Ebalagodayagama, Nikaweratiya. Defendant – Respondent -Respondent. View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2021-05-31	SC/APPEAL/93/2015	Meezan Estates Limited No. 8 and 10, Harrison Jones Road, Matale. Plaintiff Vs. Seayed Ismail Mohamed Mohideen (Deceased) Ahmed Faisal No. 166. Main Street, Matale. Presently at No. 24/A, Pallidora Road, Kawdana, Dehiwala. Substituted Defendant And Between Ahmed Faisal No. 166, Main Street Matale Presently at No. 24/A, Pallidora Road, Kawdana, Dehiwala. Substituted Defendant – Appellant Vs. Meezan Estates Limited No. 8 and 10, Harrison Jones Road, Matale. And Now Between Meezan Estates (Private) Limited No. 392, Main Street Matale Plaintiff – Respondent – Petitioner Vs Ahmed Faisal No. 166, Main Street Matale Presently at No. 24/A, Pallidora Road, Kawdana, Dehiwala. Substituted Defendant- Appellant Respondent View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2021-05-31	SC/APPEAL/177/2017	In the District Court of Kandy 1. W. H. Wilson Perera, 2. K. A. Wimalawathie, Both of at; No. 4/6, Uduwela Road, Ampitiya Plaintiffs Vs. 1. Jayawardena Thambulage Kamalawathie, 2. G. V. M. M. Gunesekere, Both of at; No. 3/6, Uduwela Road, Ampitiya Defendants And Between in the Provincial High Court of Central Province 1. W. H. Wilson Perera, 2. K. A. Wimalawathie, Both of at; No. 4/6, Uduwela Road, Ampitiya Plaintiff - Appellants Vs. 1. Jayawardena Thambulage Kamalawathie, 2. G. V. M. M. Gunesekere, Both of at; No. 3/6, Uduwela Road, Ampitiya Defendant – Respondents And Now Between in the Supreme Court 1. W. H. Wilson Perera, 2. K. A. Wimalawathie, Both of at; No. 4/6, Uduwela Road, Ampitiya Plaintiff – Appellant – Petitioners Vs. 1. Jayawardena Thambulage Kamalawathie, 2. G. V. M. M. Gunesekere, Both of at; No. 3/6, Uduwela Road, Ampitiya Defendant – Respondent – Respondents View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2021-05-31	SC/CHC APPEAL/5/2011	Sri Lanka Telecom Ltd, Lotus Road, Colombo 01. Plaintiff Vs. Global Electroteks Limited, Unit C 17, Poplar Business Park, 10, Preston Road London E14 9 RL, United Kingdom. Defendant AND NOW Sri Lanka Telecom Ltd, Lotus Road, Colombo 01. Plaintiff - Appellant Vs. Global Electroteks Limited, Unit C 17, Poplar Business Park, 10 Preston Road London E14 9 RL, United Kingdom. Defendant – Respondent View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC. J.			Download
2021-05-21	SC/APPEAL/112/2018	Disanayaka Mudiyanselage Chandrapala Meegahaarawa, Karandagamada, Arawa. Plaintiff Vs. Disanayaka Mudiyanselage Samaraweera Meegahaarawa, Karandagamada, Arawa. Defendant AND BETWEEN Disanayaka Mudiyanselage Samaraweera Meegahaarawa, Karandagamada, Arawa. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Disanayaka Mudiyanselage Chandrapala Meegahaarawa, Karandagamada, Arawa. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Disanayaka Mudiyanselage Chandrapala Meegahaarawa, Karandagamada, Arawa. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Disanayaka Mudiyanselage Samaraweera Meegahaarawa, Karandagamada, Arawa. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2021-05-21	SC/APPEAL/172/2015	Iluppengamu Appuhamylage Martin Appuhamy (Deceased) Plaintiff Iluppengamu Appuhamylage Milrad Chandrawathie (Formerly the 1st Defendant) Substituted Plaintiff Iluppengamu Appuhamylage Dannet Ranasinghe (Formerly the 5th Defendant) All of Balabowa, Dewalapola. Substituted Plaintiff Vs. 1. Iluppengamu Appuhamylage Milrad Chandrawathie (Deceased) 2. Iluppengamu Appuhamylage Ariyawansa Gemunudasa 3. Iluppengamu Appuhamylage Jacolis Appuhamy (Deceased) 3(a). Iluppengamu Appuhamylage Suraweera 4. Sangapala Arachchige Harriet 5. Iluppengamu Appuhamylage Dannet Ranasinghe 6. Iluppengamu Appuhamylage Sumithra Padmasilie 7. Iluppengamu Appuhamylage Swineetha 8. Iluppengamu Appuhamylage Violet 9. Iluppengamu Appuhamylage Kumaratunga All of Balabowa, Dewalapola. 10. Bowanayaka Arachchige Sumanawathie 11. Iluppengamu Appuhamylage Jayath Both of No. 63/14, Parakum Mawatha, Bandarawatta, Gampaha. 12. Milton Appuhamilage Milton Chandrawathie Balabowa, Dewalapola. 13. Iluppengamage Chandrawathie No. 142, Balabowa, Dewalapola. View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2021-05-21	SC/APPEAL/125/2016	Thiththalapitige Tilakaratne, Rukgahawila, Walpola. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Thiththalapitige Chandrawathi Perera, (Deceased) 2. Thiththalapitige Wilbert Perera, 3. Thiththalapitige Ruban Perera, All of Rukgahawila, Walpola. Defendants AND BETWEEN 1. Thiththalapitige Tilakaratne, Rukgahawila, Walpola. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Thiththalapitige Chandrawathi Perera, (Deceased) 2. Thiththalapitige Wilbert Perera, 3. Thiththalapitige Ruban Perera, All of Rukgahawila, Walpola. Defendant-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 3. Thiththalapitige Ruban Perera, (Deceased) 3A. Thiththalapitige Vipula Namal Priyadharshana Perera, All of Rukgahawila, Walpola. 3rd Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. Thiththalapitige Tilakaratne, Rukgahawila, Walpola. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent 2. Thiththalapitige Wilbert Perera Rukgahawila, Walpola. 2nd Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2021-05-21	SC/FR/402/2015	Janidhu Charuka Daham Seneviratne, No. 4A, Sapumal Mawatha, Sirimal Uyana, Ratmalana. Petitioner Vs. 1. Sub Inspector Nelumdeniya, Police Station, Mount Lavinia. 2. Officer in Charge, Special Crimes Investigation Unit, Police Station, Mount Lavinia. 3. Chief Inspector Chanaka Iddamalgoda, Head Quarters Inspector, Police Station, Mount Lavinia. 4. N.K. Illangakoon, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 5. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2021-05-21	SC/FR/157/2014, SC/FR/182/2014, SC/FR/183/2014, SC/FR/184/2014, SC/FR/185/2014	1. Kanda Udage Malika Kosmo Farm, Akurukaduwa, Meegahakiwula. PETITIONER VS. 1. D.M. Aberathna Police Constable, Kandaketiya Police station, Kandaketiya. 2. D.P.K. Gamage, Police Constable, Kandaketiya Police station, Kandaketiya. 3. S.M.R.P. Kumara Police Constable, Kandaketiya Police station, Kandaketiya. 4. S.J.M. Jayasundara Civil Defence Force, Attach to the Kandaketiya Police station, Kandaketiya. 5. D.M. Wijerathna Reserve Staff attach to the Kandaketiya, Police station, Kandaketiya. 6. R.P. Somarathne Sub Inspector, Kandaketiya Police station, Kandaketiya. 7. Officer in Charge Kandaketiya Police station, Kandaketiya. 8. Dr. Jagath Perera District Medical Officer, Meegahakiwula Government Hospital, Meegahakiwula. 9. Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Badulla Range, Badulla. 10. Deputy Inspector General of Police Badulla Range, Badulla. 11. Superintendent of Prison Badulla Prison, Badulla. 12. Commissioner of Prison Prison Department, Welikada. 13. Mr. Pujith Jayasundara Inspector General of Police, View More	Hon. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.			Download
2021-05-20	SC/APPEAL/120/2014	Samuel Vivendra Eliyatambi No 248, Whitehorse Road, Corydon CRO 2 LB, Surrey United Kingdom Appearing by his Attorney Reginald Perera Wickramarachchi Saman Mawatha, Nugegoda Plaintiff VS 1. John Cyril Fernando (Now Deceased) No. 83, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 07 2. Selwyn Danaraj Eliyatambi No. 1 & 1/1, Elibank Road, Colombo 05 3. Surangani Jayasekera No. 4 & 4 1/1, Elibank Road, Colombo 05 4. Marinie Samantha Jayasekera No. 4 & 4 1/1, Elibank Road, Colombo 05 Defendants AND 1. John Cyril Fernando (Now Deceased) No. 83, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 07 3. Surangani Jayasekera No. 4 & 4 1/1, Elibank Road, Colombo 05 4. Marinie Samantha Jayasekera No. 4 & 4 1/1, Elibank Road, Colombo 05 1st , 3rd and 4th Defendants – Appellants VS Samuel Vivendra Eliyatambi No 248, Whitehorse Road, Corydon CRO 2 LB, Surrey United Kingdom Appearing by his Attorney Reginald Perera Wickhramarachchi Saman Mawatha, Nugegoda Plaintiff – Respondent 2. Selwyn Danaraj Eliyatambi No. 1 & 1/1, Elibank Road, Colombo 05 2nd Defendant – Respondent AND View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2021-05-20	SC/APPEAL/227/2016	Santak Power (Pvt) Ltd, No. 132, Old Kottawa Road, Nawinna, Maharagama. Plaintiff. Vs. 1. Janatha Estate Development Board, No. 55/75, Vauxhall Lane, Colombo 02. 2. Ramya Nirmali Illeperuma, No.141, Ketawelamulla Road, Colombo 09. 3. Ajith Bathiya Illeperuma, No.141, Ketawelamulla Road, Colombo 09. 4. Ophelia Iyselin Illeperuma, No.141, Ketawelamulla Road, Colombo 09. 5. Ceylon Electricity Board, Sri Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Defendants. And between Ramya Nirmali Illeperuma, No.141, Ketawelamulla Road, Colombo 09. 2nd Defendant – Appellant. Vs. 1. Santak Power (Pvt) Ltd, No. 132, Old Kottawa Road, Nawinna, Maharagama. Plaintiff – Respondent. 2. Ajith Bathiya Illeperuma, No.141, Ketawelamulla Road, Colombo 09. Presently of 5511 Katey Inn, Arlington, Texas - 76017 3. Janatha Estate Development Board, No. 55/75, Vauxhall Lane, Colombo 02. 4. Ceylon Electricity Board, Sri Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Defendant – Respondents. And Now between Santak Power (Pvt) Ltd, No. 132, Old K View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2021-05-20	SC/CHC APPEAL/11/2014	1. K.K.D.T.Dharmaratne, 2. Mrs.D.P.M. Dharmaratne, Via Santa Maria Dell, Angelo No.32, 48018, Faensa (RA), Italy, Presently, “Sridhara”, Dambugahawatta, Hokandara Road, Pannipitiya Petitioners. -Vs- 1. Palm Paradise Cabanas Limited, No.66, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. 2. Gonaduwage Upali Perera Gunasekara, (Now deceased), No. 19/2, Sunandarama Road, Kalubowila, Dehiwala. Via Santa Maria Dell, Angelo No.32, 48018, Faensa (RA), Italy, Presently, “Sridhara”, Dambugahawatta, Hokandara Road, Pannipitiya Petitioners. -Vs- 1. Palm Paradise Cabanas Limited, No.66, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. 2. Gonaduwage Upali Perera Gunasekara, (Now deceased), No. 19/2, Sunandarama Road, Kalubowila, Dehiwala. Petitioner – Appellants 1. Palm Paradise Cabanas Limited, No.66, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. 2. Gonaduwage Upali Perera Gunasekara, (Now deceased), No. 19/2, Sunandarama Road, Kalubowila, Dehiwala. 2A. Sunethra Gunasekara, No. 19/2, Sunandarama Road, Kalubowila, Dehiwala. Presently, No.16, Centre Road, Borupana, Ratmalan View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2021-05-17	SC/APPEAL/176/2014	1. Morawakage Premawathie, 2. Ballantuda Achchige Padmini, 3. Ballantuda Achchige Rohini, All of 350, Katuwana Road, Homagama. Plaintiffs Vs. 1. Ballantuda Achchige Jayasena (Deceased) 1A. M. Hemawathie, 1B. Ballantuda Achchige Lal Chandrasiri, 1C. Ballantuda Achchige Don Wasantha, 1D. Ballantuda Achchige Don Malkanthi, All of 308, Narangaha Hena, Katuwana, Homagama. 2. Ballantuda Achchige Don Wasantha, 308, Narangaha Hena, Katuwana, Homagama. Defendants AND BETWEEN Ballantuda Achchige Don Wasantha, 308, Narangaha Hena, Katuwana, Homagama. 1C and 2nd Defendant-Appellant Vs. 1. Morawakage Premawathie, 2. Ballantuda Achchige Padmini, 3. Ballantuda Achchige Rohini, All of 350, Katuwana Road, Homagama. Plaintiff-Respondents 1. Ballantuda Achchige Jayasena (Deceased) 1A. M. Hemawathie (Deceased) 1B. Ballantuda Achchige Lal Chandrasiri, 1D. Ballantuda Achchige Don Malkanthi, All of 308, Narangaha Hena, Katuwana, Homagama. Defendant-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Ballantuda Achchige Don Wasantha, 308, Narangaha Hena, K View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2021-05-07	SC/FR/185/2018	1. Attanayake Mudiyansela Thimeth Senuja Bandara Attanayake 2. Attanayake Mudiyansela Indika Umesh Bandara Attanayake 3. Mapa Herath Mudiyanselage Sudarshani Mapa Herath All of; No: 284/A/2, Randipola Watta, Ambilmeegama, Pilimathalawa Petitioners Vs. 1. R.D.M.P. Weerathunga, The Principal and Chairman of the interview board to admit students to Grade 1, Kingswood College, Kandy. 2. B.M.H.A. Bandara, The Vice Principal, Kingswood College, Kandy. 3. S.A. Wijekoon, Secretary of the Interview Board to admit students to Grade 1, Kingswood College, Kandy. 4. P.G.M. Herath, Member of the Interview Board to admit students to Grade 1, Kingswood College, Kandy. 5. R.M. Inoka Lasanthi, Member of the Interview Board to admit students to Grade 1, Kingswood College, Kandy. 6. M. Abegunasekara, President of the Appeals and Objections Board to admit students to Grade 1, Kingswood College, Kandy And Principal, Girl’s High School, Kandy. 7. S.P. Vidanagamge, Secretary of the Appeals and Objections Board to admit students to G View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2021-05-04	SC/APPEAL/51/2018	Kapila Nishshanka Kumarage No. 102/03, Gnananlankara Mawatha, Ratnapura. Accused Appellant Appellant Vs. 1 Officer in Charge, Special Crimes Investigation Bureau Police Station, Ratnapura. Complainant Respondent Respondent 2. Hon Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo. 12. Respondent Respondent View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J			Download
2021-05-04	SC/APPEAL/66/2012	Thangavetpillai Selvakumar of Nelukkulam, Vavuniya. By his Attorney R. Sellathurai (Deceased) and Letchumy Sellathurai of Nelukkulam, Vavuniya. Plaintiff Vs. Vallipuram Radhakrishnan of Neriyakulam Road, Nelukkulam, Vavuniya. Defendant AND BETWEEN Vallipuram Radhakrishnan of Neriyakulam Road, Nelukkulam, Vavuniya. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Thangavetpillai Selvakumar of Nelukkulam, Vavuniya. By his Attorney R. Sellathurai (Deceased) and Letchumy Sellathurai of Nelukkulam, Vavuniya. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Vallipuram Radhakrishnan of Neriyakulam Road, Nelukkulam, Vavuniya. Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Thangavetpillai Selvakumar of Nelukkulam, Vavuniya. By his Attorney R. Sellathurai (Deceased) and Letchumy Sellathurai of Nelukkulam, Vavuniya. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2021-04-30	SC/APPEAL/17/2015	Chrisani Suweenetha Mariel Lilian Karunaratne, No. 4, Victoria Gardens, Hokandara South, Hokandara. Plaintiff Vs. P.R. Kotalawela, No. 32-1/2 Castle Street, (Dudley Senanayake Mawatha), Colombo 8. Defendant AND BETWEEN Chrisani Suweenetha Mariel Lilian Karunaratne, No. 4, Victoria Gardens, Hokandara South, Hokandara. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. P.R. Kotalawela, No. 32-1/2 Castle Street, (Dudley Senanayake Mawatha), Colombo 8. Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Chrisani Suweenetha Mariel Lilian Karunaratne, No. 4, Victoria Gardens, Hokandara South, Hokandara. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. P.R. Kotalawela, No. 32-1/2 Castle Street, (Dudley Senanayake Mawatha), Colombo 8. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.			Download
2021-04-30	SC/FR/242/2010	1. Hondamuni Chandima Samanmalee de Zoysa, No. 235/A, Station Road, Balapitiya. 2. Sudusinghe Liyanage Pubudu Kumara, No. 21/3 B, Viharagoda, Wathugedara. PETITIONERS Vs 1. Inspector Malaweera, Police Station, Ambalangoda. 2. Sub Inspector Chandrarathna, Police Station, Ambalangoda. 3. Inspector Prashantha, Headquarters Inspector, Police Station, Ambalangoda. 4. Palitha Fernando, Superintendent of Police, Ambalangoda Division, Ambalangoda. 5. Mahinda Balasooriya, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 6. Hon. Attorney – General, Attorney – General’s Department, Hulftsdorp Street, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J			Download
2021-04-01	SC/APPEAL/127/2012	1. Dawooduge Mohamed Abiyar 2. Dawooduge Sajahan 3. Dawooduge Mohamed Nizam. All Rambukkanthenne, Ridigama. PLAINTIFFS Vs. Haji Lebbai Mohamed Ismail alias Mohamed Lebbai of Wewagerara, Ridigama. DEFENDANT AND 1. Dawooduge Mohamed Abiyar 2. Dawooduge Sajahan 3. Dawooduge Mohamed Nizam. All Rambukkanthenne, Ridigama. PLAINTIFF–APPELLANTS Vs. Haji Lebbai Mohamed Ismail alias Mohamed Lebbai, of Wewagedare, Ridigama. DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT AND NOW. In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal in terms of section 5 (C) (1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006 read together with Article 128 of the Constitution. Haji Lebbai Mohamed Ismail alias Mohamed Lebbai, of Wewagedara, Ridigama. DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT-PETITIONER. Vs. 1. Dawooduge Mohamed Abiyar 2. Dawooduge Sajahan 3. Dawooduge Mohamed Nizam. All Rambukkanthenne, Ridigama. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT– RESPONDENTS. View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara		In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal in terms of section 5 (C) (1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006 read together with Article 128 of the Constitution.	Download
2021-04-01	SC/APPEAL/163/2015	1. Amal I. Senevirathne No. 45, Sarvodaya Road, Gaminipura. 2. W. L. Gayana Sewwandi Mali Susiri Niwasa, Navimana South, Matara. 3. Shashini Tharanga Kariyawasam No. 30, Gangarama Road, Megalle, Galle. 4. B. V. Rasika Dilanthi Bolukandura No.72, Sri Rahula Mawatha, Maho. 5. Janaka Jayalath Munasinghe No.202/2, Ranasinghe goda, Katuwana. 6. W. A. U. Warunamala Wijesooriya No.229/2, Megoda Kalugamuwa, Peradeniya. 7. R. M. Sajith Niroshan V. Temple Road, Kahatawila, Pothuwatavana. 8. Sheik Abdul Cader Adil Ahamed No. 111/92, Abdul Hameed Street, Colombo 12. 9. G. A. Chamila Nilanthi Kumari No. 481, Siri Niwasa Mawatha, Mulleriyawa. 10. N. G. Ruvini Champika Weerasekara No. 110, Supermarket, Kandy Road, Kiribathgoda. 11. K. M. Inoka Nilmini Kulathunga No.310/C, Kandy Road, Kadawatha. 12. Chaminda Samarawickrama Lokuhetty No. 75/21, 1st Lane, Sirinanda Jothikarama Road, Lalalgoda, Pannipitiya. 13. K. A. Achala Dinashi No. 132/2A, Moragahalanda Road, Erawwala, Pannipitiya. 14. Isuru Madhushanka Ranagala B49 G2, N.H View More	Hon.Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2021-04-01	SC/FR/591/2008	J. A. Saman Kumara, Kajugaha Koratuwa, Walgama North, Matara. Petitioner Vs, 1. General Manager, Sri Lanka Government Railways, Railway Headquarters, Colombo 10. 2. Secretary, Ministry of Transport, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3. Operating Superintendent, Operating Superintendent Office, Sri Lanka Railways, Colombo 10. 4. Transportation Superintendent (Colombo) Transportation Superintendent’s Office, Sri Lanka Government Railway, Colombo 10. 5. Ceylon Station Masters’ Union, No. 01, Railway Passage, Sri Lanka Government Railway, Colombo 10. 6. Transportation Superintendent (Nawalapitiya) Divisional Transportation Superintendents’ Office, Sri Lanka Government Railway, Nawalapitiya. 7. Secretary, National Salaries and Cadre Commission, Room No. 2G10, BMICH, Bauddaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 7A. Secretary, National Pay Commission, Room No. 2G10, BMICH, Bauddaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 7B. Secretary, National Salaries and Cadre Commission, Room No. 2G10, BMICH, Bauddaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 8. Secretary, View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2021-03-29	SC/FR/180/2014	Ravivathani Thuraisingam 18, Mathvady Lane, Thirunelvely, Jaffna. Petitioner -VS- 1. University of Jaffna, Thirunelvely, Jaffna. 2. Prof. (Miss) V. Arasaratnam, Vice Chancellor. 3. Mr. K.K. Arulvel. 4. Prof. S.Sathiaseelan. 5. Prof. V.P. Sivanathan. 6. Dr. (Mrs.) S. Sichandran. 7. Dr. S. Balakumar. 8. Prof. T. Velnampy. 9. Dr. A. Pushpanathan. 10. Mr. S. Kuganesan. 11. Prof. S. Sirsatkunarajah. 12. Dr. A. Atputharajah. 13. Prof. R. Vigneswaran. 14. Dr. S. Sivanandarajah. 15. Rev. Fr. Dr. Justin B. Gnanapragasam. 16. Mr. M. Balasubramanium. 17. Mr. M. Sripathy. 18. Mr. P. Thiyagarajah. 19. Mr. T. Rajaratnam. 20. Prof. P. Balasundarampillai. 21. Eng. M. Ramathasan. 22. Mr. K. Theventhiran. 23. Mr. D. Rengan. 24. Ms. S. Sarangapani. 25. Mr. K.Kesavan. 26. Dr. S. Raviraj. 27. Mr. E. Annalingam. 28. Ms. Sherine Xavier All members of the Governing Council 29. Mr. V. Kandeepan, Registrar. 30. Mr. V.A. Subramaniam. 31. Mr. S. Balaputhiran All of, The University of Jaffna, Thirunelvely, Jaffna. 32. University Grants C View More	Hon. Murdu N.B Fernando, PC J			Download
2021-03-26	SC/APPEAL/2/2017	Ulviti Gamage Dhanapala, No.32, Galhena Road Gangodawila, Nugegoda. Plaintiff Vs The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. Defendant AND THEN The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. Defendant Appellant Vs Ulviti Gamage Dhanapala, No.32, Galhena Road Gangodawila, Nugegoda. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. Defendant Appellant Petitioner Appellant Vs Ulviti Gamage Dhanapala, No.32, Galhena Road Gangodawila, Nugegoda. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew J			Download
2021-03-25	SC/APPEAL/24/2015	Edirisinghe Arachchige Samantha Edirisinghe, No. 16, Makalana, Nittambuwa. Plaintiff -Vs- 1. Suduhakurulage Gayani Kaushalya Rasanjalee No. A-213, Ranwala Watte, Ambanpitiya. 2. Suduhakurulage Dias Shelton No. A-213, Ranwala Watte, Ambanpitiya. Defendants Between Edirisinghe Arachchige Samantha Edirisinghe, No. 16, Makalana, Nittambuwa. Plaintiff-Appellant -Vs- 1. Suduhakurulage Gayani Kaushalya Rasanjalee No. A-213, Ranwala Watte, Ambanpitiya. 2. Suduhakurulage Dias Shelton No. A-213, Ranwala Watte, Ambanpitiya. Defendants-Respondents And Between Edirisinghe Arachchige Samantha Edirisinghe, No. 16, Makalana, Nittambuwa. Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner -Vs- 1. Suduhakurulage Gayani Kaushalya Rasanjalee No. A-213, Ranwala Watte, Ambanpitiya. 2. Suduhakurulage Dias Shelton No. A-213, Ranwala Watte, Ambanpitiya. Defendants-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Edirisinghe Arachchige Samantha Edirisinghe, No. 16, Makalana, Nittambuwa. Plaintiff-Appellant- Petitioner-Appellant -Vs- 1. Suduhakurulage Gayani Kaushalya Rasanjal View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew J			Download
2021-03-25	SC/APPEAL/87/2017	Naomi Leela Elizabeth Perera, No.17, Mendis Mawatha, Moratuwa. PLAINTIFF -Vs- J.W.C. Hemamali Botheju Vithanage, No.31, Kotuwegoda, Rajagiriya. DEFENDANT AND J.W.C. Hemamali Botheju Vithanage, No.31, Kotuwegoda, Rajagiriya. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT -Vs- Naomi Leela Elizabeth Perera, No.17, Mendis Mawatha, Moratuwa. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND NOW Naomi Leela Elizabeth Perera, No.17, Mendis Mawatha, Moratuwa. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT- PETITIONER-APPELLANT -Vs- J.W.C. Hemamali Botheju Vithanage, No.31, Kotuwegoda, Rajagiriya. Presently of No. 95/39, Donald Obeysekera Mawatha, Rajagiriya Road, Rajagitiya. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT- RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Sisira.J. de Abrew J			Download
2021-03-23	SC/FR/17/2019	1. Walbothalage Sayuki Lyensa Fernando No. 74C, Malwatta Road, Asgiriya, Gampaha. 2. Walbothalage Saman Dharshana Fernando No. 74C, Malwatta Road, Asgiriya, Gampaha. Petitioners Vs. 1. S.A.S.U. Dissanayake No. 142, Lakshmi Road, Bendiyamulla, Gampaha. 2. S.T. Hettiarachchi No. 142/1, Lakshmi Road, Bendiyamulla, Gampaha. 3. S.P.S.M. Sudasinha No. 228/F, Vijayrama Road, Gampaha. 4. S.A.L.N. Dissanayake No. 142, Lakshmi Road, Bendiyamulla, Gampaha. 5. I.P. Hettiarachchi No. 142/1, Lakshmi Road, Bendiyamulla, Gampaha. 6. S.P.T.P. Sudusinha No. 228/F, Wijerama Road, Gampaha. 7. H.M. Gayani Wathsala Principal and the Chairman of the Interview Board to admit students to Grade 1 of WP/Gam/ Yasodara Devi Balika Maha Vidyalaya, Yasodara Devi Balika Maha Vidyalaya, Vidyalaya Mawatha, Gampaha. 8. N.P.T.M. Rupasinha The Secretary of the Interview Board to admit students to Grade 1 of WP/Gam/ Yasodara Devi Balika Maha Vidyalaya, Yasodara Devi Balika Maha Vidyalaya, Vidyalaya Mawatha, Gampaha. 9. L.P.D. Perera Senior View More	Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J.			Download
2021-03-22	SC/APPEAL/163/2019	1. Sirinivasam Prasanth, 2. Gayathiry Prasanth, Both of Ratnagara Place, Dehiwala. And presently of 289, Cossack Court, Mississauga, L5 B4 C2, Ontario, Canada. Acting through their Power of Attorney holder, Kanagasundram Sathiakantham of No.442, R.A. De Mel Mawatha, Kollupitiya, Colombo 3. Plaintiffs Vs. 1. Nadaraja Devarajan, 2. Sri Jayadevi Devarajan, Both of No. 541/4 – 1/2A, Galle Road, Wellawatta, Colombo 6. Defendants AND BETWEEN 1. Nadaraja Devarajan, 2. Sri Jayadevi Devarajan, Both of No. 541/4 – 1/2A, Galle Road, Wellawatta, Colombo 6. Defendant-Appellants Vs. 1. Sirinivasam Prasanth, 2. Gayathiry Prasanth, Both of Ratnagara Place, Dehiwala. And presently of 289, Cossack Court, Mississauga, L5 B4 C2, Ontario, Canada. Acting through their Power of Attorney holder, Kanagasundram Sathiakantham of No.442, R.A. De Mel Mawatha, Kollupitiya, Colombo 3. Plaintiff-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Sirinivasam Prasanth, 2. Gayathiry Prasanth, Both of Ratnagara Place, Dehiwala. And presently of 289, Cossack Court, View More	Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J			Download
2021-03-18	SC/FR/132/2014 with SC/FR/131/2014 & SC/FR/133/2014	1. R.A.S.R. Kulathunga B 07 Police Flats, Thimbirigasyaya. Petitioner Vs. 1. Pujith Jayasundera, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. & 247 Other Respondents and R.A.R.D. Karunarathne, Uduwa, Kandy. Petitioner Vs. Pujith Jayasundera, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. And 247 others. Respondents(In SCFR 131/2014) and M.W.S.Uvindasiri, No. 40A, Thusaragira, Udaperadeniya, Peradeniya. Petitioner Vs. Pujith Jayasundera, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. And 247 others. Respondents (In SCFR 133/2014) View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC			Download
2021-03-18	SC/FR 304/2016 with SC/FR 204/2016 & SC/FR 205/2016	1. Tissa Kumara Liyanage Accountant CL. 1 Special No. 50 Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. & 77 other Petitioners( SCFR 304/2016) Vs. 1. Hon. Ranjith Siyambalapitiya Minister of Power and Renewable Energy Ministry of Power and Renewable Energy No. 72, Ananda Coomaraswamy Mawatha, Colombo 07. and 14 other Respondents and 1. Singappulige Nihal Fernando No. 65K Sri Silwansa Nahimi Mawatha Suriya Paluwa, Aldeniya Kadawatha. 2. Jayasundera Mudiyanselage Dayananda Wijeweera No. 31/22, 1st Lane Temple Road, Maharagama 3. Tissa Kumara Liyanage No. 8, Isuru Uyana 11, Kalutara. Petitioners Vs. 1. Hon. Ranjith Siyambalapitiya Minister of Power and Renewable Energy Ministry of Power and Renewable Energy No. 72, Ananda Coomaraswamy Mawatha, Colombo 07. And 14 others. Respondents(In SCFR 204/2016) and 1. Dinesh Vidanapathirana Attorney-at-Law No. 166 ½, Hulftsdorp Street Colombo 12. Petitioner Vs. 01. Hon. Ranjith Siyambalapitiya Minister of Power and Renewable Energy Ministry of Power and Renewable Energy View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC			Download
2021-03-15	SC/APPEAL/145/2013	1. T.M. Dingiri Mahathmaya (Deceased) 1 (a). Piyaseeli Podimenike Tennakoon. 2. B.W. Jayawardena, Both of Sannasgama, Lellopitiya. Plaintiffs VS 1. H. Don Brampi Singho (deceased) 1(a). H. Dona Kamalawathie, Sannasgama, Lellopitiya. Defendant AND BETWEEN 1. T.M. Dingiri Mahathmaya (Deceased) 1 (a). Piyaseeli Podimenike Tennakoon. 2. B.W. Jayawardena, Both of Sannasgama, Lellopitiya. Plaintiffs-Appellants VS 2. H. Don Brampi Singho (deceased) 1(a). H. Dona Kamalawathie, Sannasgama, Lellopitiya. 1 (a) Substituted Defendant- Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN 1. H. Don Brampi Singho (deceased) 1(a). H. Dona Kamalawathie, Sannasgama, Lellopitiya. 1 (a) Substituted Defendant- Respondent- Appellant VS 1. T.M. Dingiri Mahathmaya (Deceased) 1 (a). Piyaseeli Podimenike Tennakoon. 2. B.W. Jayawardena, Both of Sannasgama, Lellopitiya. Plaintiffs-Appellants- Respondents View More	Hon. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.			Download
2021-03-12	SC/FR/101/2014	1. Herath Mudiyanselage Ajith Rohitha Bandara Herath, Hewapola, Pilessa. 2. Weerasooriya Arachchilage Padmini Damayanthi Weerasoriya, Hewapola, Pilessa. 3. J.M.N. Bandara, No. 53, ‘The Breeze’, Kiriwawula, Thorayaya, Kurunegala. Petitioners -Vs- 1. K. Thawalingam, Former Surveyor General, Surveyor Department of Sri Lanka, No. 150, Kirula Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 2. S.M.P.P. Sangakkara, Additional Surveyor General, (Title Registration), Surveyor Department of Sri Lanka, No. 150, Kirula Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 2A. S.K.Wijesinghe, Additional Surveyor General (Title Registration), Surveyor Department of Sri Lanka, No. 150, Kirula Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 2B. P. A. N. De Silva, Additional Surveyor General, (Title Registration) Surveyor Department of Sri Lanka, No. 150, Kirula Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 3. R.T.P. Herath, Former Provincial Surveyor General, Provincial Surveyor Generals’ Office, South Circular Road, Kurunegala. 3A. A.M.R.B.K Atapattu, Provincial Surveyor General, Provincial Surveyo View More	Hon. Murdu N.B.Fernando, PC. J			Download
2021-03-10	SC/APPEAL/212/2014	Kariyawasam Bendigodagamage Premawathi No. 83, Rajagiriya Road, Rajagiriya. Plaintiff Vs, Mahavithanage Dona Engalthinahamy (deceased) No. 100, Rajagiriya Road, Rajagiriya. Defendant And Kariyawasam Bendigodagamage Premawathi No. 83, Rajagiriya Road, Rajagiriya. Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Paranavithanage Don Jayathilake Perera No. 100, Rajagiriya Road, Rajagiriya. Substituted Defendant- Respondent- Respondent And Now Between Kariyawasam Bendigodagamage Premawathi No. 83, Rajagiriya Road, Rajagiriya. Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs, Paranavithanage Don Jayathilake Perera (dead) No. 100, Rajagiriya Road, Rajagiriya. Paranavithanage Don Nishantha Kumara Perera No. 100, Rajagiriya Road, Rajagiriya. Substituted Defendant- Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2021-03-03	SC/SPL LA/27/2012	Plexus Cotton Limited, 265/279, Martins Building, 4, Walter Street, Liverpool, England. Presently at; Cotton Place 2, Ivy Street, Britenhead, Wirrel, CH41 5EF Petitioner -VS- Dan Mukunthan, No.76, Davidson Road, Colombo 04. Presently at; No. 3, Charles Place, Colombo 3. Respondent AND Plexus Cotton Limited, 265/279, Martins Building, 4, Walter Street, Liverpool, England. Presently at; Cotton Place 2, Ivy Street, Britenhead, Wirrel, CH41 5EF Petitioner - Petitioner -VS- Dan Mukunthan, No.76, Davidson Road, Colombo 04. Presently at; No. 3, Charles Place, Colombo 3. Respondent – Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Dan Mukunthan, No.76, Davidson Road, Colombo 04. Presently at; No. 3, Charles Place, Colombo 3. Respondent – Respondent – Petitioner -VS- Plexus Cotton Limited, 265/279, Martins Building, 4, Walter Street, Liverpool, England. Presently at; Cotton Place 2, Ivy Street, Britenhead, Wirrel, CH41 5EF Petitioner - Petitioner – Respondent View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC. J			Download
2021-02-24	SC/APPEAL/193/2015	Merchant Bank of Sri Lanka PLC, No. 189, Galle Road, Colombo 03 and presently of No. 28, St. Michael’s Road, Colombo 03. Plaintiff Vs 1. Kumarasinghe Ranjith Rajakaruna, No. 223, Rajamaha Vihara Road, Mirihana, Kotte. 2. Albert Nadaraja Manoharan, No. 27, Janadhipathi Vidyala Mawatha, Rajagiriya. Defendants An Application under Sec. 402 of the Civil Procedure Code. Kumarasinghe Ranjith Rajakaruna, No. 223, Rajamaha Vihara Road, Mirihana, Kotte. 1st Defendant-Petitioner Vs Merchant Bank of Sri Lanka PLC, No. 189, Galle Road, Colombo 03 and presently of No. 28, St. Michael’s Road, Colombo 03. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent Albert Nadaraja Manoharan, No. 27, Janadhipathi Vidyala Mawatha, Rajagiriya. 2nd Defendant-Respondent AND NOW Kumarasinghe Ranjith Rajakaruna, No. 223, Rajamaha Vihara Road, Mirihana, Kotte. 1st Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs Merchant Bank of Sri Lanka PLC, No. 189, Galle Road, Colombo 03 And presently of No. 28, St. Michael’s Road, Colombo 03. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent Albert Nadar View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC		An Application under Sec. 402 of the Civil Procedure Code.	Download
2021-02-17	SC/FR/556/2008, SC/FR/557/2008	Petitioners U. N. S. P. Kurukulasuriya, Convenor, Free Media Movement, 237/22, Vijaya Kumaratunga Mawatha, Colombo 05. (Petitioner SC FR Application No. 556/2008) J. K. W. Jayasekara, No. 58/10, Suhada Place, Thalapathpitiya, Nugegoda. (Petitioner SC FR Application No. 557/2008) Vs. Respondents 1. Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 2. Dr. Ariyaratne Athugala The Chairman & the Director-General, Sri Lanka Rupavahini Coporation, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 2(b-i). Ms. Enokaa Sathyangani The Chairperson Sri Lanka Rupavahini Coporation, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 2(c-i). Thusira Malawwethantri Director General Sri Lanka Rupavahini Coporation, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 3. Lakshman Muthuthantri, Programme Producer, Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 4. Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, Hon. Minister of Mass Media and Information, 163, Kirulapone Avenue, Polhengoda, Colombo 05. 4(b). Mangala Samaraweera Hon. Minister of Finance and Mass Media In View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2021-02-13	SC/APPEAL/88/2011	Palani Muruganandan No.538/5, Aluthmawatha Road, Colombo 15. Plaintiff Vs. Inconvelt Ifisharans Lafabar No.560/1, Aluthmawatha Road, Colombo 15. (Presently Deceased) Liyana Mohottige Liyani Bernadeck Kabral Presently foreign by her lawful Attorney, Mervyn Joseph de Silva, Gongithota Road, Enderamulla and presently of, 560/1, Aluthmawatha Road, Colombo 15. Substituted Defendant AND BETWEEN Palani Muruganandan No.538/5, Aluthmawatha Road, Colombo 15. Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Inconvelt Ifisharans Lafabar No.560/1, Aluthmawatha Road, Colombo 15. (Presently Deceased) Liyana Mohottige Liyani Bernadeck Kabral, Presently foreign by her lawful Attorney, Mervyn Joseph de Silva, Gongithota Road, Enderamulla, and presently of, 560/1, Aluthmawatha Road, Colombo 15. Substituted Defendant-Petitioner-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Inconvelt Ifisharans Lafabar No.560/1, Aluthmawatha Road, Colombo 15. (Presently Deceased) Liyana Mohottige Liyani Bernadeck Kabral, presently foreign by her lawful Attorney, Mervyn Joseph d View More	Hon. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J.			Download
2021-02-12	SC/APPEAL/15/2018	Honourable Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12 Complainant Vs 1. Anandappan Vishawanadan alias Alli 2. Rajarathnam Weeramani 3. Maadasamy Loganandan alias Ukkum 4. Muthumala Kanagaraj Accused AND 1. Anandappan Vishawanadan alias Alli 2. Rajarathnam Weeramani 3. Maadasamy Loganandan alias Ukkum 4. Muthumala Kanagaraj Accused Appellants Vs Honourable Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12 Complainant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Anandappan Vishawanadan alias Alli 2. Rajarathnam Weeramani 3. Maadasamy Loganandan alias Ukkum Accused Appellant Petitioner Appellants Vs Honourable Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12 Complainant-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira. J. de Abrew, J			Download
2021-02-12	SC/APPEAL/6/2014	Kadireshan Kugabalan No, 52, Main Street, Kandapola. Plaintiff. Vs- Sooriya Mudiyanselage Ranaweera, Gajabapura, Mahagastota, Nuwara Eliya. Defendant. AND Sooriya Mudiyanselage Ranaweera Gajabapura, Mahagastota, Nuwara Eliya. Defendant – Appellant. Vs- Kadireshan Kugabalan No, 52, Main Street, Kandapola. Plaintiff – Respondent. AND NOW BETWEEN Kadireshan Kugabalan No, 52, Main Street, Kandapola. Plaintiff – Respondent – Petitioner. Vs- Sooriya Mudiyanselage Ranaweera Gajabapura, Mahagastota, Nuwara Eliya. Defendant – Appellant – Respondent. Sooriya Mudiyanselage Kanthi Ranaweera No. 32, Gajabapura, Mahagastota, Nuwara Eliya. Substituted Defendant – Appellant Respondent. View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2021-02-12	SC/FR/92/2017	Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation, No. 21, “Rakshana Mandiray Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. Virtual-Complainant-Claimant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Darshana Rajitha Hallabagamage, 70B, Kosnathota, Godakawela. 1st Suspect-Claimant-Respondent-Respondent Officer-in-Charge, Crimes Division, Police Station, Slave Island. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent SC. Appeal No. 92/2017 2 Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Dept, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J.			Download
2021-02-12	SC/APPEAL/97/2015	Thammahetti Mudalige Don Nobert Peiris Mudukatuwa, Marawila. Plaintiff Vs 1. Kulasinghe Arachchige Emalka Melani 2. Warnakulasooriya Aloysius Perera Both of St. Bridget, Bolawatta Road, Dankotuwa. 3. Gearad Desmond Mudukatuwa, Marawila. Defendants AND BETWEEN Thammahetti Mudalige Don Nobert Peiris Mudukatuwa, Marawila. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs 1. Kulasinghe Arachchige Emalka Melani 2. Warnakulasooriya Aloysius Perera Both of St. Bridget, Bolawatta Road, Dankotuwa 3. Gearad Desmond Mudukatuwa, Marawila. Defendant-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Kulasinghe Arachchige Emalka Melani ( 1A. Dissanayakage Aloysius Perera 2. Dissanayakage Aloysius Perera Both of St. Bridget, Bolawatta Road, Dankotuwa 1A & 2nd Defendant-Respondent- Appellants Vs Thammahetti Mudalige Don Nobert Peiris (Deceased) Mudukatuwa, Marawila. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent Herath Mudiyanselage Somawathi Mudukatuwa, Marawila (Substituted) Plaintiff-Appellant- Respondent Gearad Desmond Mudukatuwa, Marawila. 3rd Defendant-Respondent- Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira. J. de Abrew, J			Download
2021-02-12	SC/FR/418/2015	D.B.D Rajapakshe “Prashakthi” Ratmalwala Petitioner Vs. 1. Mr. Y. Abdul Majeed The Director General of Irrigation. Department of Irrigation, No.230, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 1(a) Mr.S.S.L. Weerasinghe The Director General of Irrigation. Department of Irrigation, No.230, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 1(b) Mr. S. Mohanaraja The Director General of Irrigation. Department of Irrigation, No.230, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 1(c) Eng.K.D.N. Siriwardana The Director General of Irrigation. Department of Irrigation, No.230, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 2. The Secretary The Ministry of Irrigation and Water Resource Management, No. 500, T.B. Jayah Mawatha. Colombo10. 3. The Secretary The Ministry of Public Administration and Management, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 4. The Director Establishment The Ministry of Public Administration and Management, Independence Square. Colombo 07. 5. The Director General Department of Management Services, Ministry of Finance, Colombo 01. 6. Mr. Dharmasena Dissanaya View More	Hon. Sisira.J.de Abrew J			Download
2021-02-12	SC/FR/97/2017	1. Hewa Maddumage Karunapala 2. Pallekkamkanamge Dona Kumudini 3. Child Petitioner (as he is a minor his name has been withheld) PETITIONER VS. 1. Jayantha Prema Kumara Siriwardhana, Teacher, Puhulwella Central College 2. M. Leelawathie, Puhulwella Central College, Puhulwella 3. W.R. Weerakoon, Zonal Director of Education, Zonal Education Office, Hakmana 4. Sunil Hettiarachchi, Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Pelawatta, Battaramulla 4A. Prof Kapila Perera, Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Pelawatta, Battaramulla 5. Hon. Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, MP, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. 5A. Prof.G.L.Pieris, Hon. Minister of Education, Isurupaya, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. 6. Hon. The Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J			Download
2021-02-11	SC/APPEAL/9/2010	David Micheal Joachim No. 27/6, Peters Lane, Colombo 06. APPLICANT -VS- Aitken Spence Travels Ltd. No. 305, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN David Micheal Joachim No. 27/6, Peters Lane, Colombo 06. APPLICANT-APPELLANT -VS- Aitken Spence Travels Ltd. No. 305, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT -RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN David Micheal Joachim No. 27/6, Peters Lane, Colombo 06. APPLICANT-APPELLANT- APPELLANT -VS- Aitken Spence Travels Ltd. No. 305, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT RESPONDENT View More	Hon. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.			Download
2021-02-02	SC/APPEAL/33/2015	Duminda Munasinghe alias Kaluwa Presently at Bogambara Prison, Kandy. Accused-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J.			Download
2021-01-27	SC/APPEAL/61/2015	Padmika Mahanama Tilakarathne No.198, High Level Road, Homagama. Applicant-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Maga Neguma Road Construction Equipment Company (Pvt) Ltd., No.50, Station Road, Angulana, Ratmalana. Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	HON. SISIRA J.DE ABREW, J			Download
2021-01-25	SC/HC LA/69/2018	Colombo Business School Limited, No. 282, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Claimant -VS- Sri Lanka Tea Board, No. 574, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Respondent AND Colombo Business School Limited, No. 282, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Claimant – Petitioner -VS- Sri Lanka Tea Board, No. 574, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Respondent – Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Colombo Business School Limited, No. 282, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Claimant – Petitioner – Petitioner -VS- Sri Lanka Tea Board, No. 574, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Respondent – Respondent – Respondent Hon. Attorney General, Attorney Generals’ Department, Colombo 12. 2nd Respondent View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC. J			Download
2021-01-20	SC/APPEAL/187/2017	M Ganeshmoorthy No. 9/10 C New Stage Grayline Park Ekala Ja-Ela Applicant -VS- 1. John Keells Holdings PLC No. 117, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha Colombo 2 2. Jaykay Marketing Services (Private) Limited No. 148, Vauxhall Street Colombo 2 3. Keells Food Products PLC No. 16 Minuwangoda Road Ekala Ja-Ela Respondents AND BETWEEN 1. John Keells Holdings PLC No. 117, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha Colombo 2 2. Jaykay Marketing Services (Private) Limited No. 148, Vauxhall Street Colombo 2 3. Keells Food Products PLC No. 16 Minuwangoda Road Ekala Ja-Ela Respondent -Petitioners -VS- M Ganeshmoorthy No. 9/10 C New Stage Grayline Park Ekala Ja-Ela AND NOW BETWEEN 1. John Keells Holdings PLC No. 117, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha Colombo 2. 2. Jaykay Marketing Services (Private) Limited No. 148, Vauxhall Street Colombo 2 3. Keells Food Products PLC No. 16 Minuwangoda Road Ekala Ja-Ela Respondents-Petitioners-Petitioners -VS- M Ganeshmoorthy No. 9/10 C New Stage Grayline Park Ekala Ja-Ela Applicant-Res View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2021-01-20	SC/FR/542/2009	M.T. Mallika, No 55, Jasmine Villa, Nittambuwa Road, Veyangoda PETITIONER -Vs- 1. Jeevan Kumaratunga, Hon. Minister of Land and Land Development, Govijana Mandiraya, 80/5, Rajamalwatte Avenue, Battaramulla 2. S.G. Wijayabandu, Attanagalle Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Nittambuwa 3. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS 1A. John Amaratunga, Minister of Land, Ministry of Lands, ‘Mihikatha Medura’, Land Secretariat, No.1200/6, Rajamalwatte Road, Battaramulla. 1B. S.M. Chandrasena, Minister of Land, Ministry of Lands, ‘Mihikatha Medura’, Land Secretariat, No.1200/6, Rajamalwatte Road, Battaramulla. SC FR Application No. 542/2009 2 2A. D. M. Rathnayake, Attanagalle Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Nittambuwa. 2B. S. P. Gunawardhana, Attanagalle Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Nittambuwa. SUBSTITUTED- RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2021-01-18	SC/FR/403/2016	Wickramage Stanley Perera, No. 111/7, Kurawalana, Kahataovita Petitioner Vs, 1. P. H. Manatunga The Chairman, 1A. K. W. E. Karalliyadda The Chairman, 2. S. T. Hettige, Member, 2A. Gamini Nawarathne Member 3. Savithri D. Wijesekera, Member, 4. B. A. Jayanathan Member, 4A. Ashoka Wijethilaka Member 5. Y. L. M. Zawahir, Member, 6. Tilak Collure, Member, 7. Frank de Silva, Member, 7A. G. Jayakumar Member 8. N. Ariyadasa Cooray, Secretary, 8A. Nishantha A. Weerasinghe Secretary All of the National Police Commission Block No. 09, BMICH Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 9. Pujith Jayasundara The Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters Colombo 01 9A. C. D. Wickramaratne The Inspector General of Police (Acting) Police Headquarters Colombo 01 10. L. K. W. Kamal Silva Deputy Inspector General of Police Crimes and Traffic Division Police Headquarters Colombo 01 [Formerly, Senior Superintendent of Police Director, Police Narcotics Bureau 3rd Floor, New Secretariat Building Colombo 01 10A. M. R. Manjula Se View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2021-01-12	SC/RULE/1/2018	Ranawaka Sunil Perera 43/11 Walawwatta Road, Gangodawila, Nugegoda. Petitioner Vs Sadda Vidda Rajapakse Palanga Pathira Ambakumarage Ranjan Leo Sylvester Alphonsu Alias Ranjan Ramanayaka No.A5, Member of Parliament’s Housing Scheme, Madiwela, Sri Jayawardenapura, Kotte. Respondent View More				Download
2020-12-18	SC/APPEAL/58/2016	Institute of Data Management (Private) Limited, No.13, Lauries Place, Colombo 04. PETITIONER VS. 1. IDM Nations Campus (Pvt) Ltd., No.23, Daisy Villa Avenue, Colombo 04. 2. Janagan Vinayagamoorthy, No. 3, 4/4 Fredrica Road, Colombo 06. And No.16, 42nd Lane, Colombo 06. 3. Subyahewa Rathnasiri, Paddawala Road, Madakumbura, Karandeniya And No.16, 42nd Lane, Colombo 06. 4. K. L. Management Consultants (Private) Limited, No.15-1/1, Kirillapona Avenue, Kirillapona, Colombo 05. 5. IDM Nations Campus Lanka (Pvt) Ltd., No.15 Lauries Place, Colombo 04. RESPONDENTS And now between Institute of Data Management (Private) Limited, No.13, Lauries Place, Colombo 04. PETITIONER-PETITIONER VS. 1. IDM Nations Campus (Pvt) Ltd., No.23, Daisy Villa Avenue, Colombo 04. 2. Janagan Vinayagamoorthy, No. 3, 4/4 Fredrica Road, Colombo 06. And No.16, 42nd Lane, Colombo 06. 3. Subyahewa Rathnasiri, Paddawala Road, Madakumbura, Karandeniya And No.16, 42nd Lane, Colombo 06. 4. K. L. Management Consultants (Private) Limited, No.15-1/1, Kirillapona Avenue, Kirillapona, Colombo 05. 5. IDM Nations Campus Lanka (Pvt) Ltd., No.15 Lauries Place, Colombo 04. RESPONDENTS View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.			Download
2020-12-18	SC/APPEAL/129/2014	1. Matara Kiri Liyanage Mary Agnes Fernando 2. Weliwita Wedage Anita Mary Vivian Fernando 3. Weliwita Wedage Anthony Leo Fernando 4. Weliwita Wedage Tekla Mary Jacinta Fernando 5. Weliwita Wedage Emmanual Rekshi Fernando 6. Weliwita Wedage Neville Ananda Sirimal Fernando 7. Weliwita Wedage Hyacinth Mary Chamali Fernando 8. Weliwita Wedage Anslem Ajith Kumar Fernando All of 189, Fathima Lane (Behind Playground), Kochchikade. Plaintiffs. Vs. 1. Galabodage Thiboshius Silva. 2. Madithapola Lekamge Patricial Fonseka 3. Galabodage Samantha Silva. All of 185, Fathima Lane, Kochchikade. Defendants. NOW 1. Matara Kiri Liyanage Mary Agnes Fernando 1.(a) Weliwita Wedage Anthony Leo Maximus Fernando 2. Weliwita Wedage Anita Mary Vivian Fernando 3. Weliwita Wedage Anthony Leo Fernando 4. Weliwita Wedage Tekla Mary Jacinta Fernando 5. Weliwita Wedage Emmanual Rekshi Fernando 6. Weliwita Wedage Neville Ananda Sirimal Fernando 7. Weliwita Wedage Hyacinth Mary Chamali Fernando 8. Weliwita Wedage Anslem Ajith Kumar Fernando All of 189, Fathima Lane (Behind Playground), Kochchikade. Plaintiffs-Appellants Vs. 1. Galabodage Thiboshius Silva. 2. Madithapola Lekamge Patricial Fonseka 3. Galabodage Samantha Silva. All of 185, Fathima Lane, Kochchikade. Defendants-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2020-12-18	SC/APPEAL/20/2010	A.M. Lokubanda, Track No. 10 – No.3, Mahaambagasweva, Medirigiriya. Plaintiff. Vs. B.R. Chandrasena, Track No. 10, Mahaambagasweva, Medirigiriya. Defendant. AND BETWEEN B.R. Chandrasena, Track No. 10, Mahaambagasweva, Medirigiriya. Defendant-Appellant. Vs. A.M. Lokubanda (Deceased), Track No. 10 – No.3, Mahaambagasweva, Medirigiriya. Plaintiff – Respondent. Marabedde Gedara Ratnayake Mudiyanselage Bandara Menike, Kirimetiya, Galamuna, Polonnaruwa. Substituted Plaintiff – Respondent. AND NOW BETWEEN. B.R. Chandrasena, Track No. 10, Mahaambagasweva, Medirigiriya. Defendant-Appellant-Appellant. Vs. A.M. Lokubanda (Deceased) Marabedde Gedara Ratnayake Mudiyanselage Bandara Menike, Kirimetiya, Galamuna, Polonnaruwa. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent. View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2020-12-18	SC/APPEAL/210/2015	Udawela Pathiranehelage Dharmasena of Bandaranayake Mawatha, Millathe, Kirindiwela. Plaintiff -Vs- 1. I.L. Malani, 19 1/3, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Gampaha 2. Sooriya Arachchige Sandasiri Perera, No. 247, Weerangula, Yakkala. 3. Polwattege Abeysinghe, No. 65/1, School Road, Meddegama, Kiridiwela. 4. D.M. Leelawathi Dissanayake, Anuragoda, Pepiliyawela. Defendants AND Udawela Pathiranehelage Dharmasena of Bandaranayake Mawatha, Millathe, Kirindiwela. Plaintiff-Petitioner Vs 1. I.L. Malani, 19 1/3, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Gampaha 2. Sooriya Arachchige Sandasiri Perera, No. 247, Weerangula, Yakkala. 3. Polwattege Abeysinghe, No. 65/1, School Road, Meddegama, Kiridiwela. 4. D.M. Leelawathi Dissanayake, Anuragoda, Pepiliyawela. Defendants–Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 3. Polwattege Abeysinghe, No. 65/1, School Road, Meddegama, Kiridiwela. 4. D.M. Leelawathi Dissanayake, Anuragoda, Pepiliyawela DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS VS. 1a. Lewwanda Pathirannehelage Leelawathie, 1b. Manel Ajantha Chandrakanthie, Bandaranayake Mawatha, Millathe, Kirindiwela. Substituted Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC J.			Download
2020-12-14	SC/APPEAL/110/2015	Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant Vs. Mohamed Iqbal Mohamed Sadath Accused And Then Mohamed Iqbal Mohamed Sadath Accused-Appellant Vs. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent And Now Mohamed Iqbal Mohamed Sadath, Presently at, Remand Prison, Welikada Accused-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2020-12-14	SC/APPEAL/151/2016	Seneviratne Mudiyanselage Kirihamy Seneviratne of Senani, Panagamuwa, Ambulugala, Mawanella. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Ihala Wahumpurayalage Emalin 2. Viyannalage Kusuma 3. Viyannalage Wimalawathi 4. Viyannalage Nishshanka 5. Viyannalage Cyril 6. Viyannalage Gamini Gunathunga 7. Viyannalage Sita 8. Viyannalage Sunil 9. Viyannalage Lesly Wijethunge 10. Viyannalage Somaratne all of Nayawetunuhena, Attanagoda (Panagamuwa), Ambulugala, Mawanella. Defendants And Now Seneviratne Mudiyanselage Kirihamy Seneviratne of Senani, Panagamuwa, Ambulugala, Mawanella. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Ihala Wahumpurayalage Emalin 2. Viyannalage Kusuma 3. Viyannalage Wimalawathi 4. Viyannalage Nishshanka 5. Viyannalage Cyril 6. Viyannalage Gamini Gunathunga 7. Viyannalage Sita 8. Viyannalage Sunil 9. Viyannalage Lesly Wijethunge 10. Viyannalage Somaratne all of Nayawetunuhena, Attanagoda (Panagamuwa), Ambulugala, Mawanella. Defendant-Respondents And Now Between 1. Ihala Vahumpurayalage Emalin (Deceased) 1A. Viyannalage Kusuma 2. Viyannalage Wimalawathi 3. Viyannalage Nishshanka 4. Viyannalage Cyril 5. Viyannalage Gamini Gunathunga 6. Viyannalage Sita 7. Viyannalage Sunil 8. Viyannalage Lesly Wijethunge 9. Viyannalage Somaratne all of Nayawetunuhena, Attanagoda (Panagamuwa), Ambulugala, Mawanella. Defendants-Respondents-Appellants Vs. Seneviratne Mudiyanselage Kirihamy Seneviratne of Senani, Panagamuwa, Ambulugala, Mawanella. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2020-12-14	SC/APPEAL/154/2014	Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Complainant Vs Rosemary Judy Perera Accused And between Rosemary Judy Perera Accused-Appellant Vs Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Complainant-Respondent And now between Rosemary Judy Perera Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Complainant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2020-12-11	SC/FR/256/2017	W.P.S. Wijerathna, No. 02, Kaluwalgoda, Markawita. Petitioner Vs. 1. Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 1. 2. Chief Human Resources Manager, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 1. 3. S.H.S. Padmini, Deputy Chief Human Resources Manager, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 1. 4. A. Hewawitharana, Harbour Master, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 1. 5. S.A.R. Jayathilaka, Chief Fire Officer, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 1. 6. Nelum Anawarathna, Acting Chief Human Resources Manager, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 1. 7. Nirmal De Fonseka, Manager, Mahapola Training Centre, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 1. 8. B.M. Anulawathie, Deputy Chief Manager of Administrative and Engineering, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 1. 9. R.G. Hettiarachchi, Superintendent of Audit, Auditor General’s Department, No. 306/72, Polduwa Road, Battaramulla. View More	HON. YASANTHA KODAGODA , PC , J.			Download
2020-10-22	SC/FR/369/2013	Nandasenage Lalantha Anurdha, Nandasena, Pahalagama, Mahabulankulama. PETITIONER Vs 1. Head Quarter Inspector of Police, Police Station, Anuradhapura. 2. C.I Gallage, Officer in Charge - Crime Branch, Police Station, Anuradhapura. 3. S. I. Amarasingha, Police Station, Anuradhapura. 4. P.C. Dias, Police Station, Anuradhapura. 5. Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 6. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney –General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.			Download
2020-10-20	SC/APPEAL/32/2020	The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Complainant Vs. Hattuwan Pedige Sugath Karunarathne (Presently incarcerated in Welikada Prison) Accused AND Hattuwan Pedige Sugath Karunarathne Accused-Appellant Vs. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Hattuwan Pedige Sugath Karunarathne Accused-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2020-10-16	SC/APPEAL/125/2018	Ramakrishnan Dharmalingam, No. 23, Sedawatta, Wellanpitiya Plaintiff Vs Ramakrishnan Sivalingam, No. 23, Sedawatta, Wellanpitiya. Defendant AND Ramakrishnan Dharmalingam, No. 23, Sedawatta, Wellanpitiya. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs Ramakrishnan Sivalingam, No. 23, Sedawatta, Wellanpitiya. Defendant-Respondent AND NOW Ramakrishnan Sivalingam, No. 23, Sedawatta, Wellanpitiya. Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner Vs Ramakrishnan Dharmalingam, No. 23, Sedawatta, Wellanpitiya. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2020-10-14	SC/FR/357/2018	Aruna Laksiri Unawatuna, No. 02, Buddhist Cultural Centre, Colombo 10. Petitioner Vs. 1. Hon. Maithripala Sirisena, H.E. the President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Presidential Secretariat, Colombo 10. In his place Hon. Attorney-General, Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. 2. Chairman and the members of the Election Commission, Election Secretariat, Rajagiriya. 3. Hon. Attorney-General, Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC	Article 126, Article 17	Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2020-10-02	SC/APPEAL/228/2017	W.K.P.I. Rodrigo, No. 82/10, Baptist Road, Pitakotte, Kotte. APPLICANT -VS- Central Engineering Consultancy Bureau, No. 415, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN W.K.P.I. Rodrigo, No. 82/10, Baptist Road, Pitakotte, Kotte. APPLICANT-APPELLANT -VS- Central Engineering Consultancy Bureau, No. 415, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07 RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN W.K.P.I. Rodrigo, No. 82/10, Baptist Road, Pitakotte, Kotte. APPLICANT-APPELLANT-APPELLANT -VS- Central Engineering Consultancy Bureau, No. 415, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07 RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.			Download
2020-09-30	SC/HCLA/54/2018	Nestle Lanka PLC, 440, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Gamini Rajapakshe, Bodiyawatte Ambalan Watte, Ratnapura. Applicant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC			Download
2020-09-30	SC/FR/230/2018	1. M. Ashroff Rumy, Attorney-at-Law, Colombo City Coroner of No. 61, Meeraniya Street, Colombo 12. 2. Ms. Iresha Deshani Samaraweera, Attorney-at-Law, Additional Colombo City Coroner of No. 36/4, Ketawalamulla Place, Dematagoda, Colombo 09. Petitioners Vs. 1. Hon. Thalatha Athukorale, Minister of Justice & Prison Reforms, Ministry of Justice, Colombo 12. 2. Secretary, Ministry of Justice & Prison Reforms, Ministry of Justice, Colombo 12. 3. Assistant Secretary(Administration), Ministry of Justice & Prison Reforms, Ministry of Justice, Colombo 12. 4. Ms. U.G.L. Anuththara, No.142 E.W. Perera Mawatha, Colombo 10. 5. Ms. A.L.M. Maharoof, 29/15, School Lane, Dematagoda, Colombo 09. 6. Mr. Edward Ahangama, Attorney at-Law, formerly Colombo City Coroner, No. 141, Pannipitiya Road, Battaramulla. 7. Director of Establishments, Ministry of Public Administration, Management and Law and Order, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 8. Secretary, Bar Association of Sri Lanka, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. 9. Hon. Attorney General View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC			Download
2020-09-25	SC/RULE/8/2014	R M Karunaratne Banda, No. 95/1, Kahawatta, Ambatenna. COMPLAINANT -Vs- Wasantha Wijewardena, (Attorney-at-Law) No. 03, Colombo Street, Kandy. RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2020-09-24	SC/HC CALA/404/2013	Pattiyage Leelawathie Gomes, No. 60/10 J, Templers Road, Mt. Lavinia Plaintiff Vs. 1. Preethi Reeta Bastian, 2. Wajirapani Bastian, 3. Luwis Vidanalage Manel Bridget Bastian All of No. 53/3, Sri Gunaratne Mawatha, Mt. Lavinia. Defendants AND 1. Preethi Reeta Bastian, 2. Wajirapani Bastian, 3. Luwis Vidanalage Manel Bridget Bastian All of No. 53/3, Sri Gunaratne Mawatha, Mt. Lavinia. Defendants-Appellants Vs. Pattiyage Leelawathie Gomes, No. 60/10 J, Templers Road, Mt. Lavinia (deceased) Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Preethi Reeta Bastian, 2. Wajirapani Bastian, All of No. 53/3, Sri Gunaratne Mawatha, Mt. Lavinia. Defendants-Appellants-Petitioners Vs. 1. Sriya Sepalika Suludagoda, 2. Lal Kumara Suludagoda, 3. Neetha Kamini Suludagoda, 4. Geetha Chandani Suludagoda, All of No. 60/10 J, Templers Road, Mt. Lavinia SUBSTITUTED Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2020-09-21	SC/APPEAL/148/2012	R. Chandrasena, 392, Siri Parakumba Mawatha, Makola South, Makola. Applicant Vs The Monetary Board, Central Bank of Sri Lanka, 30, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01. Respondent And R. Chandrasena, 392, Siri Parakumba Mawatha, Makola South, Makola. Applicant-Appellant Vs The Monetary Board, Central Bank of Sri Lanka, 30, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01. Respondent-Respondent And The Monetary Board, Central Bank of Sri Lanka, 30, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01. Respondent-Respondent-Appellant Vs R. Chandrasena, 392, Siri Parakumba Mawatha, Makola South, Makola. Applicant-Appellant-Respondent And Now Between Bethmage Premawathie Chandrasena (nee Perera), 392, Siri Parakumba Mawatha, Makola South, Makola. Petitioner Vs The Monetary Board, Central Bank of Sri Lanka, 30, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01. Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2020-09-17	SC/APPEAL/118/2013	K.H. Dayananda, Revenue Inspector, Dehiwala – Mt. Lavania Municipal Council, Dehiwala - Complainant Vs. Ceylon Electricity Board, No. 75/1, Aththidiya Road, Ratmalana - Defaulter AND Ceylon Electricity Board, No. 75/1, Aththidiya Road, Ratmalana - Defaulter/Appellant Vs. K.H. Dayananda, Revenue Inspector, Dehiwala – Mt. Lavania Municipal Council, Dehiwala - Complainant/Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Ceylon Electricity Board, No. 75/1, Aththidiya Road, Ratmalana - Defaulter/Appellant/Appellant Vs. K.H. Dayananda, Revenue Inspector, Dehiwala – Mt. Lavania Municipal Council, Dehiwala - Complainant/Respondent/Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2020-09-17	SC/SPL/LA/159/2017	Hiranya Surantha Wijesinghe, Thuduwa Road, Madapatha, Piliyandala Applicant Vs. Tenderlea Farms (Pvt) Limited, No. 5A, Thuduwa Road, Madapatha, Piliyandala (office Now at) No. 31, First Lane, Ratmalana Respondent AND BETWEEN Tenderlea Farms (Pvt) Limited, No. 5A, Thuduwa Road, Madapatha, Piliyandala (Office now at) No. 31, First Lane, Ratmalana Respondent-Appellant Vs. Hiranya Surantha Wijesighe, Thudawa Road, Madapatha, Piliyandala. Applicant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Hiranya Surantha Wijesinghe, Thuduwa Road, Madapatha, Piliyandala Applicant-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Tenderlea Farms (Pvt) Limited, No. 5A, Thuduwa Road, Madapatha, Piliyandala (Office now at) No. 31, First Lane, Ratmalana Respondent-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2020-09-15	SC/APPEAL/4/2015	People’s Bank, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Plaintiff -Vs- Mahavidanage Simpson Kularatne, No. 662, Tangalle Road, Meddewatta, Matara. Defendant AND People’s Bank, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Plaintiff – Appellant -Vs- Mahavidanage Simpson Kularatne, No. 662, Tangalle Road, Meddewatta, Matara. Defendant – Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Mahavidanage Simpson Kularatne, No. 662, Tangalle Road, Meddewatta, Matara. (Presently at) No. 6B 1-1 Colonel Sunil Senanayake Mawatha, Pitakotte Defendant – Respondent – Appellant -Vs- People’s Bank, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Plaintiff – Appellant – Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2020-09-11	SC/APPEAL/70/2018	Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. COMPLAINANT -VS- Badde Liyanage Wasantha Kumara Fernando. No. 9, St Rita Mawatha, Dummaladeniya South, Wennappuwa. Presently at, Welikada Prison, Borella, Colombo 8. ACCUSED AND BETWEEN Badde Liyanage Wasantha Kumara Fernando. No. 9, St Rita Mawatha, Dummaladeniya South, Wennappuwa. Presently at, Welikada Prison, Borella, Colombo 8. ACCUSED-PETITIONER -VS- Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. COMPLAINANT -RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Badde Liyanage Wasantha Kumara Fernando. No. 9, St Rita Mawatha, Dummaladeniya South, Wennappuwa. Presently at, Welikada Prison, Borella, Colombo 8. ACCUSED-APPELLANT-APPELLANT -VS- Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. COMPLAINANT -RESPONDENT RESPONDENT View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.			Download
2020-09-11	SC/APPEAL/65/2016	Kushan Ediriweera of, 40, Lake Gardens, Rajagiriya. Represented by his duly appointed next Friend. Chandra Ediriweera of, 40, Lake Gardens, Rajagiriya. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Sadhasivam Sivagankan, 442, High Street, Tooting, London, United Kingdom and 439, Galle Road, Colombo 06. 2. Tissaweerasingham Sundhararajan of, 439, Galle Road, Colombo 06 and of, 17, De Mel Road, Mount Lavinia. Defendants 3. Union Assurance Limited of, No. 20, St. Michael’s Road, Colombo 03. Added Defendant AND BETWEEN In the matter of an application, inter alia, under Section 757 of the Civil Procedure Code and Sections 5A (1) and 5A (2) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006 for leave to appeal from the Order made by the Learned Additional District Judge in DC Case No. 58123/MR and Delivered in open court on 24.10.2011. Union Assurance Limited of, No. 20, St. Michael’s Road, Colombo 03. Added Defendant – Petitioner Kushan Ediriweera of, 40, Lake Gardens, Rajagiriya. Represented by his duly appointed next Friend. View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara	Section 757 of the Civil Procedure Code, Sections 5A (1) and 5A (2) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006	Civil Procedure Code, High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006	Download
2020-09-11	SC/APPEAL/88/2012	Udugamaralalage Walter Mendis, No. 34C/45, Rukmalgama Housing Scheme, Pannipitiya. Accused-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2020-09-10	SC/APPEAL/224/2017	Yahampath Arachchilage Niroshanee Nadumali, No.329/3, High Level Road, Meegoda. PLAINTIFF -VS- Damitha Nalinda Bamunusinghe. No.388/7, Baddegedara, Meegoda. DEFENDANT AND Damitha Nalinda Bamunusinghe. No.388/7, Baddegedara, Meegoda. DEFENDANT-PETITIONER -VS- Yahampath Arachchilage Niroshanee Nadumali, No.329/3, High Level Road, Meegoda. PLAINTIFF - RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN Damitha Nalinda Bamunusinghe. No.388/7, Baddegedara, Meegoda. DEFENDANT-PETITIONER-PETITIONER -VS- Yahampath Arachchilage Niroshanee Nadumali, No.329/3, High Level Road, Meegoda. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Damitha Nalinda Bamunusinghe. No.388/7, Baddegedara, Meegoda. DEFENDANT-PETITIONER-PETITIONER-APPELLANT VS- Yahampath Arachchilage Niroshanee Nadumali, No.329/3, High Level Road, Meegoda. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.			Download
2020-09-09	SC/CHC APPEAL/12/2012	Benedict Raja Philip De Silva, 4970, Lansing Drive, North Olmsted, Ohio 44070, United States of America and Presently at No.7, Station Road, Pinwatta, Panadura. Plaintiff Vs Chris Peiris, No. 518, Galle Road, Colombo 3. Chamalee Deepthika Jayawardena, No. 518, Galle Road, Colombo 3. Haritha Munasinghe, No. 58B, Salmulla, Kollonawa. Anthony Joseph Mahinda De Silva, No.27/3, Chandralekha Mawatha, Colombo 8. Defendants In the matter of an Application under Section 218, 343 and 349 of the Civil Procedure Code. Anthony Joseph Mahinda De Silva, No. 27/3, Chandralekha Mawatha, Colombo 8 4th Defendant Petitioner Vs Benedict Raja Philip De Silva, 4970, Lansing Drive, North Olmsted, Ohio 44070, United States of America Plaintiff Respondent AND NOW In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal Under and in terms of Section 5(2) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No.10 of 1996 read together with Chapter LVIII of The Civil Procedure Code. Benedict Raja Philip De Silva, 4970, Lansing Drive, North Olmsted, Ohio 44070, United States of America View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J.	Section 218, 343 and 349 of the Civil Procedure Code, Section 5(2) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No.10 of 1996, Chapter LVIII of The Civil Procedure Code	Civil Procedure Code, High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No.10 of 1996	Download
2020-09-09	SC/CHC APPEAL/34/2011	Benedict Raja Philip De Silva, 4970, Lansing Drive, North Olmsted, Ohio 44070, United States of America and Presently at No.7, Station Road, Pinwatta, Panadura. Plaintiff Vs Chris Peiris, No. 518, Galle Road, Colombo 3. Chamalee Deepthika Jayawardena, No. 518, Galle Road, Colombo 3. Haritha Munasinghe, No. 58B, Salmulla, Kollonawa. Anthony Joseph Mahinda De Silva, No.27/3, Chandralekha Mawatha, Colombo 8. Defendants In the matter of an Application under Section 218, 343 and 349 of the Civil Procedure Code. Anthony Joseph Mahinda De Silva, No. 27/3, Chandralekha Mawatha, Colombo 8 4th Defendant Petitioner Vs Benedict Raja Philip De Silva, 4970, Lansing Drive, North Olmsted, Ohio 44070, United States of America Plaintiff Respondent AND NOW In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal Under and in terms of Section 5(2) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No.10 of 1996 read together with Chapter LVIII of The Civil Procedure Code. Benedict Raja Philip De Silva, 4970, Lansing Drive, North Olmsted, Ohio 44070, United States of America View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J.	Section 218, 343 and 349 of the Civil Procedure Code, Section 5(2) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No.10 of 1996, Chapter LVIII of The Civil Procedure Code	Civil Procedure Code, High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No.10 of 1996	Download
2020-09-09	SC/APPEAL/208/2017	Obawath Kankanamage Jinadasa, No.18, Bowala Road, Mulgampola, Kandy Plaintiff Vs 1. Malwa Waduge Bandusoma 2. Manic Pura Hewage Seetha, Both of No. 385, 12/1, Shanthi Mawatha, Kirillawala. Defendants AND 1. Malwa Waduge Bandusoma 2. Manic Pura Hewage Seetha, Both of No. 385, 12/1, Shanthi Mawatha, Kirillawala. Defendant Appellants Vs Obawath Kankanamage Jinadasa, No.18, Bowala Road, Mulgampola, Kandy Plaintiff Respondent AND NOW 1. Malwa Waduge Bandusoma 2. Manic Pura Hewage Seetha, (Appearing by her Power of Attorney holder Malwa Waduge Bandusoma) Both of No. 385, 12/1, Shanthi Mawatha, Kirillawala. Defendant Appellant Petitioner Appellants Vs 1. Obawath Kankanamage Jinadasa (deceased) No.18, Bowala Road, Mulgampola, Kandy 1A. Manic Pura Waduge Chulani, No.18, Bowala Road, Mulgampola, Kandy Plaintiff Respondent Respondent Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2020-09-09	SC/APPEAL/179/2014	1. Niriellage Jayamini Keerthisheeli, No.106/2, Wattegedera Road, Maharagama. 2. Niriellage Dhammadevamittha Upasena alias Devamittha Upasena Niriella, No.174/9, Balika Nivasa Road, Rukmale Pannipitiya. 3. Niriellage Aruna Kumara Upasena alias Kumara Upasena Niriella, No.662/A, Eeriyawatiya Road, Kiribathgoda Plaintiff Vs Niriellage Shanthi Mangalika Upasena alias Shanthi Mangalika Upasena Niriella, No.130/8, Wijeya Mawatha, Wattegedera Road, Maharagama. Defendant AND NOW Niriellage Shanthi Mangalika Upasena alias Shanthi Mangalika Upasena Niriella, No.130/8, Wijeya Mawatha, Wattegedera Road, Maharagama. Defendant Appellant Vs 1. Niriellage Jayamini Keerthisheeli, No.106/2, Wattegedera Road, Maharagama. 2. Niriellage Dhammadevamittha Upasena alias Devamittha Upasena Niriella, No.174/9, Balika Nivasa Road, Rukmale Pannipitiya. 3. Niriellage Aruna Kumara Upasena alias Kumara Upasena Niriella, No.662/A, Eeriyawatiya Road, Kiribathgoda Plaintiff Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Niriellage Shanthi Mangalika Upasena alias Shanthi Mangalika Upasena Niriella, No.130/8, Wijeya Mawatha, Wattegedera Road, Maharagama. Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs 1. Niriellage Jayamini Keerthisheeli, No.106/2, Wattegedera Road, Maharagama. 2. Niriellage Dhammadevamittha Upasena alias Devamittha Upasena Niriella, No.174/9, Balika Nivasa Road, Rukmale Pannipitiya. 3. Niriellage Aruna Kumara Upasena alias Kumara Upasena Niriella, No.662/A, Eeriyawatiya Road, Kiribathgoda Plaintiff-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2020-09-08	SC/FR/73/2009	1. Chief Inspector W.A.J.H. Fonseka, 125/41, Pannipitiya Road, Baththaramulla. 2. Chief Inspector W.K.J.R. Dias, No. 126, Piyadasa Sirisena Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3. Chief Inspector R.A.R.N. Rajapaksha, No. 1/2, Police Flats, Colombo 10. 4. Chief Inspector Prasad Siriwardana [now deceased], No. 230, Goonawella, Kelaniya. PETITIONERS -Vs- 1. Neville Piyadigama, Chairman, National Police Commission, 3rd Floor, Rotunda Building, No. 109, Galle Road, Colombo 3. 1(a) Senaka Walgampaya, P.C. – Chairman, NPC 1(a)(i) Prof. Siri Hettige – Chairman, NPC 1(a)(ii) Tilak Kollure – Chairman, NPC 1(a)(iii) P.H. Manatunga – Chairman, NPC 1(a)(iv) K.W.E. Karaliyadde – Chairman, NPC 1(A) Vidyajothi Dr. Dayasiri Fernando – Chairman 1(A)(i) Jus. Sathya Hettige, P.C. – Chairman 1(A)(ii) Dharmasena Dissanayake – Chairman 1(B) Palitha M. Kumarasinghe, P.C. – Member 1(B)(i) Kanthi Wijetunga – Member 1(B)(ii) A. Salam Abdul Waid – Member 1(B)(iii) Prof. Hussain Ismail – Member 1(B)(iv) Mrs. Sudharma Karunaratne – Member 1(C) Sirimavo A. Wijeratne – Member View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2020-08-07	SC/APPEAL/52/2014	Petitioner Vs 1. Commissioner General of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 2. Free Trade Zones & General Services Employees Union, 141, Ananda Rajakaruna Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3. G.M. Shiromala Gajanayake, Kapila Sevana, Ihala Dimbulwewa, Welimada. and 49 others Respondents AND NOW Sascon Knitting Company (Pvt) Ltd. No: 752, Baseline Road, Colombo 09. Petitioner-Petitioner/Appellant Vs. 2 1. Commissioner General of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 2. Free Trade Zones & General Services Employees Union, 141, Ananda Rajakaruna Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3. G.M. Shiromala Gajanayake, Kapila Sevana, Ihala Dimbulwewa, Welimada. and 49 others Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC, J.			Download
2020-08-07	SC/APPEAL/123/2012	Dehigaspe Patabandige Nishantha Nanayakkara, No 34/3, 1st Lane, Egodawatte Road, Boralesgamuwa. ACCUSED - RESPONDENT - APPELLANT -Vs- 1. Kyoko Kyuma, No 92/2A, Lauries Road, Colombo 04. AGGRIEVED PARTY APPELLANT - RESPONDENT 2. Officer-In-Charge, Police Station, Piliyandala. COMPLAINANT - RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT 3. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2020-08-04	SC/FR/40/2019	1. Iresha Dulashini Dangolla, Mo.10A, Meegahawatta Road, Gangodawila, Nugegoda. 2. Kandabadage Don Nadeera Wijenayaka, Mo.10A, Meegahawatta Road, Gangodawila, Nugegoda. For an on behalf of Kandabadage Dona Nelisa Manuldi Wijenayaka. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Sandamali Aviruppola, Principal, Visaka Vidyalaya, Colombo-05 2. N.H.M.Chithrananda, Secretary, Ministry of Education, ‘Isurupaya’, Battaramulla 3. S.M. Keerthirathna, Ananda College, Colombo- 10 4. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo-12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. L.T.B. Dehideniya J.			Download
2020-07-31	SC/APPEAL/25/2017	K. Sivasamy C/o Nikapotha Kanda, Kithalella Road, Bandarawela Applicant Vs. D.L.Hema Malini de Silva of Uva, Dikara Watta, Kithalella Road, Heeloya Road, Bandarawela Respondent AND BETWEEN D.L.Hema Malini de Silva of Uva, Dikara Watta, Kithalella Road, Heeloya Road, Bandarawela Respondent/Appellant Vs. K. Sivasamy C/o Nikapotha Kanda, Kithalella Road, Bandarawela Applicant/Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN D.L.Hema Malini de Silva of Uva, Dikara Watta, Kithalella Road, Heeloya Road, Bandarawela Respondent/Appellant/Appellant Vs. K. Sivasamy C/o Nikapotha Kanda, Kithalella Road, Bandarawela Applicant/Respondent/Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2020-07-31	SC/FR/551/2012	P.U.P.K. De Silva, No. 65, Railway Station Road, Balapitiya. PETITIONER Vs 1. Public Service Commission, No.177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 2. Dayasiri Fernando, Chairman, 2A. Dharmasena Dissanayaka, 3. Palitha M. Kumarasinghe, P.C. 3A. Prof. Hussain Ismail, 4. Sirimavo A. Wijeratne, 4A. Dr. Prathap Ramanujam, 5. S.C. Mannapperuma, 5A. V. Jegarasasingam, 6. Ananda Seneviratne, 6A. S. Ranugge, 7. N.H. Pathirana, 7A. D. Laksiri Mendis, 8. S. Thillanandarajah, 8A. Sarath Jayathilaka, 9. M.D.W. Ariyawansa, 9A. Sudharma Karunarathna, 10. A. Mohamed Nahiya, 10A. A.G.S.A. De Silva PC, (All of them of Public Service Commission, No.177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5.) 11. L.C. Senaratne 11A. M.A.B. Daya Senerath, Secretary, Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 12. Southern Province Provincial Public Service Commission, 6th Floor, District Secretariat Office, Galle. 13. H.W. Wijerathne, 13A. H.W. Wijerathna Chairman. 14. K.K.G.J.K. Siriwardena, 14A. K.K.G.J.K. Siri View More	Hon. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.			Download
2020-07-29	SC/FR/451/2016	Batuwana Dewage Lionel Hemakumara, No. 681 2/2, Hospital Place, New Town, Embilipitiya. Petitioners -Vs- 1) Ruwan Gunasekara, Superintendent of Police, Director, Discipline and Conduct Division, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 2) Ajith Rohana, Deputy Inspector General, Discipline and Conduct Division, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 3) Pujitha Jayasundara, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 4) P.H. Manatunga, Chairman 5) S.T. Hettige, Member, 6) Savithree D. Wijesekara, Member, 7) Y.L.M. Zawahir, Member, 8) B.A. Jeyanadan, Member, 9) Tilak Collure, Member, 10) Frank De Silva, Member, The 4th to 10th Respondents, all of National Police Commission, Block No.09, BMICH Premises, Bauddaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 11) Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC J.			Download
2020-07-29	SC/APPEAL/59A/2006	Ravindra Sandresh Karunanayake of No. 1291/6, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. Plaintiff Vs. Wimal Weerawansa of No. 198/19, Panchikawatta Road, Colombo 10. Defendant AND BETWEEN Wimal Weerawansa of No. 198/19, Panchikawatta Road, Colombo 10. Defendant – Petitioner Vs. Ravindra Sandresh Karunanayake of No. 1291/6, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. Plaintiff – Respondent AND BETWEEN Ravindra Sandresh Karunanayake of No. 1291/6, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. Plaintiff – Respondent – Petitioner Vs. Wimal Weerawansa of No. 198/19, Panchikawatta Road, Colombo 10. Defendant – Petitioner – Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Wimal Weerawansa of No. 198/19, Panchikawatta Road, Colombo 10. Defendant – Petitioner – Respondent – Petitioner Vs. Ravindra Sandresh Karunanayake of No. 1291/6, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. Plaintiff – Respondent – Petitioner – Respondent View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2020-07-23	SC/FR/459/2019	1. Denushi Vindya Kasthuriarachchi No.109, Kingswood Park, Maya Terrace, Kiribathgoda. PETITIONER 1. Sri Lanka Medical Council, No.31, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10 2. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo-12 RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. L.T.B. Dehideniya, J			Download
2020-07-23	SC/FR/400/2019	1. A.L.M Rushdhaan, No.27-1/2, Alfred Place, Colombo-3 2. R.W.D.L.H.Rajasekara, No: 23, Saparamadu Place, Weragoda, Kelaniya. 3. M.L.M. Nasly, No.686, Rajamalwatte, Malwana. 4. Dulanjana Nishamali de Silva, No.207, Peradeniya Road, Kandy 5. W.I Madhushani, Dayani, Kondadeniya, Dickwella presently at No.173/A, Araliya Patumaga, Bellanwila, Boralesgamuwa 6. Francis Vijitharan, No.175, Moor Street, Mannar. PETITIONERS 1. Sri Lanka Medical Council, No.31, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10 2. Hon.Dr.Rajitha Senarathne, Minister of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, Ministry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, Suwasiripaya, No.385, Rev. Baddegama, Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo-10. 3. Dr. Anil Jayasinghe, Director General of Health services, Ministry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, Suwasiripaya, No.385, Rev. Baddegama, Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo-10. 4. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney Genreral’s Department, Colombo-12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. L.T.B. Dehideniya, J			Download
2020-07-23	SC/FR/399/2019	1. M.R.N Silva, No.107/B/55, Mattegoda Estate, Mattegoda. 2. M.D.K.P.M.Bamunuge, No.4/7, 1ST Lane, Ananda Maithree Road, Maharagama. 3. V.G.H.E.K Gunarathne 4. , No.22, Chetiyagiri Vihara Lane, Kithulampitiya, Galle. 5. M.N.F.Nisadha, No.34, Galewatta Road, Katugastota Kandy 6. W.K.I Dharmasena, No.B31/1, Ewunugalla, Hettimulla, Kegalle. 7. M.S.M Dhanasekara No. 87, Kandy Road Danovita. 8. Selvathurai Gobika, Esway Vasam, South Puloli, Jaffna. 9. Emorian Fernando No.104, Elle House Road, Colombo-15 PETITIONERS 1. Sri Lanka Medical Council, No.31, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10 2. Hon.Dr.Rajitha Senarathne, Minister of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, Ministry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, Suwasiripaya, No.385, Rev. Baddegama, Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo-10. 3. Dr. Anil Jayasinghe, Director General of Health services, Ministry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, Suwasiripaya, No.385, Rev. Baddegama, Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo-10. 4. Hon. Attorney General, Attor View More	Hon. L.T.B. Dehideniya, J			Download
2020-07-23	SC/FR/442/2019	Shamini Jayathilaka Dissanayake, Pathakada, Pelmadulla. Petitioner Vs 1. Sri Lanka Medical Council, 31, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. 2. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. L.T.B. Dehideniya, J			Download
2020-07-20	SC/FR/288/2017	1. Dr. W M P N Weerasinghe, No 9/11, Ranasinghe Mawatha, Hiripitiya, Pannipitiya. PETITIONER -Vs- 1. University of Colombo, College House, No. 94, Kumaratunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 03. 2. Prof. Lakshman Dissanayake, Vice Chancellor, University of Colombo. 3. K A S Edward, Secretary / Registrar, University of Colombo. 4. Dr. R C K Hettiarachchi, Rector, Sri Palee Campus, University of Colombo. 5. Prof. M D A L Ranasinghe, Dean, Faculty of Arts, University of Colombo. 6. Prof. M V Vithanapathirana, Dean, Faculty of Education, University of Colombo. 7. Ms. Indira Nanayakkara, Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Colombo. 8. Dr. R Senathiraja, Dean, Faculty of Management and Finance, University of Colombo. 9. Prof. Jennifer Perera, Dean, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo. 10. Prof. K R R Mahanama, Dean, Faculty of Science, University of Colombo. 11. Prof. Nayani Melegoda, Dean, Faculty of Graduate Studies, University of Colombo. 12. Prof. Janaka de Silva 13. Prof. J K D S Jayanetti 14. Rajan Asiriwath View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2020-07-17	SC/FR/244/2012	W.M. Namal Sanjeewa of No. 24/B, Deepankara Road, Medaketiya, Tangalle. Petitioner Vs. 1. Neville Gunawardena Director General of Customs, Customs House, No. 40, Main Street, Colombo 11. 1A. Jagath Wijeweera, Director General of Customs, Customs House, No. 40, Main Street, Colombo 11. 1B. R. Semasinghe, Acting Director General of Customs, Customs House, No. 40, Main Street, Colombo 11. 1C. Mr. Chulananda Perera, Director General of Customs, Customs House, No. 40, Main Street, Colombo 11. 2. Dr. P.B. Jayasundara Secretary Ministry of Finance and Planning, Ministry of Finance and Planning, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 2A. Dr. R.H.S. Samaratunga Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Finance, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 3. W.M.N.J. Pushpakumara Commissioner General of Examinations, Department of Examinations, Sri Lanka. 4. Sathya Hettige Chairman 4A. Mr. Dharmasena Dissanayake Chairman 5. Kanthi Wijetunga Member 5A. Mrs. V. Jegarasasingam Member 6. Dr. N.I. Soyza Member 6A. Mr. Santi Nihal Seneviratne Memb View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC J.			Download
2020-07-17	SC/APPEAL/32/2015	Rasingolle Weerasinghe Mudiyanselage Nandana Senerathbandara alias Chandi No. 21, New Mahasenpura Welikanda. Accused-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. The Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC			Download
2020-07-17	SC/FR/214/2017	1. Juan Badathuruge Anugi Sageethma, No. 78/23D, Samagi Mawatha, Bandaranayake Place, Galle. 2. Juan Badathuruge Janaka Prasad, No. 78/23D, Samagi Mawatha, Bandaranayake Place, Galle. Petitioners -Vs- 1. Sandhya Iranie Pathiranawasam, The Principal and member of the Interview Board to admit students to Grade 1, Southlands College. Galle. 2. S.K.S.D. Silva, The Vice Principal and member of the Interview Board to admit students to Grade 1, Southlands College, Galle. 3. Member of the Interview Board to admit students to Grade 1, Southlands College, Galle. 4. Member of the Interview Board to admit students to Grade 1, Southlands College, Galle. 5. Member of the Interview Board to admit students to Grade 1, Southlands College, Galle. 6. Ranjith Thilakasiri, Chairman of the Appeals and Objections Board to admit student to Grade 1, Southlands College, Galle. 7. S.K.S.D. Silva, Member of the Appeals and Objections Board to admit student to Grade 1, Southlands College, Galle. 8. D.L.Chithra, Member of the Appeals and View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC, J.			Download
2020-07-16	SC/FR/29/2018	1. Locomotive Assistants Union, Department of Railways, Maligawatte, Colombo 10. 2. Pitigala Arachchige Danushka Perera President, Locomotive Assistants Union No. C 22 Railway House, Dematagoda, Colombo 09. 3. Rupasinghe Arachchilage Sanka Namal Secretary, Locomotive Assistants Union No. 28, Railway Quarters, Danister de Silva Mawatha Dematagoda, Colombo 09. 4. Dikmahadu Godage Gunapala, Treasurer, Locomotive Assistants Union, Liyanagedara, Nedurugoda, Elpitiya, Thelijjawila. 5. Hewa Heenipallage Ranaweera No. 208, Kirikurakkan Hena, Komangoda, Tihiyagoda. 6. Weerasinghe Arachchilage Ranga Prasad No. 1A/F1/014 Mihindusevanapura, Dematagoda, Colombo 09. 7. Hettiarachchilage Ananda Sarath No 22, Tissa Weerasinghe Square, Seema Road, Batticaloa. 8. Hittatiya Edirisooriyage Janaka Ranjan No. 706/1, Elhena Road, Madinnagoda, Rajagiriya. 9. Thuwan Nijam Tuwannoor No. 105/P/2, D.R. Wijewardana Mawatha, Colombo 10. 10. Mahabandarage Dishan No. B/4/3, Maligawatta, Railway Quarters, Colombo 10. 11. Maththumagoda Kankan View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2020-07-14	SC/APPEAL/134/2014	1. Handuwala Devage Simon Fernando Alias Handuwala Devage Simon Munasinghe, No. 144, Kelanitissa Mawatha, Wanawasala, Kelaniya. Original Debtor - Applicant. 1A. Handuwala Devage Sisira Munasinghe, No. 144, Kelanitissa Mawatha, Wanawsala, Kelaniya. Substituted Debtor - Applicant. -Vs- Ranepura Devage Hector Jayasiri, No. 542, Sudharmarama Road, Kelaniya. Respondent. And In the matter of Chairman and Members of the Debt Conciliation Board had requested the Court of Appeal under section 53 of the Debt Conciliation Ordinance in to seek the opinion of the Court of Appeal on section 19A (1A) of the Debt Conciliation (amendment) Act No. 29 of 1999. 1. Chairman and Members of Debt Conciliations Board, No. 80, Adhikarana Mawatha, Colombo 12. Requestor – Applicant seeking opinion from Appeal Court under Section 53 of the Debt Conciliation Ordinance. Requestor – Applicant. 2. Ranepura Devage Hector Jayasiri, No. 542, Sudharmarama Road, Kelaniya. Original Respondent - Respondent. -vs- 1A. Handuwala Devage Sirira Munasing View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara	Debt Conciliation Ordinance, Section 19A (1A), Debt Conciliation (Amendment) Act No. 29 of 1999, Section 53	Debt Conciliation Ordinance, Debt Conciliation (Amendment) Act No. 29 of 1999	Download
2020-07-10	SC/APPEAL/26/2016	Kahandawala Arachchige Indrawansha No. 641, Kajuhena Road, Heiyanthuduwa. Plaintiff Vs. Kahandawala Arachchige Rupasiri No. 641/B, Kajuhena Road, Heiyanthuduwa. Defendant AND BETWEEN Mahakumbure Gedara Sandamali Thilakarathne No. 639/3, Kajuhena Road, Heiyanthuduwa. Petitioner Vs. Kahandawala Arachchige Indrawansha No. 641, Kajuhena Road, Heiyanthuduwa. Plaintiff-Respondent Kahandawala Arachchige Rupasiri No. 641/B, Kajuhena Road, Heiyanthuduwa. Defendant-Respondent AND BETWEEN Mahakumbure Gedara Sandamali Thilakarathne No. 639/3, Kajuhena Road, Heiyanthuduwa. Petitioner-Petitioner Vs. Kahandawala Arachchige Indrawansha No. 641, Kajuhena Road, Heiyanthuduwa. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent Kahandawala Arachchige Rupasiri No. 641/B, Kajuhena Road, Heiyanthuduwa. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent AND NOW BY AND BETWEEN Kahandawala Arachchige Indrawansha No. 641, Kajuhena Road, Heiyanthuduwa. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent- Petitioner Vs. Mahakumbure Gedara Sandamali Thilakarathne No. 639/3, Kajuhena Road, Heiyan View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2020-07-06	SC/FR/446/2016 with SC/FR/227/2016	K.N. Kanthi Silva Batalanda, Ragama. (SC/FR/446/16) Dissanayake Mudiyanselage Udayasiri, No. 190/A-2, Bulugahawela Road, Panadura. (SC/FR/227/16) Petitioners Vs, 1. G. A. N. Jayantha, Former Commissioner of Provincial Revenue Service, Department of Provincial Revenue Service of the Western Province, No. 204, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Battaramulla. 1A. D.A.S. Dedigama, Commissioner of Provincial Revenue Service, Department of Provincial Revenue Service of the Western Province, No. 204, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Battaramulla. 2. H. T. Kamal Pathmasiri, Former Secretary, Ministry of Provincial Councils and Local Government, No. 330, Dr. Colvin R. de Silva Mawatha (Union Place) Colombo 02. 2A. S. D. A. B. Boralessa, Secretary, Ministry of Provincial Councils and Local Government, No. 330, Dr. Colvin R. de Silva Mawatha (Union Place) Colombo 02. 3. M. A. B. Daya Senarath, Former Chief Secretary of Western Province, Office of the Chief Secretary, “Saraswathi Mandiraya” No. 32, Sri Marcus Fernando Mawatha, Colom View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2020-07-06	SC/FR/322/2011	1. Mrs. D.W.D.E. Randeniya No. 394, Old Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. 2. Mrs. Thushari Anuruddhika No. 475c, Samudra Mawatha Arangala, Hokandara (North). 3. Mr. B.A.T. Balasooriya 53 K, Pahalagama, Gampaha. 4. Mrs. Nilanthi Perera 127/1C, 9, Jayawardana Mawatha, Pahala Karagahamuna, Kadawatha. 5. Mrs. Rupika Kannangara C A 7/3, Ranpokunagama, Nittambuwa. 6. Mrs. Deepa Priyanthi de Alwis “Senani” Kalawana, Minuwangoda. 7. Chithrani Abeygunawardana No. 25, Suwarnapura, Horana. 8. Mrs. G.A. Chandrani, 106, Nalluruwa, Panadura. 9. Mr. M.R.S. Bopage “Manel” Kahawathugoda, Ahangama. 10. Mr. Priyantha Wijegunasekera “Sahana” Samagi Mawatha, Godagama, Matara. 11. Mrs. Kamal Kanthi Weerathunga Kokmaduwa Niwasa, Paragahahena, Weralaliya, Welipitiya. 12. Mr. Ravindra Kumara Dias, Panetiyana, Weligama. 13. Mr. K.K.P. Padmasiri “Upali” Kithalagama East, Thihagoda. 14. Mr.T.H.J. Thilanath Kadagahawaththa, Eluwawala, Denipitiya. 15. Mr. E.L Bandularama “Akashi” Panamulla, Nihiluwa, Beliatta. 16. Mr. R.K. Wimalarathne “Sanudim View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC			Download
2020-07-03	SC/APPEAL/20/2017	Lansage Basil Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Appellant Vs Hon. Attorney General Respondent Respondent Respondent Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira. J. de Abrew, J			Download
2020-07-03	SC/APPEAL/120/2012	Bank of Ceylon No.1, Bank of Ceylon Mawatha Colombo 1 Plaintiff Vs Flex Port (Pvt) Limited. No.127, Jambugasmulla Mawatha, Nugegoda. Defendant AND BETWEEN Bank of Ceylon No.1, Bank of Ceylon Mawatha Colombo 1 Plaintiff Appellant Vs Flex Port (Pvt) Limited. No.127, Jambugasmulla Mawatha, Nugegoda. Defendant Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Bank of Ceylon No.1, Bank of Ceylon Mawatha Colombo 1 Plaintiff Appellant Petitioner Appellant Vs Flex Port (Pvt) Limited. No.127, Jambugasmulla Mawatha, Nugegoda. Defendant Respondent Respondent Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2020-06-26	SC/SPL/LA/145/2014	The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. Plaintiff Vs, 1. Herath Mudiyanselage Sarath Wijewardene, No. 35, Migunagama, Mahiyangana. 2. Algama Koralage Sumedha Perera, No. 270C, 14B, Dickland Estate, Hokandara Road, Talawatugoda. Accused And between Stanley Christoffel Asoka Obeysekere, No.11/5, Rajakeeya Mawatha, Colombo 07 Aggrieved Party -Appellant Vs. 1. Herath Mudiyanselage Sarath Wijewardene, No. 35, Migunagama, Mahiyangana. 2. Algama Koralage Sumedha Perera, No. 270C, 14B, Dickland Estate, Hokandara Road, Talawatugoda. Accused-Respondents The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. Respondent And Now Between 1. Herath Mudiyanselage Sarath Wijewardene, No. 35, Migunagama, Mahiyangana. 2. Algama Koralage Sumedha Perera, No. 270C, 14B, Dickland Estate, Hokandara Road, Talawatugoda. Accused-Respondents-Petitioners Vs, Stanley Christoffel Asoka Obeysekere, No.11/5, Rajakeeya Mawatha, Colombo 07 Aggrieved Party -Appellant-Respondent The Attorney General Attorney Genera View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC, J			Download
2020-06-26	SC/SPL/LA/184/2017	The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant Vs. Punchiweddikarage Aruna Felix Perera No. 21/7, Dharmarathna Mawatha, Rawathawatte, Moratuwa. Accused AND BETWEEN Punchiweddikarage Aruna Felix Perera No. 21/7, Dharmarathna Mawatha, Rawathawatte, Moratuwa. Accused-Appellant Vs. The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2020-06-26	SC/APPEAL/203/2015	Chandani Jayasinghe “Samagi”, Kalupahana, Poruwadanda. Petitioner Vs, Neelahenndi Sisira Kumara De. Silva “Samagi”, Kalupahana, Poruwadanda. Respondent And between Chandani Jayasinghe “Samagi”, Kalupahana, Poruwadanda. Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Neelahenndi Sisira Kumara De. Silva “Samagi”, Kalupahana, Poruwadanda. Respondent-Respondent 2. The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. Respondent And Now Between Chandani Jayasinghe “Samagi”, Kalupahana, Poruwadanda. Petitioner-Appellant-Petitioner Vs, Neelahenndi Sisira Kumara De. Silva “Samagi”, Kalupahana, Poruwadanda. Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC, J			Download
2020-06-26	SC/APPEAL/114/2019	Commissioner General of Inland Revenue, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Appellant vs, Janashakthi Insurance Company Limited, No. 47, Muttiah Road, Colombo 02. Respondent And between Janashakthi Insurance PLC (Previously Known as Janashakthi Insurance Company Limited and thereafter as Janashakthi Insurance Company PLC), No. 675, Dr. Danister de. Silva Mawatha, Colombo 09. (Previously of No. 47, Muttiah Road, Colombo 02) And also of, No. 55/72, Vauxhall Lane, Colombo 02. Respondent -Appellant 2 Vs. Commissioner General of Inland Revenue, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2020-06-26	SC/APPEAL/163/2017	Daintee Limited, No. 72C, Kandawala Road, Ratmalana Plaintiff Vs, Uswatte Confectionery Works Limited No.437, Galle Road, Ratmalana Defendant And Uswatte Confectionery Works Limited No.437, Galle Road, Ratmalana Defendant-Appellant Vs. Daintee Limited, No. 72C, Kandawala Road, Ratmalana Plaintiff-Respondent And Now Between Uswatte Confectionery Works Limited No.437, Galle Road, Ratmalana Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs, Daintee Limited, No. 72C, Kandawala Road, Ratmalana Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC, J			Download
2020-06-18	SC/APPEAL/60/2018	A Rajalingam, No. 102 / 2, Sri Rathanajothi Sarawanamuttu Mawatha, Colombo 13. RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT - APPELLANT -Vs- Dissanayake Mudiyanselage Udaya Ranjith, Municipal Engineers Department (planning), Colombo Municipal Council, Town Hall, Colombo 07. APPLICANT - PETITIONER - APPELLANT - RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2020-06-18	SC/FR/222/2018	Alankarage Dona Chathurika Silva, No. 52, Pepiliyana Mawatha, Pepiliyana. Petitioner Vs. 1. Sunil Hettiarachchi, Secretary – Ministry of Education, ‘Isurupaya’, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. 1A. Pathmasiri Jayamanne Secretary – Ministry of Education, ‘Isurupaya’, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. 1B. N H M Chitrananda Secretary – Ministry of Education, ‘Isurupaya’, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. Added 1B Respondent 2. Hon. Akila Viraj Kariyawasm, Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, ‘Isurupaya’, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. 2A. Hon. Dallas Alahapperuma, Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, ‘Isurupaya’, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. Added 2A Respondent 3. W.M. Jayantha Wickramanayake, Director – National Schools, Department of Education, Ministry of Education, ‘Isurupaya’, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. 4. Judicial Service Association, Chief Magistrate’s Court Premises, Colombo 12. 5. R.S.A. Dissanayake, President – Judicial Service Association, Chief Magistrate’s Court, Colombo 12. 5A. Hasitha Ponnamperuma President – Judicia View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2020-06-17	SC/APPEAL/181/2016	Wewala Patabendige Somapala, Army Camp, Clappanburge, China Bay. Presently at E 13, Temple Road, Aranayake, Talgaspitiya. ACCUSED - APPELLANT - APPELLANT -Vs- 1. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT 2. Officer-in-Charge, Traffic Branch, Police Station, Trincomalee. COMPLAINANT - RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2020-06-16	SC/FR/296/2014	Kandawalage Don Samantha Perera, Patapiligama, Hettipola. PETITIONER Vs 1. Officer In Charge, Police Station, Hettipola. 2. OIC Crimes of Police, Police Station, Hettipola. 3. Inspector General of Police, IGP Office, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp Street, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC. J,			Download
2020-06-09	SC/APPEAL/139/2017	W.K.S. Jayasundara, 309 A, Nedagamuwa (West), Katugoda. APPLICANT -VS- Next Manufacturing (Pvt) Ltd., Ring Road, Phase I, Investment Promotion Zone, Katunayake. EMPLOYER- RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN Next Manufacturing (Pvt) Ltd., Ring Road, Phase I, Investment Promotion Zone, Katunayake. EMPLOYER-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT -VS- W.K.S. Jayasundara, 309 A, Nedagamuwa (West), Katugoda. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Next Manufacturing (Pvt) Ltd., Ring Road, Phase I, Investment Promotion Zone, Katunayake. EMPLOYER-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-APPELLANT -VS- W.K.S. Jayasundara, 309 A, Nedagamuwa (West), Katugoda. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT RESPONDENT View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J			Download
2020-06-09	SC/FR/520/2009	1. R. A. P. de C. Ranaweera 101/22-1/2, B Block Police Quarters, Kew Road, Colombo 02. 2. B. P. B. Ayupala, No. 35, Sri Medananda Mawatha, Panadura. 3. L.A.S. Lekamge 32/1, Gangadara Mawatha, Off Templars Road, Mt. Lavinia. Petitioners 1. Jayantha Wickramaratne Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 1(b). Pujitha Jayasundara Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 2. Gotabhaya Rajapaksha Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Public Security, Law and Order, Ministry of Defence, No.15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 03. 2(a). Karunasena Hettiarachchi Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Public Security, Law and Order, Ministry of Defence, No.15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 03. 3. Gamini Senarath Additional Secretary to the President, President House, Colombo 01. 4. Hasitha Kumari Balasuriya Additional Secretary, Ministry of Defence (Police), No. 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 03. 5. K. C. Logeshwaran Secretary, National Police Commission, Rotunda Tower, Level 3, 109, Galle View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2020-06-03	SC/FR/288/2014	1. W G Gunarathna, No. 13, Randiya Uyana, Palapathwala. 2. M W M Shanika Karunarathna, ‘Sirikatha’, Udagama, Ulapane. 3. D M Pathma Kumari, Bamwaththa, Gokarella. 4. D C Sunethra Ariyasinghe, No. 145, Koskotuwa, Walawela, Matale. 5. S M I R Samarakoon, 38th Mile Post, Lenadora. 6. H M S K Herath, No. 104/B, Magoda, Ruwan Eliya, Nuwara Eliya. 7. S A C S Kumarathna, 302/1, Aluthwela, Karalliyadda, Theldeniya. 8. I G H D Somasinghe, No. 25, Palapathwala, Wahakotte. PETITIONERS -Vs- 1. Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 2. Director-General Establishments, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 3. Retired Justice Hon. Sathya Hettige PC, Chairman. 4. S C Manapperuma, 5. Ananda Seneviratne, 6. N H Pathirana, 7. S Thillandarajah, 8. A Mohamed Nahiya, 9. Kanthi Wijetunge, 10. Sunil S Sirisena 11. Dr. I M Zoysa Gunasekera, All members of the Public Service Commission No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2020-06-02	SC/APPEAL/34/2010	Yogananda Wickramasinghe Mohotti, No.76/2D, Paramulla Road, Paramulla, Matara. PLAINTIFF -VS- Nimal Bambarenda, No.20, Bandaranyake Pura, Medahittetiya, Matara. DEFENDANT AND BETWEEN Nimal Bambarenda, No.20, Bandaranayake Pura, Medahittetiya, Matara. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT -VS- Yogananda Wickramasinghe Mohotti, No.76/2D, Paramulla Road, Paramulla, Matara. PLANTIFF - RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Nimal Bambarenda, No.20, Bandaranayake Pura, Medahittetiya, Matara. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-APPELLANT -VS- Yogananda Wickramasinghe Mohotti, No.76/2D, Paramulla Road, Paramulla, Matara. (Presently of No. 3/7, Samson Dias Mawatha, Polhena, Matara) PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT View More	Hon. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J			Download
2020-05-28	SC/APPEAL/13/2018	Faith Soysa. 2A, Torrington Place, Independent Avenue, Colombo 07. PLAINTIFF Wahala Thanthrige Dayananda Rupasoma Perera. No.15, Siripa Lane, Colombo 5. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF -VS- Brian Michael Francis Muller Pereira. No.28, Torrington Avenue, Colombo 7. DEFENDANT AND Brian Michael Francis Muller Pereira. No.28, Torrington Avenue, Colombo 7. DEFENDANT- APPELLANT -VS- Wahala Thanthrige Dayananda Rupasoma Perera. No.15, Siripa Lane, Colombo 5. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT (Deceased) Honarine Mary Evangeline Cristobel Rasiah (nee Dias). No. 2A, Torrington Place, Independent Avenue, Colombo 7. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN Brian Michael Francis Muller Pereira. No.28, Torrington Avenue, Colombo 7. DEFENDANT- APPELLANT- PETITIONER -VS- Honarine Mary Evangeline Cristobel Rasiah (nee Dias). No. 2A, Torrington Place, Independent Avenue, Colombo 7. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Brian Michael Francis Muller Pereira. No.28, Torrington Avenue, Colombo 7. DEFENDANT- APPELLA View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.			Download
2020-05-27	SC/APPEAL/111/2015 WITH SC/APPEAL/113/2015 AND SC/APPEAL/114/2015	1. Wijesiri Gunawardane No. 122/05, Indipokunagoda, Tangalle. 1st Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner-Petitioner-Appellant 2. Lanka Deepani Muthukumarana No. 129, Beliatta Road, Tangalle. 2nd Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner-Petitioner-Appellant 3. Mahanama Dissanayakalage Sumanalatha No. 117/23, Beliatta Road, Tangalle. 5th Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Chandrasena Muthukumarana (deceased) Pearlin Hotel, Tangalle. 4th Respondent-Appellant-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent 1A. Asith Nimantha Muthukumarana No. 127, Beliatta Road, Tangalle. Substituted 4A Respondent-Appellant-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent 2. Officer-in-Charge Police Station, Tangalle. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent- Respondent 3. Palliyaguruge Nandasiri No. 122/1, Indipokunagoda, Tangalle. 3rd Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner-Respondent- Respondent 4. Urban Council, Tangalle. Added 6th Respondent-Respondent-Respondent- Respondent 5. Hon. Attorney-General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Added View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2020-05-26	SC/FR/39/2019	1. Bamunu Arachchige Pasasna Abhinithi Bamunu Arachchi. Minor appearing through her Mother. 2. Wijayasinghe Arachchige Udyoga Sanwarani Wijayasinghe. (Mother of the 1st Petitioner) both of No. 215/R/6, Anderson Flats, Narahenpita Colombo. 05. Petitioners. Vs. 1. Mrs. S.S.K. Aviruppola Principal, Visakha Vidyalaya, 133, Vajira Road, Colombo 05. 2. Director – National Schools, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Pelawatte, Battaramulla. 3. Secretary, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Pelawatte, Battaramulla. 4. G.P Desandi Chiranthi (Minor) Appearing through her mother; 4A. K.M. Prabashini. Mother of the 4th Respondent. both of No. 41/14, Ekamuthu Mawatha, Puwakwatta, Meegoda. 5. Zonal Director of Education, Zonal Education Office, Hingurakgoda. 6. Hon Attorney General. Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents. View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2020-05-21	SC/APPEAL/138/2012	Sewgan Sivapakyam, No. 90, Mahakumbura, Nawalapitiya. Presently at 196/31, Pannaloka Mawatha, Peiris Road, Dehiwala. DEFENDANT - RESPONDENT - APPELLANT -Vs- Indrani Sinnaiah, No. 56, Kotmale Road, Nawalapitiya. (now deceased) PLAINTIFF - APPELLANT - RESPONDENT 1A. Sinnaih Muththalagu 1B. Sinnaih Manoharan Both of No. 92, Mahakumbura, Soysakele 6, Nawalapitiya. 1C. Ramachandran Haridas, Soysakele Road, Mahakumbura, Nawalapitiya. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF - APPELLANT - RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2020-05-20	SC/FR/335/2018	Galkandage Sahasra Sandeepa Perera, No: 32, Chandra Place, Ja-Ela Petitioner Vs. 1. Mr. Harsha Guruge, District Scout Commissioner, “Geeth”, Station Road, Seeduwa. 2. Mr. Meril Gunathilake, Chief Commissioner-Scout Sri Lanka Scout Association, No: 65/9, Sir Chiththampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 3. Secretary, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Battaramulla. 4. Principal, Christ King College, Thudella, Ja-Eela. 5. Mr. S. A. Amarasinghe, Assistant Chief Commissioner, Chief of the Interview Board. 6. Mr. G.B. Orcus, Leader Trainer, Secretary National Training Team, Member of the Interview Board. 5th and 6th above named Both of Sri Lanka Scout Association, No: 65/9, Sir Chiththampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 7. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents 8. The Ceylon Scout Council, No: 65/9, Sir Chiththampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Added Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2020-05-19	SC/FR/181/2016	1. M. Weerasinghe, No. 1200/4, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 2. D.G.A Wijebandara, No. 972A, Pannipitiya Road, Thalangama South, Battaramulla. 3. R.K.M Dayananda, No. 25/7, Coranelis Mawatha, Thalapathpitiya Road, Nugegoda. 4. N.P.G. Karunathilaka, No. 190, Whitewell Estate, Paththalagedara, Veyangoda. PETITIONERS Vs 1. P.S.M Charles, Director – General of Customs, Sri Lanka Customs Department, No. 40, Main Street, Colombo 11. 2. A. Senanayake, Additional Director – General (Human Resource Management) Sri Lanka Customs Department, No. 40, Main Street, Colombo 11. 3. D. Dissanayake, Chairman, 4. Prof. Hussain Ismail 5. V. Jegarajasingham, 6. Nihal Seneviratne, 7. Dr. Prathap Ramanujan, 8. S. Ranugge, 9. D.L. Mendis, 10. Sarath Jayathilaka, 11. D. Wijayatileke, (All members of the Public Service Commission of No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05.) 12. A. Kulatunga , Secretary, Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 13. Secretary, Ministry of Finance, The Secretaria View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.			Download
2020-03-12	SC/APPEAL/62/2016	Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. DEFENDANT - PETITIONER - APPELLANT -Vs- M S M Najimudeen and 02 others All of 93 2/4, Prince Street, Colombo 11, Carrying on a business in partnership under the name and style and firm of Artex Garments of 93 2/4, Prince Street, Colombo 11. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2020-03-11	SC/APPEAL/151/2017	Kudaanthonige Rasika Damayanthi No. 106, FC02 Yaya 18, Agunakolapelessa. Applicant Vs, Hewa Walimunige Gamini Yaya 15, D3 Ela, Hakmanagedara, Yakawala, Agunakolapelessa. Respondent And then between Kudaanthonige Rasika Damayanthi No. 106, FC02 Yaya 18, Agunakolapelessa Applicant-Appellant Vs, Hewa Walimunige Gamini Yaya 15, D3 Ela, Hakmanagedara, Yakawala, Agunakolapelessa. Respondent-Respondent And Now between Hewa Walimunige Gamini Yaya 15, D3 Ela, Hakmanagedara, Yakawala, Agunakolapelessa. Respondent-Respondent- Appellant Vs, Kudaanthonige Rasika Damayanthi No. 106, FC02 Yaya 18, Agunakolapelessa Applicant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC, J.			Download
2020-03-11	SC/APPEAL/152/2012	1. Kulasinghe Mudiyanselage Silindu Menike 2. Kulasekera Mudiyanselage Godapele Gedara 3. Kulasekera Mudiyanselage Godapele Gedara Wasantha Kalyani Ekanayake 4. Kulasekera Mudiyanselage Godapele Gedara Prabhath Mangala Ekanayake 5. Kulasekera Mudiyanselage Godapele Gedara Pulasthi Kumara Raveendra Ekanayake All of Putuhapuwa, Watapana, Godapolawatta PLAINTIFFS Vs. 1. Kulasekara Mudiyanselage Abeyratne alias Abeysinhe Banda (Dead) 1A. Kulasekera Mudiyanselage Godapele Gedara Jayawardena 1st AND 2nd DEFENDENTS 3. Kulasekera Mudiyanselage Godapele Gedara Biso Menike 3rd DEFENDANT All of Putuhapuwa, Watapana, Godapolawatta AND 2. Kulasekera Mudiyanselage Godapele Gedara Jayawardena 2nd DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Kulasinghe Mudiyanselage Silindu Menike 2. Kulasekera Mudiyanselage Godapele Gedara Sandya Kumari Swarnalatha Ekanayake 3. Kulasekera Mudiyanselage Godapele Gedara Wasantha Kalyani Ekanayake 4. Kulasekera Mudiyanselage Godapele Gedara Prabhath Mangala Ekanayake 5. Kulasekera Mudiyanselage Godapele Gedara View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC, J			Download
2020-03-04	SC/APPEAL/185/2014	Subramaniam Asokan 15, 4th Cross Street, Colombo 11 But residing at No. 44, 36th Lane, Colombo 06. Appellant Vs. Alawala Dewage Premalal Siriwardana of No. 496/5, Ihala-Karagahamune Kaduwela. Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC	Special Leave to Appeal, Article 128(2) of the Constitution	Constitution of Sri Lanka	Download
2020-03-03	SC/APPEAL/65/2014	1. Samsudeen Sithy Fareeda 2. Fathima Jiffriya Shafi Both of 7A, Tharalanda Road, Matale. Plaintiffs Vs 1. The Municipal Council Matale 2. The Mayor, The Municipal Council Matale 3. The Municipal Commissioner The Municipal Council Matale Defendants AND BETWEEN 1. Samsudeen Sithy Fareeda 2. Fathima Jiffriya Shafi Both of 7A, Tharalanda Road, Matale. Plaintiff Appellants Vs 1. The Municipal Council Matale. 2. The Mayor, The Municipal Council Matale. 3. The Municipal Commissioner, The Municipal Council Matale. Defendant Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. The Municipal Council Matale. 2. The Mayor, The Municipal Council Matale. 3. The Municipal Commissioner, The Municipal Council Matale. Defendant Respondent Appellants Vs 1. Samsudeen Sithy Fareeda 2. Fathima Jiffriya Shafi Both of 7A, Tharalanda Road, Matale Plaintiff Appellant Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2020-02-28	SC/APPEAL/162/2010	Pitihuma Ralalage Tennakone Banda, Maligatenna, Thunthota, Dedigama. Plaintiff. 1. Wickramasinghe Mudiyanselage Podi Menika alias Punchi Manika, Ihala Daswatte, Mawanella. 2. Pitihuma Ralalage Premaratne Menike, Ihala Daswatte, Mawanella. 3. Pitihuma Ralalage Kuda Menike, Wegiriya Veediya, Hondiya Deniya, Udunuwara. 4. Pitihuma Ralalage Illangaratne Menike, 320B, Menikagara Road, Korathota, Kaduwela. Defendants And Between Pitihuma Ralalage Tennakone Banda, Maligatenna, Thunthota, Dedigama. Plaintiff – Appellant. Vs. 1. Wickramasinghe Mudiyanselage Podi Menika alias Punchi Manika, Ihala Daswatte, Mawanella. 2. Pitihuma Ralalage Premaratne Menike, Ihala Daswatte, Mawanella. 3. Pitihuma Ralalage Kuda Menike, Wegiriya Veediya, Hondiya Deniya, Udunuwara. 4. Pitihuma Ralalage Illangaratne Menike, 320B, Menikagara Road, Korathota, Kaduwela. Defendants – Respondents. And Between. Pitihuma Ralalage Premaratne Menike, Ihala Daswatte, Mawanella. 2ND Defendant – Respondent – Petitioner. Vs. Pitihuma Ralalage Tennakone B View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2020-02-26	SC/APPEAL/205/2016	Pahalage Manel Malkanthi Abeygunawardane “Rendagewatta”, Paiyagala Paiyagala. Plaintiff Vs 1. Hettiarachchige Podi Mahaththaya No.69, Samagi Mawatha, Nittambuwa. 2. Hettiarachchige Wijesundara No.10, Samagi Mawatha, Dangollawatta, Nittambuwa. Defendants AND Hettiarachchige Wijesundara No.10, Samagi Mawatha, Dangollawatta, Nittambuwa. 2nd Defendant Appellant. Vs Pahalage Manel Malkanthi Abeygunawardane “Rendagewatta”, Paiyagala Paiyagala. Plaintiff Respondent Hettiarachchige Podi Mahaththaya No.69, Samagi Mawatha, Nittambuwa. 1st Defendant Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Hettiarachchige Wijesundara No.10, Samagi Mawatha, Dangollawatta, Nittambuwa. 2nd Defendant Appellant Petitioner Appellant Vs Pahalage Manel Malkanthi Abeygunawardane “Rendagewatta”, Paiyagala South, Paiyagala. Plaintiff Respondent Respondent Respondent Hettiarachchige Podi Mahaththaya No.69, Samagi Mawatha, Nittambuwa. (Deceased) 1st Defendant Respondent Respondent Respondent Hettiarachchige Wijesundara No.10, Samagi Mawatha, Dangollaw View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2020-02-26	SC/APPEAL/74/2008	Geekiyanage Viyantha Vijithweera No.156, Kandy Road Nuwaraeliya . Plaintiff Vs 1. Mohamed Thuwan No.4, Old Bazar Nuwaraeliya Defendant AND Mohamed Thuwan No.4 , Old Bazar Nuwaraeliya Defendant Appellant Vs Geekiyanage Viyantha Vijithweera No.156, Kandy Road Nuwaraeliya Plaintiff Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Geekiyanage Viyantha Vijithweera No.156, Kandy Road, Nuwaraeliya. Plaintiff Respondent Petitioner Appellant Vs Mohamed Thuwan No.4, Old Bazar. Nuwaraeliya Defendant Appellant Respondent Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2020-02-26	SC/APPEAL/91/2013	1. Leif Heling 2. Kristine Heling Both of No. 3070, Sanday , Norway Appearing through their power of Attorney holder Pothupitiya Kankanamge Udaya Gunabandu. “If” Thalpe, Galle. Plaintiffs Vs 1. Yasawathi Abeywickrama Weerasinghe. 2. Kumarapperuma Arachchige Carolis Gunapala Both of Liyanagewatta, Thalpe, Galle. Defendants AND BETWEEN 1. Yasawathi Abeywickrama Weerasinghe. Liyanagewatta, Thalpe, Galle. 2. Kumarapperuma Arachchige Carolis Gunapala ( 2A. Kumarapperuma Arachchige Kumara. Liyanagewatta, Thalpe, Galle. Defendant Appellants Vs 1. Leif Heling No. 3070, Sanday, Norway 2. Kristine Heling No. 3070, Sanday, Norway Appearing through their power of Attorney holder Pothupitiya Kankanamge Udaya Gunabandu. “If” Thalpe, Galle. Plaintiff Respondents AND BETWEEN Yasawathi Abeywickrama Weerasinghe. Liyanagewatta, Thalpe, Galle. 1st Defendant Appellant Petitioner Vs 1. Leif Heling No. 3070, Sanday, Norway 2. Kristine Heling No. 3070, Sanday, Norway Appearing through their power of Attorney holder Pothupitiya View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2020-02-20	SC/FR/291/2016	Lt. Col. Samitha Manojith Hewa Imaduwage, 46/4, Senanayake Avenue, Nawala, Rajagiriya. Petitioner Vs 1. Lieutenant General A. W. J. C. De Silva, Commander of the Army, Army Headquarters, Colombo 03. 1A. Lieutenant General Mahesh Senanayake, Commander of the Army, Army Headquarters, Colombo 03. 2. Major General N. J. Walgama, Military Secretary, Army Headquarters, Colombo 03. 2A. Major General C. W. B. Wijesundera, Military Secretary, Army Headquarters, Colombo 03. 3. Brigadier K. B. R. De Abrew, Assistant Military Secretary, Army Headquarters, Colombo 03. 3A. Brigadier S. K. Eshwaran, Assistant Military Secretary, Army Headquarters, Colombo 03. 4. Brigadier A. L. S. K. Perera, Director Personal Administration, Premier Pacific Building, No. 28, R. A. De Mel Mawatha, Colombo 04. 5. Major General K. R. P. Rowel, Colonel Commandant, Sri Lanka Signal Corps, Regiment Centre, Army Cantonment, Panagoda. 5A. Major General B. H. M. A. Wijesinghe, Colonel Commandant, Sri Lanka Signal Corps, Regiment Centre, Army Cantonm View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2020-02-18	SC/APPEAL/174/2014	Bulathsinhalage Edwin Cooray, No. 08, Mahinda Place, Kirulapona, Colombo 06. Plaintiff -Vs- Bulathsinhalage Harschandra Wasantha Cooray, No. 11/3, Vihara Mawatha, Narangoda Paluwa, Ambalama Junction, Ragama. Defendant AND Bulathsinhalage Harschandra Wasantha Cooray, No. 11/3, Vihara Mawatha, Narangoda Paluwa, Ambalama Junction, Ragama. Defendant-Appellant Vs Bulathsinhalage Edwin Cooray No. 08, Mahinda Place, Kirulapona, Colombo 06. Plaintiff-Respondent (Deceased) Tamara Indrani Cooray, No. 08, Mahinda Place, Kirulapona, Colombo 06. Substituted Plaintiff–Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Bulathsinhalage Harschandra Wasantha Cooray, No. 11/3, Vihara Mawatha, Narangoda Paluwa, Ambalama Junction, Ragama. Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Tamara Indrani Cooray, No. 08, Mahinda Place, Kirulapona, Colombo 06. Substituted Plaintiff – Respondent - Respondent View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC. J.			Download
2020-02-18	SC/APPEAL/79/2012	1. Superintendent, Udaweriya Estate, Ohiya. 2. Agarapatana Plantations Limited, 53 1/1, Sir Baron Jayatilleke Mawatha, Colombo 01. 3. Lankem Tea and Rubber Plantation Limited, 53 1/1, Sir Baron Jayatilleke Mawatha, Colombo 01. RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT - APPELLANT -Vs- Lanka Wathu Seva Sangamaya, No. 06, Aloysee Mawatha, Colombo 03. (On behalf of K Jayaratne) APPLICANT - APPELLANT – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2020-02-13	SC/APPEAL/138/2017	Prasanna Peiris, No. 114/14, Sri Wickrema Rajasinghe Road, 3rd Kurana, Negombo. APPLICANT -VS- Toroid International (Pvt) Ltd., P.O. Box 15, Phase II F.T.Z., Katunayake. RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN Toroid International (Pvt) Ltd., P.O. Box 15, Phase II F.T.Z., Katunayake. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT -VS- Prasanna Peiris, No. 114/14, Sri Wickrema Rajasinghe Road, 3rd Kurana, Negombo. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Noratel International (Pvt.) Ltd. (formerly known as Toroid International (Pvt) Ltd.), P.O. Box 15, Phase II, Export Processing Zone, Katunayake. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-PETITIONER -VS- Prasanna Peiris, No. 114/14, Sri Wickrema Rajasinghe Road, 3rd Kurana, Negombo. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.			Download
2020-02-13	SC/FR/21/2019	1. Jayasekera Arachchige Senudhi Methanga, M23/3, Dabare Mawath, Narahenpita Colombo 05. (Minor) 2. Jayasekera Arachchige Chamila Prabath, M23/3, Dabare Mawath, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. Petitioners VS. 1. A.R.M.R. Herath, Principal and the chairperson of the Interview Board to admit students to Grade 1, Sirimavo Bandaranayake Vidyalaya, Stanmore Crescent, Colombo 07. 2. Rukmali Kariyawasam, Primary Principal and member of the Interview Board to admit students to Grade 1, Sirimavo Bandaranayake Vidyalaya, Stanmore Crescent, Colombo 07. 3. Jayantha Seneviratne Member of the Interview Board to admit students to Grade 1, Sirimavo Bandaranayake Vidyalaya, Stanmore Crescent, Colombo 07. 4. Oshara Panditharathna, Principal, Dharmapala Vidyalaya, Pannipitiya. 5. Padmasiri Jayamanne, Secretary, Ministry of Education Isurupaya, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. 6. Ranjith Chandrasekera, Director of National Schools , Isurupaya, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. 7. Honourable Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. R View More	Hon. Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC			Download
2020-02-05	SC/APPEAL/160/2010	Ceylon Grain Elevators Limited, 15, Rock House Lane, Colombo 15. Petitioner Petitioner Vs 1. Mahinda Madihahewa, Commissioner General of Labour, Department of Labour, Labour Secretariat, P.O.Box 575, Colombo 05. 2. D.M.S.Dissanayaka, Commissioner of Labour ( Industrial Relations) Department of Labour, Labour Secretariat, P.O.Box 575, Colombo 05. 3. K.M.Silva ( Retired) Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Industrial relations) Department of Labour, Labour Secretariat, P.O.Box 575, Colombo 05. 4. Ooi Eng Hooi No.10, Jalan Rk 6/12, Rasah Kemayan 70300 Seramban, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia. Respondents Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2020-01-29	SC/APPEAL/204/2015	Officer-in Charge, Police Station, Sewanagala. COMPLAINANT Vs. Mohamed Irupan Impar, No.30, Randola, Balangoda. 2nd SUSPECT AND BETWEEN Mohamed Irupan Impar, No.30, Randola, Balangoda. 2nd SUSPECT-APPELLANT Vs. 01. Officer-in Charge, Police Station, Sewanagala. COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT 02. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Mohamed Irupan Impar, No.30, Randola, Balangoda. 2ND SUSPECT-APPELLANT- APPELLANT Vs. 01. Officer-in Charge, Police Station, Sewanagala. COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT 02. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	HON. S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.			Download
2020-01-28	SC/FR/458/2012	Arangallage Samantha No 275/26, Arachchiwatta, Nedagamauwa, Kotugoda, Minuwangoda. Petitioner 1. The Officer-in-charge of the Police Station Police Station Biyagama 2. A.S.P. Nishantha Soyza A.S.P.’s Office, Police Station Mirihana, Nugegoda. 3. The Headquarter Inspector of Police Police Station, Mirihana, Nugegoda. 4. Police Constable 40841 Kumudesh Police Station, Mirihana, Nugegoda. 5. Police Constable 40937 Samaraweera Police Station, Mirihana, Nugegoda. 6. The Inspector-General of Police Police Headquarters Colombo 01. 7. Hon. Attorney-General Attorney-General’s Department Colombo 12. View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2020-01-27	SC/APPEAL/31/2011	Priyantha Lal Ramanayake No. 935, Siyambalakotte, Barawakumbuka. ACCUSED APPELLANT PETITIONER Vs. The Hon. Attorney General RESPONDENT RESPONDENT View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2020-01-23	SC/APPEAL/39/2019	Thiruganapillai Sivakumar, No.4M, Vaddatam, Delft West, Delft, Jaffna. Presently at Welikada Prison, Welikada, Colombo-10. Accused-Appellant-Petitioner -Vs- Hon. Attorney-General, Attorney-General\'s Department, Colombo-12. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2020-01-22	SC/APPEAL/115/2014	Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Complainant Vs. 1. Hiniduma Dahanayakage Siripala alias Kiri Mahaththaya. 2. Henapita Gamage Shantha. 3. Kandabige Priyantha alias Appuhami. 4. Karivila Kandhage Upul Priyashantha. Accused And Now 1. Hiniduma Dahanayakage Siripala alias Kiri Mahaththaya. 2. Henapita Gamage Shantha. Accused-Appellants Vs. The Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo12. Respondent And Now Between 1. Hiniduma Dahanayakage Siripala alias Kiri Mahaththaya. 2. Henapita Gamage Shantha. Both presently at Welikada Prison, Baseline Road, Borella. Accused- Appellants- Petitioners- Appellants Vs. The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2019-12-20	SC/APPEAL/73/2011	Kongahagedara Sumanawathie, Land No.114, Mahagama Colony, Sevenagala. Plaintiff -Vs- Siripala Subasinghe, No.23, Ela, Kurugamvatiya, Mahagama Colony, Sevanagala. Defendant AND Siripala Subasinghe, No.23, Ela, Kurugamvatiya, Mahagama Colony, Sevanagala. Defendant -Appellant -Vs- Kongahagedara Sumanawathie, Land No.114, Mahagama Colony, Sevenagala. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Kongahagedara Sumanawathie, Land No.114, Mahagama Colony, Sevenagala. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant -Vs- Siripala Subasinghe, No.23, Ela, Kurugamvatiya, Mahagama Colony, Sevanagala. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent Hattasinghe Arachchige Kusumawathie, No.23, Ela, Kurugamvatiya, Mahagama Colony, Sevanagala. Substituted Defendant – Appellant - Respondent View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando PC J			Download
2019-12-19	SC/APPEAL/106/2014	1. Mahagamage Chandramadu, Puwakdoola, Pnikahatha, Kahadawa. with 223 others APPLICANTS -VS- Paradigm Clothing [Private] Limited of No.107, Pallidora Road, Dehiwala. RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN, Paradigm Clothing [Private] Limited of No.107, Pallidora Road, Dehiwala. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.Vs- 1. Mahagamage Chandramadu, Puwakdoola, Pnikahatha, Kahadawa. with 223 others APPLICANTS- RESPONDENTS. AND NOW BETWEEN, Paradigm Clothing [Private] Limited of No.107, Pallidora Road, Dehiwala. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT- APPELLANT -VS- 1. Mahagamage Chandramadu, Puwakdoola, Pnikahatha, Kahadawa. 2. K. Malini, Ellawatta, Gonadeniya, wth 223 others APPLICANTS- RESPONDENTS- RESPONDENTS. View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J			Download
2019-12-19	SC/APPEAL/221/2012	R.M. Siriwardena of Ihalagama, Alahenegama. Plaintiff. Vs. Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Jayathilaka of Thalahenegama, Alahenegama. Defendant. AND BETWEEN IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Jayathilaka of Thalahenegama, Alahenegama. Defendant – Appellant. Vs R.M. Siriwardena of Ihalagama, Alahenegame. Plaintiff- Respondent. AND NOW BETWEEN IN THE SUPREME COURT. Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Jayathilaka of Thalahenegama, Alahenegama. Defendant – Appellant – Petitioner. Vs. R.M. Siriwardena of Ihalagama, Alahenegama. Plaintiff – Respondent – Respondent. View More	Hon. E.A.G.R. Amarasekara J			Download
2019-12-19	SC/APPEAL/72/2012	SUDU HAKURAGE SAIMA ALIAS HETTIARACHCHIGE SUNIL ABEYWICKREMA Lenagala, Weragala. PLAINTIFF 1. SUDU HAKURAGE HARAMANIS Koskande, Viyana Ovita, Deraniyagala. 2. SUDU HAKURAGE PUNCHI SINGHO Andahena, Lenagala, Weragala. 3. SUDU HAKURAGE JAYASEKERA Lenagala, Weragala. (deceased) 3A. VITHARAMALAGE LEELAWATHIE Lenagala, Weragala. 4. SUDU HAKURAGE NANDORIS (alias) NANDUWA Lenagala, Weragala. (deceased) 4A. SUDU HAKURAGE ALPENIS Lenagala, Weragala. 5. SUDU HAKURAGE JEELIS 6. SUDU HAKURAGE THEMIS 7. SUDU HAKURAGE PODINERIS 8. SUDU HAKURAGE GUNASENA 9. SUDU HAKURAGE JAYARATNE 10. SUDU HAKURAGE PODISINGHO (deceased) 10A. SUDU HAKURAGE SWARNALATHA 11. SUDU HAKURAGE SEDERIS 12. SUDU HAKURAGE ALPENIS 13. SUDU HAKURAGE ASILIN 14. SUDU HAKURAGE ARIYADASA 15. SUDU HAKURAGE RANASINGHE All of Lenagala, Weragala. DEFENDANTS AND BETWEEN 10A. SUDU HAKURAGE SWARNALATHA 14. SUDU HAKURAGE ARIYADASA 10A AND 14 DEFENDANT- APPELLANT-RESPONDENTS VS. SUDU HAKURAGE SAIMA ALIAS HETTIARACHCHIGE SUNIL ABEYWICKREMA Lenagala, Weragala. PLAINTIFF View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena PC J			Download
2019-12-18	SC/APPEAL/134/2019	The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Complainant Vs. Ranathunga Arachchilage Ranjith Chandrathilake No. 13, Wijaya Mawatha, Veyangoda. Accused NOW BETWEEN Ranathunga Arachchilage Ranjith Chandrathilake No. 13, Wijaya Mawatha, Veyangoda. Accused –Appellant Vs. The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12 Complainant- Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Ranathunga Arachchilage Ranjith Chandrathilake No. 13, Wijaya Mawatha, Veyangoda. Accused –Appellant- Petitioner Vs. The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12 Complainant- Respondent- Respondent View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J			Download
2019-12-18	SC/FR/75/2012	Ratnayaka Weerakoonge Sandya Kumari, No: 4, Main Street, Meegahatenna. Petitioner Vs- 1) Mr. Lakshitha Weerasinghe, Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station Meegahatenna. 2) Mr. Shanthalal (3534) Sergeant, Police Station Meegahatenna. 3) Mr. Himala Rajapakse, Officer-In-Charge, Police Station Meegahatenna. 4) Mr. Lalith Pathinayake, Senior Superintendent of Police, SSP office, Nagoda, Kalutara. 5) Mr. N.K.Illangakoon, Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 1. 5A) Mr. Pujitha Jayasundara, Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 6) Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents. View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando PC J			Download
2019-12-17	SC/APPEAL/126/2016	B. Premarajah Jayawardena, No.1, Alwis Avenue, Mount Lavinia. PLAINTIFF -VS- 1. B. Upali Dayananda Janapriya Jayawardena, 87/3, Bandaranayake Mawatha, Katubedda, Moratuwa. 2. Alvarapillai Vengadasam, 104, 4th Cross Street, Colombo 11, and No. 125, Bankshall Street, Colombo 11 RESPONDENTS AND BETWEEN Alvarapillai Vengadasam, 104, 4th Cross Street, Colombo 11, and No. 125, Bankshall Street, Colombo 11 2nd DEFENDANT-APPELLANT -VS- B. Premarajah Jayawardena No.1, Alwis Avenue, Mount Lavinia. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT B. Upali Dayananda Janapriya Jayawardena, 87/3, Bandaranayake Mawatha, Katubedda, Moratuwa. 1st DEFENDANT- RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN B. Premarajah Jayawardena, No.1, Alwis Avenue, Mount Lavinia. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT- PETITIONER -VS- B. Upali Dayananda Janapriya Jayawardena, 87/3, Bandaranayake Mawatha, Katubedda, Moratuwa. (Now Deceased) 1stDEFENDENT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT 1a Kananke Acharige Wimalawathie, 1b Hiranya Keshini, 1c Harendra Geethal Jayawardena, 1d Buddika Dananjaya Jayawardena, All of 87/3, Bandaranayake Mawatha, Katubedda, Moratuwa. View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J			Download
2019-12-17	SC/FR/577/2010	Rathnayake Tharanga Lakmali 272/ A, Yapa 05, Moraketiya, Embilipitiya. (In respect of the infringement of the fundamental rights of her husband Ranamukage Ajith Prasanna who is now deceased) PETITIONER Vs. 1. Niroshan Abeykoon Inspector of Police Officer-in-Charge Crime Branch Embilipitiya Police Station Embilipitiya. 2. Suraweera Arachchige Wasantha Suraweera, Police Sergeant 32215 Embilipitiya Police Station Embilipitiya. 3. Police Constable 41953 Hewa Sangappulige Chaminda Embilipitiya Police Station Embilipitiya. 4. Police Constable 20527 Pushpakumara Embilipitiya Police Station Embilipitiya. 5. Inspector of Police Peter Embilipitiya Police Station Embilipitiya. 6. Vijitha Kumara, Chief Inspector of Police, Embilipitiya Headquaters Police Station, Embilipitiya. 7. Ananda Samarasekera Assistant Superintendent of Police ASP’s Office, Embilipitiya 8. Mahinda Balasooriya Inspector General of Police Police Headquaters, Colombo 01. 8A. Mr. Pujitha Jayasundara, Inspector General of Police Police Headquaters, Colombo 01. View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J			Download
2019-12-12	SC/APPEAL/55/2012	JAYAKODI KURUNDUPATABENDIGE PERLY TISSA DE SILVA No. 109, Jayasiripura, Anuradhapura. PETITIONER VS. 1. DIVISIONAL SECRETARY, NORTH NUWARAGAMPALATHA Divisional Secretariat, North Nuwaragampalatha, Anuradhapura. 2. HERATH BANDA RATNAYAKA No. 577, Bulankulama Dissawa Mawatha, Anuradhapura. 3. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, ANURADHAPURA Town Hall, Anuradhapura. RESPONDENTS AND NOW JAYAKODI KURUNDUPATABENDIGE PERLY TISSA DE SILVA No. 109, Jayasiripura, Anuradhapura. PETITIONER-PETITIONER/ APPELLANT VS. 1. DIVISIONAL SECRETARY, NORTH NUWARAGAMPALATHA Divisional Secretariat, North Nuwaragampalatha, Anuradhapura. 2. HERATH BANDA RATNAYAKA No. 577, Bulankulama Dissawa Mawatha, Anuradhapura. 3. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, ANURADHAPURA Town Hall, Anuradhapura. View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena PC J			Download
2019-12-10	SC/APPEAL/36/2015	Dassanayake Mudiyanselage Ranbanda, “Dharshana”, Narammala Road, Wadhakada. APPLICANT VS. People’s Bank, P.O Box 728, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN, People’s Bank, P.O Box 728, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT -APPELLANT VS. Dassanayake Mudiyanselage Ranbanda, “Dharshana”, Narammala Road, Wadhakada. APPLICANT –RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN, Dassanayake Mudiyanselage Ranbanda, “Dharshana”, Narammala Road, Wadhakada. APPLICANT –RESPONDENT –APPELLANT VS. People’s Bank, P.O Box 728, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT –APPELLANT –RESPONDENT View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J			Download
2019-12-05	SC/APPEAL/144/2011	Balasuriya Lekamlage Somawathie, No: 225, Makewita, Ja-ela Plaintiff -Vs- 1) Severinus Dilano Ranjith Alles, Central Mail Exchange, Parcels Division, Sri Chittampalam Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 01. 2) Jayakody Arachchige Noyel Jayakody, 226A, Makewita, Ja-ela. Defendants AND BETWEEN Balasuriya Lekamlage Somawathie, No: 225, Makewita, Ja-ela Presently at: No.219/A, Makewita, Ja-ela. Plaintiff-Appellant -Vs- 1) Severinus Dilano Ranjith Alles, Central Mail Exchange, Parcels Division, Sri Chittampalam Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 01. 2) Jayakody Arachchige Noyel Jayakody, 226A, Makewita, Ja-ela. Defendants-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Balasuriya Lekamlage Somawathie, No: 225, Makewita, Ja-ela Presently at: No.219/A, Makewita, Ja-ela. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant -Vs- 1) Severinus Dilano Ranjith Alles, Central Mail Exchange, Parcels Division, Sri Chittampalam Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 01. 2) Jayakody Arachchige Noyel Jayakody, 226A, Makewita, Ja-ela. Defendants-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando PC J			Download
2019-12-02	SC/FR/147/2017	1. Sunway International (Pvt) Ltd. ‘Sunway House’ No.25, Kimbulapitiya Road, Negombo. 2. Ramesh Dassanayake Managing Director Sunway International (Pvt) Ltd ‘Sunway House’ No.25, Kimbulapitiya Road, Negombo. Petitioners Vs. 1. Airport & Aviation Services (Sri Lanka) Limited Bandaranaike International Airport, Colombo, Katunayake. 2. Chairman, Airport & Aviation Services (Sri Lanka) Limited Bandaranaike International Airport, Colombo, Katunayake. 3. Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation 7th Floor, Sethsiripaya, Stage II, Battaramulla. 4. Secretary, Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation 7th Floor, Sethsiripaya, Stage II, Battaramulla. 5. Mr. R. W. L. B. Medawewa Chairman, Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC), Airport & Aviation Services (Sri Lanka) Limited, Bandaranaike International Airport, Colombo, Katunayake. 6. Mrs. K. D. Yamuna Chandani Member, Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC), Airport & Aviation Services (Sri Lanka) Limited, Bandaranaike International Airport, Colombo, Katunayake. 7. Mr. Eranda View More	Hon. Buwaneka Aluwihare PC J			Download
2019-11-28	SC/CHC APPEAL/19/2007	Commercial Bank of Ceylon Limited alias Seemasahitha Lanka Vanija Bankuwa of No. 21, Bristol Street, Colombo 01 and having branch office and/or place of business at No. 343, Galle Road, Colombo 06. Plaintiff Vs 1. Samarathilaka Wijesingha Ekanayaka 2. Indra Iranganie Wijesingha Ekanayaka 3. Sujeewa Wijesingha Ekanayaka Carrying on business under the name style and firm of “Sahana Printers” at Dummaladeniya, Wennappuwa. Defendants And Commercial Bank of Ceylon Limited alias Seemasahitha Lanka Vanija Bankuwa of No. 21, Bristol Street, Colombo 01 and having branch office and/or place of business at No. 343, Galle Road, Colombo 06. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs 1. Samarathilaka Wijesingha Ekanayaka (Now deceased) 1A. Indra Iranganie Wijesingha Ekanayaka 1st Substituted Defendant-Respondent 2. Indra Iranganie Wijesingha Ekanayaka 2nd Defendant-Respondent 3. Sujeewa Wijesingha Ekanayaka Carrying on business under the name style and firm of “Sahana Printers” at Dummaladeniya, Wennappuwa. 3rd Defendant-Respondent View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2019-11-15	SC/APPEAL/126/2014	Dona Ahangama Anoma Kanthi Liyanage, Wijaya Mahal, Nikatenna, Galagedara. APPLICANT Vs Chandana Thilaka Karunapala, No. 250D, Kandekumbura, Galagedara. RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN Dona Ahangama Anoma Kanthi Liyanage, Wijaya Mahal, Nikatenna, Galagedara. APPLICANT-APELLANT Vs Chandana Thilaka Karunapala, No. 250D, Kandekumbura, Galagedara. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Chandana Thilaka Karunapala, No. 250D, Kandekumbura, Galagedara. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs Dona Ahangama Anoma Kanthi Liyanage, Wijaya Mahal, Nikatenna, Galagedara. View More	Hon. Buwaneka Aluwihare PC J			Download
2019-11-14	SC/APPEAL/123/2013	David Chandrasena Nanayakkara (deceased) No. 92, Sunanda Mawatha, Welegoda, Matara. Plaintiff Susantha Nanayakkara, No. 92, Sunanda Mawatha, Welegoda, Matara. Substituted Plaintiff 1. Mitiyala Kankanamage Jimona (Deceased) Epitawatta, Welegoda. 1A. Mallika Vidanaarachchige Gunaseeli Epitawatta, Welegoda. 2. Jayasinghe Arachchige Jayasinghe (Deceased) No.30, Sunanda Mawatha, Welegoda, Matara. 2A. Jayasinghe Arachchige Shantha Rohana, No. 1/30, Ananda Mawatha, Welegoda, Matara. 3. Jayasinghe Arachchige Edi (Deceased) No. 1/30, Welegoda, Matara. 3A. Chandralatha Panditharathna (Deceased) No. 1/30, Vidanearachchigewatta, Welegoda, Matara. 3B. Jayasinghe Arachchige Lakshmi No. 1/30, Vidanearachchigewatta, Welegoda, Matara. 4. Devundara Liyanage Sugathadasa. No. 1/30, Vidanearachchigewatta, Welegoda, Matara. 4A. Devundara Liyanage Nimal, Vidanearachchigewatta, Welegoda, Matara. 5. Jayasin Arachchgie Lakshmi No. 1/30, Vidanearachchigewatta, Welegoda, Matara. New: Sirisunanda Mawatha, Welgoda, Matara. 6. Mirissa Hewa View More	Hon. E.A.G.R. AMARASEKARA J			Download
2019-11-13	SC/APPEAL/178/2018	P. Chinthaka Lakdewa De Silva 01/162, Mulatiyana, Kapugoda. APPLICANT -VS- Linea Aqua (Pvt) Limited Thanahenpitiya Estate, Giridara, Kapugoda. RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN Linea Aqua (Pvt) Limited Thanahenpitiya Estate, Giridara, Kapugoda. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT -VS- P. Chinthaka Lakdewa De Silva 01/162, Mulatiyana, Kapugoda APPLICANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Linea Aqua (Pvt) Limited Thanahenpitiya Estate, Giridara, Kapugoda. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-PETITIONER -VS- P. Chinthaka Lakdewa De Silva 01/162, Mulatiyana, Kapugoda APPLICANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. S. THURAIRAJA PC J			Download
2019-11-13	SC/APPEAL/85/2014	The Officer-in-Charge, Fraud Bureau –Unit 06, No. 05, Dharmarama Road, Colombo 06. COMPLAINANT Vs. Warnakulasuriya Michael Angelo Fernando ‘Eastern Spray’, Ma-Eliya Watte, Ma-Eliya, Ja-Ela. ACCUSED AND BETWEEN, Warnakulasuriya Michael Angelo Fernando ‘Eastern Spray’, Ma-Eliya Watte, Ma-Eliya, Ja-Ela. ACCUSED -APPELLANT Vs. The Officer-in-Charge, Fraud Bureau –Unit 06, No. 05, Dharmarama Road, Colombo 06. COMPLAINANT -RESPONDENT The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 2nd RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN, Warnakulasuriya Michael Angelo Fernando ‘Eastern Spray’, Ma-Eliya Watte, Ma-Eliya, Ja-Ela. ACCUSED –APPELLANT –APPELLANT Vs. The Officer-in-Charge, Fraud Bureau –Unit 06, No. 05, Dharmarama Road, Colombo 06. COMPLAINANT –RESPONDENT –RESPONDENT The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J			Download
2019-11-13	SC/FR/411/2012	Herath Mudiyanselage Indika Kanchana Hemantha. Unagaswewa, Nagollagama. PETITIONER. Vs. 1. Karunaratne Mudiyanselage Abeysinghe. Police Officer, Maho Police Station, Maho. 2. H.R. Samansiri Dharmapala. Police Officer, Maho Police Station, Maho. 3. Channa Abeyratne. Officer-in-Charge, Maho Police Station, Maho. 4. I. Ratnayake, Crime Branch Officer-in-Charge, Maho Police Station, Maho. 5. N.K. Illangakoon, Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 6. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J			Download
2019-11-07	SC/APPEAL/33/2013	Rajamanthri Gedera Somalatha, Polwatta, Samapura, Hemmathagama Plaintiff Vs, Wajira Kanthi Rathnasinghe, Siriwardena Niwasa, Samapura, Hemmathagama Defendant And then between Wajira Kanthi Rathnasinghe, Siriwardena Niwasa, Samapura, Hemmathagama Defendant-Appellant Vs, Rajamanthri Gedera Somalatha, Polwatta, Samapura, Hemmathagama Plaintiff-Respondent And Now between Rajamanthri Gedera Somalatha, Polwatta, Samapura, Hemmathagama Plaintiff -Respondent-Petitioner Vs, Wajira Kanthi Rathnasinghe, Siriwardena Niwasa, Samapura, Hemmathagama Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2019-11-07	SC/APPEAL/42/2014	Officer In Charge, Police Station, Kosgoda. Complainant Vs, Meegastennage Prince Gunawardena, “Starlight”, Warakamulla, Maha- Induruwa. Accused AND Meegastennage Prince Gunawardena, “Starlight”, Warakamulla, Maha- Induruwa. Accused-Appellant Vs, The Attorney General of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Complainant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Meegastennage Prince Gunawardena, “Starlight”, Warakamulla, Maha- Induruwa. Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs, The Attorney General of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Complainant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J			Download
2019-11-07	SC/FR/28/2018	1. Deva Wisaru Damdhara Wijesiri No. 59/10, Mahayaya, Bogahawatte, Ambalangoda. 2. Dewarahandi Sabeetha De. Silva No. 59/10, Mahayaya, Bogahawatte, Ambalangoda. Petitioners Vs, 1. Hasitha Kesara Wettamuni, Principal, Dharmashoka College, Ambalangoda. Chairman, Interview and Administrations Board 2. Dhammika Kodikara, Secretary, Interview and Administrations Board 3. K. Janika Jayamali de. Silva, Head of Primary Member Interview and Administrations Board 4. Sarath Somathilake, School Development Society Representative Member Interview and Administrations Board 5. Ashoka Kumara Representative Past Pupils Associates Member Interview and Administrations Board Member of the Interview Board in relation to admission of students to Grade 1 of the Dharmashoka College, Ambalangoda for year 2018 6. K. K. K. Kodithuwakku, Chairman, Appeals and Objections Board 7. R. N. Mallawarachchi Secretary Appeals and Objections Board 8. S. K. S. D.de. Silva Member Appeals and Objections Board 9. Monaka Niranjana School Development S View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2019-11-01	SC/APPEAL/26/2013	Hennkachchi Gedara Rasika Kumara Prematilaka Bandara. No. 576, Kirimetiyawa, Galamuna. Plaintiff Vs. H.G. Gnanawathie, No. 245, Co-operative Junction, Kirimetiyawa, Galamuna. Defendant AND THEN, Hennkachchi Gedara Rasika Kumara Prematilaka Bandara. No. 576, Kirimetiyawa, Galamuna. Plaintiff-Appellant. Vs. H.G. Gnanawathie, No. 245, Co-operative Junction, Kirimetiyawa, Galamuna. Defendant-Respondent. AND NOW BETWEEN H.G. Gnanawathie, No. 245, Co-operative Junction, Kirimetiyawa, Galamuna. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Hennkachchi Gedara Rasika Kumara Prematilaka Bandara. No. 576, Kirimetiyawa, Galamuna. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja PC J			Download
2019-11-01	SC/APPEAL/86/2015	1. Jauffer Mohamed Nuhuman, ACCUSED - APPELLANT - APPELLANT 2. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. COMPLAINANT - RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT View More	Hon. P Padman Surasena J			Download
2019-11-01	SC/FR/113/2017	01 Tharushi Navodini Amarasena, Manipal College of Medical Sciences, P O Box 155, Pokhara, Nepal. Appearing through her Power of Attorney holder 02 Ramya Rohini Hettige Amarasena, No. 8 1/1, Skyline Residencies, Magazine Road, Colombo 08. PETITIONER -Vs- 01 Sri Lanka Medical Council, No. 31, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. 02 Professor Carlo Fonseka, Chairman, Sri Lanka Medical Council, No. 31, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. 02 (a) Dr. Colvin Gunaratne, Chairman, Sri Lanka Medical Council, No. 31, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. Dr. Terrence de Silva, Registrar, Sri Lanka Medical Council, No. 31, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. 04 Dr. Jayasundara Bandara, Acting Director General of Health Services, \"Suwasiripaya\", No. 385, Rev Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 03 (a) Dr. Anil Jasinghe, Acting Director General of Health Services, “Suwasiripaya”, No. 385, Rev Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 04 Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. P Padman Surasena J			Download
2019-11-01	SC/FR/140/2019	1. Khalique Jauffer, 2. Mohamed Shaheem Khalique Jauffer, (Minor) Both of 562/16 (also referred to as 562/16 B), Lower Bagatalle Road, Colombo 03. PETITIONERS -Vs- 1. B A Abeyrathna, Principal, Royal College, Colombo 07. 2. Thushantha Amaratunga, 3. Uditha Malalasekara, 4. D K Wickramasinghe, 5. Lalith Ganewatte, 1st to 5th Respondents are all members of the Interview Board (on admission of children to Grade 1 - year 2019), C/O Royal College, Colombo 07. 6. Sanjeewa Tharanga Leelarathne, 7. D S P Kalubowila, 8. L M D Dharmasena, 9. Y I Liyanage, 10. Dilani Suriyarachchi 6th to 10th Respondents are all members of the Appeal and Objection Investigation Board (on admission of children to Grade 1 - year 2019), C/O Royal College, Colombo 07. 11. Jayantha Wickremanayake Director, National Schools, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 12. Padmasiri Jayamanne Secretary to the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 13. Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, Minister of Education, Ministry View More	Hon. P Padman Surasena J			Download
2019-10-31	SC/APPEAL/158/2011	Kusum Shanthi Iddagoda, Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Dodangoda. Plaintiff -Vs- 1. Land Reform Commission, No. C 82, Gregory’s Avenue, Colombo 07. 2. Agalawatte Plantations Ltd, No.10, Gnanartha Pradeepa Mawatha, Colombo 08. Defendants AND BETWEEN 1. Land Reform Commission, No. C 82, Gregory’s Avenue, Colombo 07. 1st Defendant-Petitioner Vs 1. Kusum Shanthi Iddagoda, Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Dodangoda. Plaintiff-Respondent 2. Agalawatte Plantations Ltd, No.10, Gnanartha Pradeepa Mawatha, Colombo 08. 2nd Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Land Reform Commission, No. C 82, Gregory’s Avenue, Colombo 07. 1stDefendant-Petitioner-Petitioner Vs Kusum Shanthi Iddagoda, Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Dodangoda. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent Agalawatte Plantations Ltd, No.10, Gnanartha Pradeepa Mawatha, Colombo 08. 2nd Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando PC J			Download
2019-10-30	SC/FR/192/2014, SC/FR/193/2014	Adasuriya Mudiyanselage Dinuka Madushan Adasuriya, Pothuwela, Ganthiriyawa, Bamunukotuwa. (Petitioner S.C. (F/R) Application No. 192/2014) 1. Wijeyamunige Nadish Srinath Ranatunga, ‘Kusum Nivasa’, Horewila, Walasmulla. 2. Nuwan Buddhika Bandaranayake, 53/2/B, Ayurveda Road, Uda Aludeniya, Weligalla. 3. Hashan Dhananjaya Wijesinghe, 110/B, Battagala, Dambara, Meewanapalaana. 4. Gunasekara Liyanage Janith Kalana, 21/18, Ranasooriya Mawatha, Paniyana, Ambalangoda. 5. Athapattu Mudiyanselage Asanka Sanjeewa Athapaththu, Kalawanegama, Kohumola Road, Wariyapola. 6. Aarachchi Mudiyanselage Buddhika Dilshantha Bandara, Katamillagaswatte, Vellawela, Atampitiya. 7. Induwara Wedagedara Pathum Madushanka, 832/162, Hinnarandeniyawatte, Gampola. 8. Jasiri Liyanage Waruna Dhananjaya Ratnawansha, Liyanage Trade Centre, Yakdehiwatte, Niwithigala. 9. Bambagedara Priyantha Dinesh Somasiri, 45, Aanakatawa, Dambulu Halmilla Weva, Kekirawa. 10. Kannanagarage Don Chanaka Mihiran Wijekoon, 216/2, Kurana, Handapaangoda. View More	Hon. Buwaneka Aluwihare PC J			Download
2019-10-25	SC/FR/137/2011	S.D.P.W. Waidyarathne Siri Wedamadura, 6th Mile Post, Mawathagama. Petitioner. Vs. 1. Provincial Commissioner Local Government, Provincial Council of the North Western Province (NWP), Kurunegala. 2. Chairman, Mawathagama Pradheshiya Sabha, Mawathagama. 3. Secretary, Mawathagama Pradheshiya Sabha, Mawathagama. 4. Hon. Governor, Provincial Council North Western Province, Kurunegala. 5. Dr. Uthpalani Herath, Provincial Commissioner of Ayurveda North Western Province, Kurunegala. 6. Dr. R.A. Chaminda Kumara, Public Health Medial Officer Mawathagama Pradheshiya Sabha, Mawathagama. 7. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents. View More	Hon. E.A.G.R. Amarasekara J			Download
2019-10-18	SC/CHC APPEAL/17/2010	The Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Plaintiff -Vs- Tisara Packaging Industries Ltd, No. 129, Dutugemunu Street, Dehiwala. Defendant AND NOW BETWEEN Tisara Packaging Industries Ltd, No. 129, Dutugemunu Street, Dehiwala. Defendant-Appellant The Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Buwaneka Aluwihare PC J			Download
2019-10-11	SC/CHC APPEAL/43/2012	1. Chandra Gunasekera, No. 29, Albert Crescent, Colombo 07. 2ND DEFENDANT - APPELLANT -Vs- People’s Bank, No. 75, Sir Chiththampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. PLAINTIFF - RESPONDENT Diyagama Mudiyanselage Duminda Gunasekera, No. 20, Albert Crescent, Colombo 07. Chandima Jayasanka Govinna, No. 46/4, 1st Lane, Nidharshana Mawatha, Galavilawatta, Homagama. DEFENDANT - RESP View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2019-10-09	SC/APPEAL/134/2018	Kekul Kotuwage Don Aruna Chaminda, No. 17/, Ethgala, Kochchikade. PLAINTIFF. Vs Janashakthi General Insurance Limited, No. 46, Muththaiya Road, Colombo. 2. And No. 55/72, Vaxhaul Street, Colombo 2. DEFENDANT AND NOW BETWEEN Kekul Kotuwage Don Aruna Chaminda, No. 17/, Ethgala, Kochchikade. PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT. Vs. Janashakthi General Insurance Limited, No. 46, Muththaiya Road, Colombo 2. And, No. 55/72, Vaxhaul Street, Colombo. 2. DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT. View More	Hon. E.A.G.R. Amarasekara J			Download
2019-10-09	SC/FR/292/2018	1. Shahul Majeed Mohomed Rizwan, No. 46/1, Humes Road, Osanagoda, Galle. 2. Mohomed Aaqif, No. 46/1, Humes Road, Osanagoda, Galle. Petitioners -Vs- 1. Sampath Weragoda. The Principal, Richmond Coolege, Galle. 2. K.T.Chandrawathie, The Zonal Director of Education, Galle, Zonal Education Office, Kalegana, Galle. 3. W.M. Jayantha Wickramanayake. The Director, National Schools, ‘Isurupaya’, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. 4. The Secretary, Ministry of Education, ‘Isurupaya’, Pelawatta, Battaramulla 5. Lanka Senanayake 6. Chandana Kumara 7. Akila Rathnayake 8. Renuka Narangoda (5th to 8th including the 1st Respondent, members of the Interview Board) 9. Kesara Wettamuny 10. Priyal De Silva 11. K.A.T. Kumari 12. Nilantha Haalpandeniya 13. Chinthaka Sanath (9th to 13th above, members of the Appeal Board) 14. The Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hultsdorp, Colombo 12. View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando PC J			Download
2019-10-04	SC/SPECIAL/7/2018	1. Rathnasingham Janushan No. 27/6, Thuraiyappa Road, Eechchamoddai, Chundikuli. 2. Benedict Wesley Abraham No. 399, Main Street Jaffna Accused-Appellant-Petitioners VS. The Officer In charge Headquarters Police Station Jaffna. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent 1. Pakyanaathan Antenistan or Dillu No. 442/07, Madam Road, Jaffna. 2. Aravinthan Alex No. 9, Temple Road, Jaffna. 3. Jegatheeshvaran Dineshkanth Thaavadi, South Thavadi, Kokkuvil. 4. Aanantharasa Senthooran Thaavadi, South Thavadi, 5. Thevarasa Karishan Champion Lane, Kokkuvil West. 6. Theiventhiran Anistan Or Eric No. 281/16, Kandy Road, Jaffna. Accused-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Jayantha Jayasuriya PC CJ			Download
2019-09-25	SC/FR/109/2015	1. Sri Lanka Nidahas Rubber Inspectors’ Union, 96/6, Mollamure Avenue, Kegalle. 2. Chaminda Pasqual, No.32, Maddegoda Road, Mathugama. 3. R M U B Rathnayake, No.22/8, Uda-Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 4. Sunanda Rajapakse, "Chandana", Diyagaha, Nawimana, Matara. 5. J A A Dharmasiri Jayakody, No.181/1, Bodinnwatta, Koswathugoda, Yakkala. 6. H K Jayatissa, No.121/4, Gurukura road, Mathugama. 7. W J Liyanage, “Nishani”, Pahala Gedera, Algiliya, Thelijjawila. 8. H R A Ajayathilleke Bandara, No.55/6/1, Pirisyala, Ambepussa. 9. P V M Rajakaruna, Wathruwila, Kahaduwa. PETITIONERS -Vs- 1. R B Premadasa, Director General, Rubber Development Department, No.55/75, Vauxhall Lane, Colombo 02. 2. Mrs. Sudharma Karunarathna, Secretary, Ministry of Plantation Industry, No.55/75, Vauxhall Lane, Colombo 02. 2A. Upali Marasinghe, Secretary, Ministry of Plantation Industry, 11th Floor, Sethsiripaya, 2nd Stage, Battaramulla. 3. Dharmasena Dissanayake, Chairman, Public Service Commission. 4. A Salam Abdul Waid, 5. Santi Nihal Seneviratne, 6. D Shirantha Wijayathilaka, 7. V Jegarasasingham, 8. S View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2019-09-11	SC/APPEAL/142/2018	Kandiahpillai Shanmuganathan (Deceased) of ‘Guildford’, Halpe Mawatha, Kandana PETITIONER Joseph Sri Rogers Shanmuganathan, No.13 1/1, 55th Lane, Wellawatte, Colombo 06. Presently at No.24, St. Augustine’s Avenue, Wembley, Middlesex, United Kingdom. SUBSTITUTED PETITIONER Vs 1. Kandiahpillai Vythilingam, No. 23, Rajasthan, Halpe Mawatha, Kandana. 2. Kandiahpillai Sivasubramaniam, Kandana. 3. Kandiahpillai Muthurajah, Karainagar. 4. Kandiahpillai Thambiyah alias Kandiahpillai Thangarajah, Karainagar. 4a. Kandiahpillai Muthurajah, Karainagar. 5. Kandiahpillai Thanaluxmi, Karainagar. 6. Kandiahpillai Punithawathi, Karainagar. 7. Kandiahpillai Sundarambal, Karainagar. 8. Nesaratnam (Deceased) (widow of Kanapathipillai Kandiahpillai), Kandana 9. Velupillai Aivapatham, Hunupitiya, Wattala. 10. Velupillai Paramasothi, Prince Street, Colombo. 11. Nallamma Vartharajah, Kandana. 12. Velupillai Nadarajah, Dik-Oya. RESPONDENTS AND Joseph Sri Rogers Shanmuganathan, No.13 1/1, 55th Lane, Wellawatte, Colombo 6. Presently at View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J			Download
2019-09-09	SC/APPEAL/196/2011	Sampath Bank PLC, No. 110, Sir James Peiris Mawatha, Colombo 02 and at No 19, Dalada Veediya, Kandy. Plaintiff -Vs- Kaluarachchi Sasitha Palitha, Owner of ‘Sunrise Biscuit Manufactures’ at Industrial Zone, Pallekale. Defendant Kaluarachchi Sasitha Palitha, Owner of ‘Sunrise Biscuit Manufactures’ at Industrial Zone Pallekale. Defendant-Appellant -Vs- Sampath Bank PLC, No. 110, Sir James Peiris Mawatha, Colombo 02 and at No 19, Dalada Veediya, Kandy. Plaintiff-Respondent And Now Sampath Bank PLC, No. 110, Sir James Peiris Mawatha, Colombo 02 and at No 19, Dalada Veediya, Kandy. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant -Vs- Kaluarachchi Sasitha Palitha, Owner of ‘Sunrise Biscuit Manufactures’ at Industrial Zone, Pallekale. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC, J			Download
2019-09-06	SC/FR/241/2016	Mr. Ponnaiya Sivagnanam, 15/103, Gunananda Mawatha, Colombo 13. PETITIONER -VS- 1. Hon K.C. Logeshwaran, Governor, Western Province, 109, 5th Floor, Rotunda Tower, Galle Road, Colombo 03 2. Mr. Ranjith Somawansa, Minister of Provincial Education, Western Provincial Council, 4th Floor, 89, Kaduwela Road, “Ranmagapaya” Battaramulla. 3. Mr S.G. Wijebandu, Secretary to the Ministry of Education – Western Province, 4th Floor, 89, Kaduwela Road, “Ranmagapaya” Battaramulla. 4. D.D.P.W.Gunarathna, Provincial Director of Education, Provincial Department of Education, No 76, Ananda Kumaraswami Mawatha, Colombo 07. 4(a) Mr. P. Srielal Nonis, Provincial Director of Education, Provincial Department of Education, No 76, Ananda Kumaraswami Mawatha, Colombo 07. 5. Mr. W.M. Jayantha Wickremanayaka, Zonal Director of Education, Zonal Education Office, Vithanage Mawatha, Colombo 02. 5(a) Mr. G.N. Silva, Zonal Director of Education, Zonal Education Office, Vithanage Mawatha, Colombo 02. 6. Mr. H.M. Chandradasa, Deputy Zonal Director View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J			Download
2019-09-04	SC/APPEAL/48/2013	Asan Kalenderlebbe, (deceased) Sinnaulla, Pottuvil. Plaintiff Ismail Fathima, Sinnaulla, Pottuvil. Substituted Plaintiff Vs, 1. Weeragoda Arachchige Pathmasiri Silva, No. 90/A/1, Rajapihilla Mawatha, Kandy 2. Srikathuge Sunantha Deepal Fernando, No. 43, Saranankara Street, Kandy 3. Srikathuge Wimalasurendra Fernando, Pasyala 4. Justin Chandrapala de. Silva, No. 102/1, Rajapihilla Mawatha, Kandy 5. Kalander Asiya Umma, Sinna Ulla, Arugambay, Pottuvil 6. Peter Goodman, (deceased) Star Dust Beach Hotel, Pottuvil 7. Mohomed Ismail Cadre Mohaideen, Pottuvil Defendants And between Mohideen Bawa Abdul Cassim, Pottuvil Petitioner Vs, 1. Weeragoda Arachchige Pathmasiri Silva, No. 90/A/1, Rajapihilla Mawatha, Kandy 2. Srikathuge Sunantha Deepal Fernando, No. 43, Saranankara Street, Kandy 3. Srikathuge Wimalasurendra Fernando, Pasyala 4. Justin Chandrapala de. Silva, No. 102/1, Rajapihilla Mawatha, Kandy 5. Kalander Asiya Umma, Sinna Ulla, Arugambay, Pottuvil 6. Peter Goodman, (deceased) Star Dust Beach Hotel, Pottuvil View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda, PC, J			Download
2019-09-04	SC/FR/188/2010	1. P.D.W.K Chandrarathne, G/16, Field Force, Head Quarters, Colombo 05. 2. N.A. Amarasena, Welfare Division, Colombo 01. 3. U.J. Dangalle, 11/A, Bogodawaththe, Palugama, Dompe. 4. K.W.M. Chandrasiri, 18.1, Uruwala, Nedungamuwa. 5. A.M. Ranita Fernando, 521/28, Hibe Garden, Artigala Road, Meegoda. 6. N.G.G. Nikathanne, Crime Division, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 7. K.R.M. Menike, Children and Women Bureau, Colombo 01. 8. D.M. Gunarathne, 5/32, Sarammudali Mawatha, Weliweriya, Matara. 9. K.H.R. Kariyawasam, “Senasuma” Edandawila Watta, Wanala, Kananke. 10. L.K. Dharmasena, B221, 2nd Cross Street, Walpola Matara. 11. A.A.L. De. Alwis, 2B, Police Headquarters, Colombo 05. 12. M.W. Upali Ranjith, B10, Police Headquarters, Colombo 05. 13. N.P. Jayarathne, E10, Police Headquarters, Colombo 05. 14. M.E.M. Keerthirathne, G3, Police Headquarters, Colombo 05. 15. H.D.C.S. Satharasinghe, 232, Pallegama, Pepiliwala. 16. M.A.Laxman, Batuwita Watte, Batuwita, Thihagoda, Matara. 17. P.L.A.J. Gunawardena, P18, Police Quarters View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda, PC, J			Download
2019-09-02	SC/APPEAL/70/2013	Hewayalage Ranjani Hemalatha, Newsmire Pahala, Bulathkohupitiya. PLAINTIFF Vs. Hewayalage Kanthi Kusumalatha, Newsmire Pahala, Bulathkohupitiya. DEFENDANT AND Hewayalage Kanthi Kusumalatha, Newsmire Pahala, Bulathkohupitiya. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT Vs. Hewayalage Ranjani Hemalatha, Newsmire Pahala, Bulathkohupitiya. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Hewayalage Kanthi Kusumalatha, Newsmire Pahala, Bulathkohupitiya. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – PETITIONER Vs. Hewayalage Ranjani Hemalatha, Newsmire Pahala, Bulathkohupitiya. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2019-09-02	SC/FR/15/2017	T.G.J.L. Amarasinghe, 87th Kilometer Post, Kanthattiya, Mihinthalaya. PETITIONER VS. 1. DR. N.C.D. Ariyaratne, Regional Director of Health Services, Office of the Regional Director of Health Services, Anuradhapura. 2. DR. W.M. Palitha Bandara, Provincial Director of Health Services, Provincial Department of Health Services - North Central, Bandaranayake Mawatha, Anuradhapura. 3. G.D. Keerthi Gamage, Secretary, Ministry of Health, Provincial Administrative Building Complex, 3rd Floor, Harischandra Mawatha, Anuradhapura. 4. A.W.C. Ariyadasa, Secretary to the Governor, Secretariat of the Governor, North Central Province, Anuradhapura. 5. R.B. Abeysingha, Chairman. 6. H.M.K. Herath, Member, 7. H.M.H.B. Rathnayaka, Member, 5th to 7th Respondents, all of the North Central Provincial Public Service Commission, North Central Province, Anuradhapura. 8. HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena, PC, J			Download
2019-08-30	SC/WRIT/12/2018	1. KELEPOTHA VITHANAGE ARIYARATNE, 368, Kiridola Road, Thalagaspe. 2. DEHIWELA LIYANAGE THILAK OPATHA, 308, Indipalagoda, Pitigala. 3. ARIYAWANSHA DISSANAYAKE, Secretary, Democratic United National Front, 47A, 1st Lane, Rawawathawatte, Moratuwa. PETITIONERS VS. 1. S.T.KODIKARA, Returning Officer, District Secretariat, Galle. 2. MAHINDA DESHAPRIYA, Chairman, 3. N.J.ABEYSEKERA, PC, Member, 4. PROF. S.R.HOOLE, Member, 2nd to 4th Respondents abovenamed are members of the Election Commission, Election Secretariat, P.O.Box 2, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya. 5. M.B.I.DE SILVA, Assistant Commissioner of Elections, Elections Office, Galle. 6. MAHINDA SAMARAWEERA, Secretary, Eksath Janatha Nidahas Sandanaya, 301, T.B.Jayah Mawatha, Boralesgamuwa. 7. SAGARA KARIYAWASAM, Secretary, Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna, 8/11, Robert Alwis Mawatha, Boralesgamuwa. 8. KABEER HASHIM, Secretary, United National Party, 400, Kotte Road, Pitakotte. 9. M.TILVIN SILVA, Secretary, Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna, 464/20, Pannipitiya Road, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena, PC, J			Download
2019-08-27	SC/FR/81/2010	1. M S K Wickramanayake, Balapatthawa, Avissawella Road, Galigamuwa, Kegalle. 2. D C P Kumarasinghe, Perakuma Mawatha, Medalandawatta, Kurunegala. PETITIONERS -Vs- 1. Mahinda Balasooriya, Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 1(a). N K Illangakoon, Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 1(b). Pujitha Jayasundera, Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 2. Secretary, Ministry of Defence Public Security, Law and Order, No 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 03. 3. Vaas Gunawardena, Senior Superintendent of Police, Office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Kurunegala. 4. Ajith Wansanatha, Headquarters Inspector, Kurunegala Police Station, Kurunegala. Presently: Assistant Superintendent of Police, Office of the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Galgamuwa. 4.(a)(i) Prof. Siri Hettige - Chairman, National Police Commission. 4.(a)(ii) P H Manatunga - Member, 4.(a)(iii) Mrs Savithri Wijesekara - Member, 4.(a)(iv) Y L M Zawahir - Member View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2019-08-09	SC/FR/149/2019	1. Meragal Pelige Dinuka Namalee Dissanayake, No.24/A, Vajira Road, Bambalapitiya. 2. Jamuni Nipuni Nisansala Wimalarathna, No.16, Rathuwila Watta, Athurugiriya. 3. Niluka Viroshini Marasinghe, “Wimalasiri”, Pahala Walahapitiya, Natandiya. 4. Haputhanthrige Kalani Haputhanthri, No. 127, Balummahara, Mudungoda. 5. Ameer Hamza Mohamed Haares, No. 35B, Kurunduwatta, Chilaw. 6. Lorensu Hewage Sathishka Eranda, No.3, Kotuwa Road, Trincomalee. 7. Praveena Vianini Mary Andrew, No 103/18, Paramananda Vihara Mawatha, Colombo 13. 8. Annakkarage Lahiru Dulanja Peiris, No. 866/1, Station Road, Hunupitiya, Wattala. 9. Alahapperuma Arachchige Jayathri, “Amara Niwasa”, Pattiyawela, Nihiluwa, Beliatta. 10. Semasingha Mudiyansekage Sanjula Yashodara Semasingha, No. 825, Thammennapura, Thabuttegama, Anuradhapura. 11. Bandaranayaka Mudiyanselage Thilak Senarath Bandara, No. 19, Kukuloya View More	Hon. L.T.B. Dehideniya, J	Article 17, Article 126	Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2019-08-09	SC/FR/145/2019	1. Meragal Pelige Dinuka Namalee Dissanayake, No.24/A, Vajira Road, Bambalapitiya. 2. Jamuni Nipuni Nisansala Wimalarathna, No.16, Rathuwila Watta, Athurugiriya. 3. Niluka Viroshini Marasinghe, “Wimalasiri”, Pahala Walahapitiya, Natandiya. 4. Haputhanthrige Kalani Haputhanthri, No. 127, Balummahara, Mudungoda. 5. Ameer Hamza Mohamed Haares, No. 35B, Kurunduwatta, Chilaw. 6. Lorensu Hewage Sathishka Eranda, No.3, Kotuwa Road, Trincomalee. 7. Praveena Vianini Mary Andrew, No 103/18, Paramananda Vihara Mawatha, Colombo 13. 8. Annakkarage Lahiru Dulanja Peiris, No. 866/1, Station Road, Hunupitiya, Wattala. 9. Alahapperuma Arachchige Jayathri, “Amara Niwasa”, Pattiyawela, Nihiluwa, Beliatta. 10. Semasingha Mudiyansekage Sanjula Yashodara Semasingha, No. 825, Thammennapura, Thabuttegama, Anuradhapura. 11. Bandaranayaka Mudiyanselage Thilak Senarath Bandara, No. 19, Kukuloya View More	Hon. L.T.B. Dehideniya, J	Article 17, Article 126	Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka	Download
2019-08-08	SC/APPEAL/121/2016	Ranepura Hewage Kusumawathi, No. 33 Sobitha Mawatha, Wadduwa. Plaintiff Vs 1. Bartleet Financial Services Ltd, 2nd Floor, Bartleet House, Colombo 2. Defendant BETWEEN Bartleet Finance PLC (formally known as Bartleet Financial Services Ltd.), 2nd Floor, Bartleet House, Colombo 2. Defendant Petitioner Vs Ranepura Hewage Kusumawathi, No. 33 Sobitha Mawatha, Wadduwa. Plaintiff Respondent PRESENTLY BETWEEN Bartleet Finance PLC (formally known as Bartleet Financial Services Ltd.), 2nd Floor, Bartleet House, Colombo 2. Defendant Petitioner Appellant Vs Ranepura Hewage Kusumawathi, No. 33 Sobitha Mawatha, Wadduwa. Plaintiff Respondent Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2019-08-08	SC/FR/52/2018	Sella Kapu Lilani Abeychandra, No.46/4, R.E.De Silva Avenue, Heppumulla, Ambalangoda. On behalf of Koonamge Omindu Dewmika Shriyanga, No.46/4, R.E.De Silva Avenue, Heppumulla, Ambalangoda. PETITIONER 1. Principal, Dharmasoka College, Galle Road, Ambalangoda. 2. K.K.K.Kodithuwakku, The Principal, Christ King College, Baddegama. 3. R.N Mallawarachchi, Principal, Southland College, Galle. 4. S.K.S.De Silva, Dharmosoka College, Galle Road, Ambalangoda. 5. Monaka Niranjana, Dharmosoka College, Galle Road, Ambalangoda. 6. Ravindra Assalarachchi, Dharmosoka College, Galle Road, Ambalangoda. 7. Sunil Hettiarachchi, Secretary, Ministry of Education, ‘Isurupaya’, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. 8. Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, Hon.Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, ‘Isurupaya’, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. 9. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. L.T.B. Dehideniya, J			Download
2019-08-07	SC/APPEAL/194/2016	K. Mahendran, Ward No.05, Gandhi Nagar, Kumburupiti, Trincomalee. APPLICANT -VS- Deutche Welle Radio and TV International, Colombo Office, No.92/1 D, D.S. Senanayake Mawatha, Colombo 08. RESPONDENT AND THEN BETWEEN, Deutche Welle Radio and TV International, Colombo Office, No.92/1 D, D.S. Senanayake Mawatha, Colombo 08. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT -VS- K. Mahendran, Ward No.05, Gandhi Nagar, Kumburupiti, Trincomalee. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN K. Mahendran, Ward No.05, Gandhi Nagar, Kumburupiti, Trincomalee. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT -VS- Deutche Welle Radio and TV International, Colombo Office, No.92/1 D, D.S. Senanayake Mawatha, Colombo 08. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J			Download
2019-07-30	SC/FR/444/2012	1. M.R.C.C. Ariyarathne, No. 27/55, 1st Lane, Colombo Road, Ratnapura. 2. H.K.B. Jayaruwan, „Issuru“, Karambaketiya, Beliatta. 3. N.U.S. Ariyarathne, Galkadagodawaththa, Horawala, Welipenna. 4. W.H.M.A.G.S. Bandara, Wijethunga Niwasa, Ihalagama, Millawana, Matale. 5. J.K.S.F. Perera, No. 25/2, Asoka Mawatha, Dandagamuwa, Kuliyapitiya. 6. U.P. Abeywickrama, No. 26A, Diyawana, Kirindiwella. 7. N. Wanigasekara, No. 512/C, Near the Milk Board, Dikhenapura, Munagama, Horana. 8. D.M.M.C. Dissanayake, Boraluwa, Kalugalla, Molagoda, Kegalle. 9. R.W. Dayarathne, No. 49, Gurudeniya Road, Ampitiya. 10. B.L.A. Hemantha, No. 429/2, Walawwa Road, Homagama. 11. G.L. Chaminda, No. 156/1, Kirinda, Puhulwella. 12. C.Y. Abeywardena, No. 154/5/C, Uduwana, Homagama. 13. U.G. Weerasinghe, Nirigahahena, Galagama-North, Nakulugamuwa 14. D.M.C.C.K. Disanayake, No. 34/A, Getamanna Road, Beliatta. 15. K.D.D.T. Karunarathne, Ranga Nivasa, Terungama, Agunakolapelassa. 16. P.R. Warnakula, „Jayamini“, Thalapekumbura, Alapaladeniya, Morawaka. 17. G.G.P.B View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena, PC, J			Download
2019-07-30	SC/APPEAL/107/2016	1. Balapu Waduge Sunil Mendis, No. 77/1, Kahapola, Madapatha. PLAINTIFF - RESPONDENT - APPELLANT Vs- 2. Kathtagoda Widanelage Douglas Fernando, No. 108, Kahapola, Madapatha. DEFENDANT - APPELLANT - RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2019-07-30	SC/FR/54/2019	1. S M Halpe, No 117/10, Hendala Road, Hendala, Wattala. 2. D T Panduwawela, No 4, Chitra Lane, Gampaha. 3. K P K Marapana, No. 75/17, Sirinanda Jotikarama Road, Kalalgoda, Pannipitiya. PETITIONERS -Vs- 1. Dr. Anil Jayasinghe, Director General of Health Services, Ministry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, Suwasiripaya, No. 385, Rev. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. Director General of Health Services (acting), Ministry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, Suwasiripaya, No. 385, Rev. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3. Hon. Dr. Rajitha Senarathne, Minister of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, Ministry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, Suwasiripaya, No. 385, Rev. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 4. Secretary to the Ministry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, Ministry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, Suwasiripaya, No. 385, Rev. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 5. Sri Lanka Medical View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2019-07-26	SC/APPEAL/146/2016	B. Nanda Sulochana Perera, No. 32/2, Abeysinghapura, Periyamulla, Negombo. Petitioner Vs. 1. D.D. Upul Shantha de Alwis, Commissioner of Co-operative Development and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Western Province, P.O.Box 444, Duke Street, Colombo 01. 2. Negombo Multi-Purpose Cooperative Society Ltd, No. 358, Main Street, Negombo. Respondents AND THEN, B. Nanda Sulochana Perera, No. 32/2, Abeysinghapura, Periyamulla, Negombo. Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Commissioner of Co-operative Development and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, (Western Province), P.O.Box 444, Duke Street, Colombo 01. 2. Negombo Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society Ltd, No. 358, Main Street, Negombo. Respondents-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN B. Nanda Sulochana Perera, No. 32/2, Abeysinghapura, Periyamulla, Negombo. Petitioner-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. 1. Commissioner of Co-operative Development and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, (Western Province), P.O.Box 444, Duke Street, Colombo 01. 2. Negombo Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society Ltd View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J			Download
2019-07-26	SC/FR/285/2012	1. R.D.M.K.K. Wimalachandra, “Isuru Sevana”, Bandarawela Road, Dambawinna, Welimada. 2. K.A. Mallawarachchi, No.197, Koskandawela, Yakkala. 3. D.P.K. Yapa, “Kumarawasa”, Atale, Kegalle. 4. P.W.U.B. Palipana, 37/34, Eragoda, Gampola. 5. D.L.G. Tillakaratne, Panawela, Eheliyagoda. 6. D.D. Weerakoon, Udugalkanda, Bulathsinghala. 7. G.I.K. Zoysa, No.40, Mulgampola Road, Peradeniya. 8. H.L.K. Liyanage, Temple Road, Kowdawatta, Kurunegala. 9. W.M.K.A. Wickramasinghe, A, Muththettuwa Watta, Kuliyapitiya. 10. M.A.W. Malkanthi, 363/1, Udupila North, Delgoda. 11. A.R.M.N. Rathnayake, 135, Doragamua, Waththegama. 12. K.C. Wasalathanthri, No.23, Saddhammawasa Mawatha, Kaluthara South. 13. S.H.N. Jayawickrema, No. 42/19, East Lane, Kiriwella, Kadawatha. 14. N.M.G.D.N. Menika, Sirikotha, Kawudupelella, Matale. 15. P.K.D. Nilmini Deepika, No.89, Kirinda, Hondiyadeniya, Gampaha. 16. D.M.M.C.K. Nawarathne, 113A, Moladanda, Kiribathkumbura. 17. L.H.D. Kulathunga, Othanapitiya, Nelumdeniya. 18. G.A. Ariyasena, “Uthuru Sevana”, Gampaha View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J			Download
2019-07-25	SC/APPEAL/88/2016	Wimala Rubasinghe, No. 69/1, Peradeniya Road, Kandy Plaintiff Vs, 1. Lazarus Peter George, No. P6 Housing Scheme, Suduhumpola, Kandy 2. Chandra Gunasekara, No. D7, Aruppola Flats, Kandy Defendants And between Chandra Gunasekara, No. D7, Aruppola Flats, Kandy 2nd Defendant-Appellant Vs, Wimala Rubasinghe, No. 69/1, Peradeniya Road, Kandy Plaintiff-Respondent Lazarus Peter George, No. P6 Housing Scheme, Suduhumpola, Kandy 1st Defendant-Respondent And Now Between Wimala Rubasinghe, No. 69/1, Peradeniya Road, Kandy Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs, Chandra Gunasekara, No. D7, Aruppola Flats, Kandy 2nd Defendant-Appellant-Respondent Lazarus Peter George, No. P6 Housing Scheme, Suduhumpola, Kandy 1st Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda, PC, J			Download
2019-07-25	SC/APPEAL/90/2013	Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant Vs. Sabrudeen Kamrudeen, 1249/C, Ananda Mawatha, Hunupitiya, Wattala. Accused And between Sabrudeen Kamrudeen, 1249/C, Ananda Mawatha, Hunupitiya, Wattala. Accused-Appellant Vs. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent And now between Sabrudeen Kamrudeen, 1249/C, Ananda Mawatha, Hunupitiya, Wattala. Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda, PC, J			Download
2019-07-25	SC/SPL LA/290/2008	Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Complainant Vs, 1. Wasantha Basnayake 2. John Cyril Nimal Fernando 3. Veerappan Murugan Kandiah 4. Arthur Patrick St’ John Jackson 5. Thangeshwary Sundaramoorthy Accused And 1. Wasantha Basnayake 2. John Cyril Nimal Fernando 3. Veerappan Murugan Kandiah 4. Arthur Patrick St’ John Jackson 5. Thangeshwary Sundaramoorthy Accused-Appellants Vs, Hon Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent And now between 4. Arthur Patrick St’ John Jackson 5. Thangeshwary Sundaramoorthy 4th and 5th Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs, Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda, PC, J			Download
2019-07-25	SC/SPL LA/293/2008	Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Complainant Vs, 1. Wasantha Basnayake 2. John Cyril Nimal Fernando 3. Veerappan Murugan Kandiah 4. Arthur Patrick St’ John Jackson 5. Thangeshwary Sundaramoorthy Accused And 1. Wasantha Basnayake 2. John Cyril Nimal Fernando 3. Veerappan Murugan Kandiah 4. Arthur Patrick St’ John Jackson 5. Thangeshwary Sundaramoorthy Accused-Appellants Vs, Hon Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent And now between 4. Arthur Patrick St’ John Jackson 5. Thangeshwary Sundaramoorthy 4th and 5th Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs, Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda, PC, J			Download
2019-07-23	SC/FR/119/2019	S.F. Zamrath, 554/6E, Peradeniya Road, Kandy. PETITIONER Vs. 1) Sri Lanka Medical Council, No. 31, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10 2) Hon. Dr. Rajitha Senarathne, Minister of Health Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, Ministry of Health Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, Suwasiripaya, Colombo 10. 3) Wasantha Perera, Secretary to the Ministry of Health Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, Ministry of Health Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, Suwasiripaya, Colombo 10. 4) Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. L.T.B. Dehideniya, J			Download
2019-07-17	SC/APPEAL/130/2016	The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. Complainant. Vs. Kathaluwa Weligamage Amararathne. Accused. AND Thisantha Mahendra Vittachchi, No. 302/71, Gangewatta, Mahara, Gampola. Petitioner. Vs. 1. Kathaluwa Weligamage Amararathne. 2. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents. AND NOW BETWEEN Kathaluwa Weligamage Amararathne, No. 113, Angammana, Gampola. Accused 1st Respondent Petitioner. Vs. 1. Thisantha Mahendra Vittachchi, No. 302/71, Gangewatta, Mahara, Gampola. Petitioner-Respondent. 2. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 2nd Respondent Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2019-07-09	SC/APPEAL/170/2010	Lanka Banku Sevaka Sangamaya, (On behalf of T Jagath Chandrakumara) No. 20, Temple Road, Maradana, Colombo 10. APPLICANT V. People’s Bank, Head Office, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN, Lanka Banku Sevaka Sangamaya, (On behalf of T Jagath Chandrakumara) No. 20, Temple Road, Maradana, Colombo 10. APPLICANT -APPELLANT V. People’s Bank, Head Office, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT -RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN, People’s Bank, Head Office, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT –RESPONDENT –APPELLANT V. Lanka Banku Sevaka Sangamaya, (On behalf of T Jagath Chandrakumara) No. 20, Temple Road, Maradana, Colombo 10. APPLICANT –APPELLANT –RESPONDENT View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J			Download
2019-07-02	SC/APPEAL/39/2016	Uwa Development Bank, No.26, Bank Road, Badulla. Respondent Appellant Petitioner. Vs Ceylon Bank Employees Union, on behalf of W.K.Vusudigam, No. 20, Temple Road, Maradana. Applicant Respondent Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2019-06-28	SC/APPEAL/9/2014	P.S. Kodithuwakkuarachchi, No.615/1, Peradeniya Road, Kandy. Plaintiff Vs Dr. Hema Bandara Jayasinghe, No 23/4, Dalada Veediya, Kandy. Presently of No.72/32, Sri Pushpadana Road, Kandy. Defendants AND THEN BETWEEN P.S. Kodithuwakkuarachchi, No.615/1, Peradeniya Road, Kandy. Plaintiff Appellant Vs Dr. Hema Bandara Jayasinghe, No 23/4, Dalada Veediya, Kandy. Presently of No.72/32, Sri Pushpadana Road, Kandy. Defendant Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Dr. Hema Bandara Jayasinghe, No 23/4, Dalada Veediya, Kandy. Presently of No.72/32, Sri Pushpadana Road, Kandy. Defendant Respondent Appellant Vs P.S. Kodithuwakkuarachchi, No.615/1, Peradeniya Road, Kandy. Plaintiff Appellant Respondent [Deceased] 1A. Pandith Sekera Arachchige Premawathi 1B. Latha Kodithuwakku Arachchi 1C. Gamini Kodithuwakku Arachchi 1D. Ubahaya Kodithuwakku Arachchi 1E. Ramani Kodithuwakku Arachchi 1F. Sarath Kodithuwakku Arachchi View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2019-06-21	SC/HC CALA/47/2016	W. L. M. N. De Alwis, No 2A, Abeywickrema Avenue, Mount Lavinia. Plaintiff Vs 1. Malwatte Valley Plantations Limited, No. 280, Dam Street, Colombo 12. 2. L. R. Anthony Perera, Royal Gardens, No. 288/12, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha, Kotte. Defendants And W. L. M. N. De Alwis, No 2A, Abeywickrema Avenue, Mount Lavinia. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs 1. Malwatte Valley Plantations Limited, No. 280, Dam Street, Colombo 12. 2. L. R. Anthony Perera, Royal Gardens, No. 288/12, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha, Kotte. Defendant-Respondents Now (By and between) W. L. M. N. De Alwis, No 2A, Abeywickrema Avenue, Mount Lavinia. Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner Vs 1. Malwatte Valley Plantations Limited, No. 280, Dam Street, Colombo 12. 2. L. R. Anthony Perera, Royal Gardens, No. 288/12, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha, Kotte. Defendant-Respondent-Respondents And Now Between In the matter of an Application for substitution of the heirs of W. L. M. N. De Alwis (Deceased), No 2A, Abeywickrema Avenue, Mount Lavinia. Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2019-06-19	SC/APPEAL/43/2013	1. Dayanthi Dias Kaluarachchi, Hitiyawatta, Kodagoda, Imaduwa. And 03 others Petitioners -Vs- 1. Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, No:109, Rotunda Tower Galle Road, Colombo 03. And 64 Others Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, No: 109, Rotunda Tower, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 2. Chairman, Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, No: 109, Rotunda Tower, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 3. Senior Legal Officer, Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, No: 109, Rotunda Tower, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 4. Deputy General Manager (Finance), Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, No: 109, Rotunda Tower, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 5. Deputy General Manager, (Administration), Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, No: 109, Rotunda Tower, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Respondents-Petitioners -Vs- 1. Dayanthi Dias Kaluarachchi, Hitiyawatta, Kodagoda, Imaduwa. (Deceased) 1A. Sunethra Dias Kaluarachchi, Pussewatta, Kodagoda, Imaduwa. 1B. Ranjith Dias Kaluarachchi, 45/19, Neligama, Meerigama. 1C. Manel Dias Kalurachchi, Pussewatta, Kodagoda, Imaduwa. 1D. Sujatha Dias Kaluarachchi View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC, J			Download
2019-06-12	SC/APPEAL/171/2015	Sri Lanka Savings Bank Ltd, No. 265, Ward Place, Colombo 07. PLAINTIFF - APPELLANT 1. Global Tea Lanka (Pvt) Ltd, No. 56/1/2A, Gemunu Mawatha, Hunupitiya, Wattala. 2. Narayana Mudiyanselage Manjula Narayana, No. 18/B, Alfred Place, Colombo 03. 3. Narayana Mudiyanselage Indra Padmakanthi, No. 18/B, Alfred Place, Colombo 03. View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2019-06-12	SC/FR/677/2012	1. Landage Ishara Anjali (Minor) Prosecutes this Application through her Next Friend, 2. Wijesinghe Chulangani, Both of, Nilmenikgama, Deegala, Marambha, Akuressa PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Waruni Bogahawatte, Matara Police Station, Matara. 2. Officer-in-charge, Matara Police Station, Matara. 3. Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 4. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2019-06-11	SC/APPEAL/45/2010	Dadallage Mervin Silva, No.239/1, Wijewardana Mawatha, Pasyala Road, Meerigama. Plaintiff Vs 1. Dadallage Anil Shantha Samarasinghe, Walawwatte, Meerigama 2. Mohamed Rosaid Misthihar, No.5, Masjid Mawatha, Kaleliya Defendants AND Dadallage Anil Shantha Samarasinghe, Walawwatte, Meerigama 1st Defendant Appellant Vs Dadallage Mervin Silva, No.239/1, Wijewardana Mawatha, Pasyala Road, Meerigama Plaintiff Respondent Mohamed Rosaid Misthihar, No.5, Masjid Mawatha, Kaleliya 2nd Defendant Respondent AND BETWEEN Dadallage Anil Shantha Samarasinghe, Walawwatte, Meerigama. 1st Defendant Appellant Appellant Vs Dadallage Mervin Silva, No.239/1, Wijewardana Mawatha, Pasyala Road, Meerigama. Plaintiff Respondent Respondent Mohamed Rosaid Misthihar, No.5, Masjid Mawatha, Kaleliya 2nd Defendant Respondent Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2019-06-07	SC/APPEAL/69/2011	Lanka Banku Sewaka Sangamaya (on behalf of E.A. Sugathapala), No.20, Temple Road, Maradana, Colombo 10. APPLICANT -VS- People’s Bank, Head Office, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT AND, People’s Bank, Head Office, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT -VS- Lanka Banku Sewaka Sangamaya (on behalf of E.A. Sugathapala), No.20, Temple Road, Maradana, Colombo 10. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Lanka Banku Sewaka Sangamaya (on behalf of E.A. Sugathapala), No.20, Temple Road, Maradana, Colombo 10. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER -VS- People’s Bank, Head Office, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J			Download
2019-06-07	SC/APPEAL/86/2010	1. Ramasamy Mayalagu, Nagoda Watta, Nagoda, Galle. 1ST ACCUSED - APPELLANT - APPELLANT 2. Mayalagu Tangaraja, Nagoda Watta, Nagoda, Galle. 3RD ACCUSED - APPELLANT - APPELLANT -Vs- Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. COMPLAINANT - RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2019-06-07	SC/FR/275/2013	Rubasin Gamage Indika Athula Priyantha, No.19/9, Wewalwala Road, Bataganvilla, Galle. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 1. 2. Mr. K.E.L. Perera, Deputy Inspector General, Personnel Division, Police Headquarters, Colombo 1. 3. W.K. Jayalath, Senior Superintendent of Police, Director Recruitment, Sri Lanka Police, No.375, Sri Sambuddajayanthi Mawatha, Colombo 8. 4. Dr. Dayasiri Fernando, (Chairman), Public Service Commission. 4(A). Rtd Hon Justice Sathya Hettige, (Chairman), Public Service Commission. 4(B). Mr. S.C. Mannapperuma, Member, Public Service Commission. 4(C). Mr. Ananda Seneviratne, Member, Public Service Commission. 4(D). Mr. N.H. Pathirana, Member, Public Service Commission. 4(E). Mr. S. Thillanadarajah, Member, Public Service Commission. 4(F). Mr. A. Mohamed Nahiya, Member, Public Service Commission. 4(G). Mrs. Kanthi Wijethunge, Member, Public Service Commission. 4(H). Mr. Sunil S. Sirisena, Member, Public Service Commission. 4(I). I.M. De Soysa Gunawardana View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J			Download
2019-06-07	SC/FR/642/2012	1. D.C.P. Kaluarachchi, No. 442/3, Neelammahara Road, Maharagama. 2. J.D.D.L. Gunasekera, No.10A, Thalgaspe, Elpitiya. 3. K.A. Sugath, No.1/155, Halathota, Kalutara. 4. S. Ranjan, No.28, Futimagiri Mawatha, Batticaloa. 5. K.D.S. Chandra Kumara, No.45/17, Chandraloka Mawatha, Thalapathpitiya, Nugegoda. 6. T.H.M. Sumith Sisira Herath, No. 47/53, Sir Kuda Rathwatte Mawatha, Kandy. 7. A.A. Roshan Perera, No.836/5, Kurusawala, Thumpeliya, Ja-Ela. 8. M.B. Wijeratne, No.584/2, Halmillaketiya, Thunkama, Embilipitiya. 9. I.J.A. Perera, No. 843/1, Daham Mawatha, Thalangama North, Malabe. 10. A.L.A. Herbert Priyantha Liyanage, No. 7/G, Station Road, Khahalla, Katugastota. PETITIONERS -VS- 1. Prof. Dayasiri Fernando, Former Chairman, 2. Srima Wijeratne, Former Member, 3. Palitha Kumarasinghe, Former Member, 4. S.C. Mannapperuma, Former Member, 5. Ananda Seneviratne, Former Member, 6. N.H. Pathirana, Former Member, 7. S. Thillanadarajah, Former Member, 8. M.D.W. Ariyawansa, Former Member, 9. A. Mohamed Nahiya, Former Member View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J			Download
2019-06-06	SC/FR/495/2011	U.G. Chandima Priyadeva, No.64, Kandy Road, Kiribathgoda, Kelaniya Petitioner Vs. 1A. Director General, Director General’s Office of Merchant Shipping, Ministry of Ports & Highways, 1st Floor, Bristol Building No. 43-89, York Street Colombo 1. 1. Shantha Weerakoon, Former Director General, Director General’s Office of Merchant Shipping, Ministry of Ports & Highways, 1st Floor, Bristol Building No. 43-89, York Street Colombo 1 2. Rathna Bharathi, Acting Shipping Officer, Director General’s Office of Merchant Shipping, Ministry of Ports & Highways, 1st Floor, Bristol Building No. 43-89, York Street Colombo 1 3. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2019-05-30	SC/CHC APPEAL/37/2013	CENTRAL FINANCE COMPANY PLC, No. 84, Raja Veediya, Kandy. PLAINTIFF VS. 1. SAPPANI CHANDRASEKERA, No. 22-E, Quarry Road, Colombo 12. 2. SITTAMBARAM PILLEI SHANMUGAM, No. 23, Abdul Jabbar Mawatha, Colombo 12. DEFENDANTS AND CENTRAL FINANCE COMPANY PLC, No. 84, Raja Veediya, Kandy. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT VS. 1. SAPPANI CHANDRASEKERA, No. 22-E, Quarry Road, Colombo 12. 2. SITTAMBARAM PILLEI SHANMUGAM, No. 23, Abdul Jabbar Mawatha, Colombo 12. DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena, PC, J			Download
2019-05-30	SC/FR/96/2012	1. A H Nethum Prabodha Ranawaka, 43/15, R E De Silva Mawatha, Heppumulla, Ambalangoda. 2. A H Nadeeka Malkanthi, 43/15, R E De Silva Mawatha, Heppumulla, Ambalangoda. PETITIONERS -Vs- 1. M G O P Panditharathna, Principal, Dharmashoka Vidyalaya, Ambalangoda. 2. Director, National Schools, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 3. Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 4. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2019-05-28	SC/FR/30/2018	1. S.M.N.S. Thilakarathne, 10/2, Baduwatta Lane, Dharmashoka Mawatha, Lewella, Kandy. 1a. Sajana Sathmina Gunarathne (minor), 10/2, Baduwatta Lane, Dharmashoka Mawatha, Lewella, Kandy. Petitioners 1. M.W.D.T.P. Wanasinghe, The Principal and the Chairman of the Interview Board, Dharmaraja College, Kandy. 2. W.M. Wijerathna, The Zonal Director of Education, Zonal Education Office, Kandy. 3. W.M. Jayantha Wickaramanayake, Director of National Schools Branch, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya” Battaramulla. 4. Sunil Hettiarachchi, The Secretary, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya” Battaramulla. 5. Herathmudiyanselage Kanishka Hemindra Hearth, 5a. H.M.C.D. Hearath (minor), Both are at: 29/58, Nuwarawela, Ampitiya Road, Kandy. 6. T.B.G. Bulumulla, 6a. T.B.G.U.E. Bulumulla (minor), Both are at: 96/39A, Rajapheela Mawatha, Kandy. 7. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hultsdorp, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara			Download
2019-05-23	SC/FR/660/2012 Part I	Christopher Mariyadas Nevis, 29 / 2, St. Sebastian Street, Paasaioor, Jaffna. PETITIONER Mariyadas Nevis Delrokson, Son of the Petitioner DECEASED VICTIM - Vs - 1. Superintendent, Vavuniya Prison, Vavuniya. 2. Superintendent, Anuradhapura Prison, Anuradhapura. 3. Superintendent, Mahara Prison, Mahara. 4. Commissioner General of Prisons, Prisons Head Quarters, Colombo 08. 5. Director, Criminal Investigations Department, Colombo 01. 6. Director, Ragama Teaching Hospital, Ragama. 7. Director, Special Task Force, Colombo 01. 8. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2019-05-23	SC/FR/660/2012 Part II	Christopher Mariyadas Nevis, 29 / 2, St. Sebastian Street, Paasaioor, Jaffna. PETITIONER Mariyadas Nevis Delrokson, Son of the Petitioner DECEASED VICTIM - Vs - 1. Superintendent, Vavuniya Prison, Vavuniya. 2. Superintendent, Anuradhapura Prison, Anuradhapura. 3. Superintendent, Mahara Prison, Mahara. 4. Commissioner General of Prisons, Prisons Head Quarters, Colombo 08. 5. Director, Criminal Investigations Department, Colombo 01. 6. Director, Ragama Teaching Hospital, Ragama. 7. Director, Special Task Force, Colombo 01. 8. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. E.A.G.R. Amarasekara J.			Download
2019-05-21	SC/APPEAL/2/2015	WARNASURIYA PATABANDIGE KAMANI INDUMATHIE RATNAPALA, 36/3, “Primrose Uyana”, George De Silva Mawatha, Kandy PLAINTIFF VS. 1. POLWATTAGE ANURA LAKSHMAN WEERASURIYA, No. 101, Gangoda Road, Postal Area of Kurunegala. 2. POLWATTAGE ANIL WASANTHA WEERASURIYA, 39/15, Biyagama Road, Naranwala Sub Postal Area, Gampaha. DEFENDANTS AND 1. POLWATTAGE ANURA LAKSHMAN WEERASURIYA, No. 101, Gangoda Road, Postal Area of Kurunegala 1st DEFENDANT-APPELLANT VS. WARNASURIYA PATABANDIGE KAMANI INDUMATHIE RATNAPALA, 36/3, “Primrose Uyana”, George De Silva Mawatha, Kandy PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT 2. POLWATTAGE ANIL WASANTHA WEERASURIYA, 39/15, Biyagama Road, Naranwala Sub Postal Area, Gampaha. 2nd DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN POLWATTAGE ANURA LAKSHMAN WEERASURIYA, No. 101, Gangoda Road, Postal Area of Kurunegala. Appearing by his Power of Attorney holder Ramani Wijesuriya of No. 101, Gangoda Road, Postal Area of Kurunegala. 1st DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-PETITIONER/APPELLANT VS. WARNASURIYA PATABANDIGE KAMANI INDUMATHIE RATNAPALA, 36/3, “Primrose Uyana”, George De Silva Mawatha, Kandy View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena, PC, J			Download
2019-04-25	SC/TAB/1/2016	Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Sunil Ratnayake (Presently at Welikada Prison), 1st Accused-Appellant Vs. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2019-04-25	SC/APPEAL/120/2010	Prof. Desmond Mallikarachchi, No.118, Nivana, Kurundugahagoda, Pilimathalawa. Petitioner Vs. 1. University of Peradeniya, 2. Prof. H. Abeygunawardena, The Vice Chancellor, 3. Prof. A. Wickramasinghe, 4. Prof. P.W.M.B.B. Marambe, 5. Prof. K. Tuder Silva, 6. Prof. E.A.P.D. Amaratunge, 7. Prof. S.B.S. Abeyakoon, 8. Dr. W.I. Amarasinghe, 9. Prof. S.H.P.P. Karunaratne, 10. Prof. (Mrs.) P. Abeynayake, 11. Prof. K.N.O. Dharmadasa, 12. Prof. B. Hewavitharana, 13. Prof. (Mrs.) M.S. Chandrasekera, 14. Prof. A.D.P. Kalanasuriya, 15. Dr. S.D. Pathirana, 16. Dr. D.B. Wickramaratne, 17. Dr. P. Ramanujam, 18. Dr. Dushantha Madagedara, 19. Dr. Kapila Gunawardena, 20. Mr. D. Mathy Yogarajah, 21. Mr. W.L.L. Perera, 22. Mr. Mohan Samaranayake, 23. Dr. A. Kahandaliyanage, 24. Mr. Lionel Ekanayake, 25. Dr. S.B. Ekanayake, 26. Mr. L.B. Samarakoon, 1st to 26th Respondents of University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 27. S.K. Liyanage, 12/1A, Andarawatta, Polhengoda, Colombo 5. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2019-04-25	SC/APPEAL/19/2013	The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, Complainant Vs. J.L. Epa Seneviratne, Accused AND BETWEEN J.L. Epa Seneviratne, Accused-Appellant Vs. Director General, The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, Complainant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN J.L. Epa Seneviratne, Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Director General, The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, Complainant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC, J			Download
2019-04-18	SC/FR/273/2018	Dr. Ajith C.S. Perera, Chief Executive/Secretary General, “IDIRIYA”, No. 18/1, Arthur’s Place, Dehiwala. Petitioner Vs. 1. Hon. Daya Gamage, Minister of Social Services and Social Welfare and the Chairman of the National Council for Persons with Disabilities, 80/5, Govijana Mandiraya, Rajamalwatta Avenue, Battaramulla. 2. Hon. Faiszer Musthapa, Minister of Provincial Councils, Local Government and Sports, No. 330, Dr. Colvin R. de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 02. 3. Hon. Sajith Premadasa, Minister of Housing and Construction, 2nd Floor, “Sethsiripaya”, Battaramulla. 4. Hon. Patali Champika Ranawaka, Minister of Megapolis and Western Development, 17th and 18th Floors, “Suhurupaya”, Subhuthipura Road, Battaramulla. 5. Hon. Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, Minister of Education, “Isurupaya”, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. 6. Hon. (Mrs.) Thalatha Atukorala, Minister of Justice and Prison Reform, Superior Courts Complex, Colombo 12. 7. Sri Lanka Tourism Development Authority, No. 80, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 8. The Urban Development Authority. View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena, PC, J			Download
2019-04-05	SC/FR/265-274/2011 and 346-348/2011	Petitioners H. M. M. Sampath Kumara, Mamunugama, Moragollagama. (Petitioner S.C. (F/R) Application No. 265/2011) A. Rohitha Amarasinghe, Aluth-Ala Road, Paluwa, Galgamuwa. (Petitioner S.C. (F/R) Application No. 266/2011) C. A. H. M. O. Buddhika Atapattu, 147/1, Mapitigama, Ambanpola. (Petitioner S.C. (F/R) Application No. 267/2011) R. R. M. Dhanushka Sanjeewa, 8/10, Amandoluwa, Seeduwa. (Petitioner S.C. (F/R) Application No. 268/2011) Anesh Imalka Fernando, Paalasola, Madurankuliya. (Petitioner S.C. (F/R) Application No. 269/2011) N. L. T. Iresha, 134/2, Japalawatte, Minuwangoda. (Petitioner S.C. (F/R) Application No. 270/2011) Nisshanka Wanigasekera, 13 Post, Bandaragama, Pemaduwa. (Petitioner S.C. (F/R) Application No. 271/2011) R. A. H. M. Jayatissa Rajakaruna, 230/4, Sarath Mawatha, Katunayake. (Petitioner S.C. (F/R) Application No. 272/2011) S. P. L. Ranjan Lasantha Perera, 19, St. Xavier Mawatha, Kimbulapitiya Road, Akkara 50. (Petitioner S.C. (F/R) Application No. 273/2011) H. M. Lalinda Herath, No 21/0 View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2019-04-05	SC/FR/276/2016	1. Palipana Walawwe Udaya Bandara, Palipana, 37/34, Eragoda, Gampola. 2. Kuruppu Arachchilage Champa Nalinie Senevirathne, 22, Vijirarama Mawatha, Primrose Garden, Kandy. 3. Nadeeka Prashanthi Thenna Gunawardena, 348/1, Kumbure Gedara Road, Haloluwa. 4. Ahangama Gamage Sunil, 082 B1, Sirimavo Bandaranayake Mawatha, Peradeniya. 5. Merangnage Gayani Fonseka, 126B, Yapa Mawatha, Gannoruwa, Peradeniya. 6. Herath Mudiyanselage Indrani Herath, 237, Meddegoda, Yatiwawala, Katugastota. 7. Marappulige Uthpalawanna Ranasinghe, Ihalagama, Tholangamuwa. 8. Anusha Nishanthi Nanayakkara, 214/8, Colombo Road, Gampaha. 9. Rajamuni Devage Donil Kularathne, Dikwatte Gedara, Sevanagama, Mahaulpotha, Bandarawela. 10. Ekanayake Mudiyanselage Sumith Ekanayake, 5/12, Gamunu Mawatha, Hanthana Pedesa, Kandy. 11. Halpawaththage Madhuri Padmakumari Pieris, “Iresha”, Rohal Patumaga, Tangalle Road, Weeraketiya. 12. Rankette Gedara Sagara Priyantha Piyasena, 108, Doolwala, Halloluwa, Kandy. Petitioners Vs. 1. K.N. Yapa, Director General. View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J			Download
2019-04-05	SC/APPEAL/113/2014	Lanka Orix Leasing Company Limited, Presently of No. 100/1, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha, Rajagiriya. Petitioner Vs. Weeratunge Arachchige Piyadasa, Carrying on business as Sole Proprietor under the name, style, and firm “Weeratunge Textile”, of No. 12, Super Market, Hakmana. Respondent (Deceased) Ellegoda Gamage Kamala Rani Weeratunge, No. 12, Main Street, Hakmana. Substituted Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Lanka Orix Leasing Company Limited, Presently of No. 100/1, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha, Rajagiriya. Petitioner/Appellant Vs. Weeratunge Arachchige Piyadasa, Respondent-Respondent (Deceased) Ellegoda Gamage Kamala Rani Weeratunge, No. 12, Main Street, Hakmana. Substituted Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena, PC, J			Download
2019-04-05	SC/APPEAL/31/2013	Dona Premawathie Kodithuwakkurachchi, ‘Seedevi’, Narawala, Poddala. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Kuragodage Sujitha Gunawathie, 2. Piyasena Annatta Pathirana alias A.P. Gunadasa, both of Post Office Quarters, Poddala. Defendants AND Dona Premawathi Kodithuwakkuarachchi, ‘Seedevi’, Narawala, Poddala. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Kuragodage Sujitha Gunawathie, 2. Piyasena Annatta Pathirana alias A.P. Gunadasa, both of Post Office Quarters, Poddala. Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Kuragodage Sujitha Gunawathie, 2. Piyasena Annatta Pathirana alias A.P. Gunadasa, both of Post Office Quarters, Poddala. Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Dona Premawathi Kodithuwakkuarachchi, ‘Seedevi’, Narawala, Poddala. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. L.T.B. Dehideniya, J			Download
2019-04-05	SC/APPEAL/39/2013	W. Justin Fernando (Deceased), Thambarawila, Waikkala. (Plaintiff) K. Mary Margaret Fernando, Thambarawila, Waikkawala. Substituted Plaintiff Vs. W.M. Seneviratne, No. 402, Eliya Diwulwewa, Eppawala. Defendant AND THEN, W.M. Seneviratne, No. 402, Eliya Diwulwewa, Eppawala. Defendant-Appellant Vs. K. Mary Margaret Fernando, Thambarawila, Waikkawala. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN, K. Mary Margaret Fernando, Thambarawila, Waikkawala. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. W.M. Seneviratne, No. 402, Eliya Diwulwewa, Eppawala. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J			Download
2019-04-05	SC/APPEAL/93/2012	Galabada Kandaamage Kumarapala, Iddagoda Road, Matugama, Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Halpanadeniya Hewage Sepala alias Sepala Wijesundara, Iddagoda Road, Matugama, Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. L.T.B. Dehideniya, J			Download
2019-04-05	SC/FR/265/2011	H.M.M. Sampath Kumara, Mamunugama, Moragollagama. (Petitioner S.C. (F/R) Application No. 265/2011), A. Rohitha Amarasinghe, Aluth-Ala Road, Paluwa, Galgamuwa. (Petitioner S.C. (F/R) Application No. 266/2011), C.A.H.M.O. Buddhika Atapattu, 147/1, Mapitigama, Ambanpola. (Petitioner S.C. (F/R) Application No. 267/2011), R.R.M. Dhanushka Sanjeewa, 8/10, Amandoluwa, Seeduwa. (Petitioner S.C. (F/R) Application No. 268/2011), Anesh Imalka Fernando, Paalasola, Madurankuliya. (Petitioner S.C. (F/R) Application No. 269/2011), N.L.T. Iresha, 134/2, Japalawatte, Minuwangoda. (Petitioner S.C. (F/R) Application No. 270/2011), Nisshanka Wanigasekera, 13 Post, Bandaragama, Pemaduwa. (Petitioner S.C. (F/R) Application No. 271/2011), R.A.H.M. Jayatissa Rajakaruna, 230/4, Sarath Mawatha, Katunayake. (Petitioner S.C. (F/R) Application No. 272/2011), S.P.L. Ranjan Lasantha Perera, 19, St. Xavier Mawatha, Kimbulapitiya Road, Akkara 50. (Petitioner S.C. (F/R) Application No. 273/2011), H.M. Lalinda Herath, No 21/0. View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2019-04-04	SC/APPEAL/234/2014	L. Ajith Thilakarathne De Silva, Senevirathne Road, Madampe. Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Warnakulasuri Josep Victor Daberera, Anita Magrat House, Mepals Road, Uhitiyawa, Wennapuwa. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2019-04-04	SC/CHC APPEAL/20/2007	1. Pesumal Bulchand Chandiramani, 2. Jayashree Pesumal Chandiramani, Both of No. 18, Murugan Place, Colombo 06. Plaintiff-Appellants Vs. 1. Chandru Lakshimal Sadhwani, No. 50, Nelson Place, Colombo 06. 2. Seylan Bank Ltd, Ceylinco Seylan Towers, No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Defendant-Respondents View More	Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena			Download
2019-04-04	SC/FR/141/2015	Ravindra Gunawardena Kariyawasam, Chairman, Centre for Environment and Nature Studies, No. 1149, Old Kotte Road, Rajagiriya. Petitioner Vs. 1. Central Environment Authority, No. 104, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Road, Battaramulla. 2. Chairman, Central Environment Authority, No. 104, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Road, Battaramulla. 3. Sri Lanka Electricity Board, P.O. Box 540, Colombo 2. 4. Chairman, Sri Lanka Electricity Board, P.O. Box 540, Colombo 02. 5. Chief Minister, Northern Province, No. 26, Somasundaram Avenue, Chundukuli, Jaffna. 6. Ponnuthurai Ayngaranesan, Minister of Environment, Northern Province, No. 295, Kandy Road, Ariyalai, Jaffna. 7. Chairman, Valikamam South Pradeshiya Sabha, Valikamam. 8. Northern Power Company (Pvt) Ltd., No. 29, Castle Street, Colombo 10. 9. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 10. Board of Investment of Sri Lanka, Level 26, West Tower, World Trade Center, Colombo 1. 11. National Water Supply and Drainage Board, P.O. Box 14, Galle Road, Mt. Lavinia. Respondents View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena, PC, J			Download
2019-04-03	SC/FR/621/2010	1. Daya Chandrasiri Jayanetti, 2. Dandeniyage Nandalal Gamini de Silva, 3. Ranasinghe Arachchige Anuruddha Roshana Silva, 4. Piyadasa Madarasinghe, 5. Ananda Deepthi Edussuriya, 6. Pullipu Widana Cyril Dayaratne, 7. Ananda de Silva, 8. Rohana Ranaweera, 9. Ravi Roshan Madarasinghe, 10. Cyril Gunasekara, 11. Marina Hiranthi Seneviratne, 12. Rajasinghe Pathirage Anusha Shyamali, 13. Kottage Osman Perera, 14. Chandani Edussuriya, 15. Lintan Nalawansa, 16. Dandeniya Chandralal Amarasiri de Silva, Petitioners Vs. 1. Urban Development Authority, 2. Municipal Council Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte, 3. RM Swarna Silva, The Mayor Municipal Council Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte, 4. Director General, Urban Development Authority, 5. Shantha P Liyanage, The Municipal Commissioner Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte, 6. MR Siriwardene, Director Enforcement Urban Development Authority, 7. Lalithasiri Gunawansa, Secretary, No.1 D.R. Wijewardene Mawatha, Colombo 10. 8. Mahinda Balasuriya, The Inspector General of Police, 9. Royal Institute, No.10, Chapel Lane, Nugegoda. View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2019-04-03	SC/FR/584/2008	Munugoa Hewage Muditha Sagarie, Methsiri Lane, Weraniyawela, Baddegama. Petitioner Vs. 1. Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Internal Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 2. Mrs. Indika Samarasinghe, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Internal Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 3. G.D. Anura Piyabandu, Senior Additional Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Internal Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 4. P.B.K. Guruge, Hammaliwala Watte, Akuratiya, Baddegama. 5. S.P. Weerasekara, “Manel”, Weraniyawala, Ampegama. 6. H.H.B. Chandani, Bemmula Watta, Gurusinghegoda. 7. K.H.D.R. de Silva, “Asiri”, Nabara Atta, Athkandura. 8. N.M.B. Kariyawasam, “Gamini”, Nugethota, Athkandura. 9. T.G.D.A. Kariyawasam, “Hishan”, Waduwelipitiya North, Kahaduwa. 10. Commissioner General of Examinations, Department of Examinations, Isurupaya, Pelawatta. 11. Justice Priyantha Perera, Chairman, Public Service Commission, No.356/B, Karlwil Place, Galle Road, Colombo 3. 12. Professor Dayasiri Fernando. View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2019-04-03	SC/APPEAL/100/2016	Athukoralage Mary Nona Mahena, Horana. (Deceased) Plaintiff. Millawage Samarasinghe Wickramaarachchi, No. 197, Nandana, Mahena, Horana. Substituted Plaintiff Vs. 1. Jayapala Athukorala, 2. Chandrasiri Athukorala, 3. Kulapala Athukorala, all of Mahena, Horana. Defendants AND BETWEEN Millawage Samarasinghe Wickramaarachchi, No.197, Nandana, Mahena, Horana. Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Jayapala Athukorala, 2. Chandrasiri Athukorala, 3. Kulapala Athukorala, all of Mahena, Horana. Defendant-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Millawage Samarasinghe Wickramaarachchi, No.197, Nandana, Mahena, Horana. Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Jayapala Athukorala, 2. Chandrasiri Athukorala, 3. Kulapala Athukorala, all of Mahena, Horana. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2019-04-03	SC/APPEAL/110/2018	Jayasooriya Kuranage Awanthi Nisansala Madushani Perera, 2nd Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Jayasooriya Kuranage Romold Dickson Sumithra Perera, New Road, Wennappuwa. 3rd Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent, 1. Jayasooriya Kuranage Padma Jenat Jasintha Perera, Kolinjadiya, Wennappuwa. 3. Thalahitigamage Dona Rupika Priyadarshani, Sadasarana Mawatha, Dummalakotuwa, Dankotuwa, 1st and 3rd Defendant-Respondents-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2019-04-03	SC/APPEAL/12/2018	1. Jagath Priyantha Epa, 2. Deepika Lakmali Kalansooriya, No.S.G. 12B, Gemunupura, Ampara. Petitioners Vs. 1. Ahingsa Sathsarani Epa, No.3A/1, Samudra, Paragahakele, Ampara. 2. Janaka Pushpakumara Kalansooriya, 3. Wijesinghe Arachchige Wasana Malkanthi, No.3A/1, Samudra, Paragahakele, Ampara. 4. Probation Officer, Probation Office, Ampara. Respondents AND BETWEEN 1. Jagath Priyantha Epa, 2. Deepika Lakmali Kalansooriya, No.S.G. 12B, Gemunupura, Ampara. Petitioner-Appellants Vs. 1. Ahingsa Sathsarani Epa, No.3A/1, Samudra, Paragahakele, Ampara. 2. Janaka Pushpakumara Kalansooriya, 3. Wijesinghe Arachchige Wasana Malkanthi, No.3A/1, Samudra, Paragahakele, Ampara. 4. Probation Officer, Probation Office, Ampara. Respondent-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Janaka Pushpakumara Kalansooriya, 2. Wijesinghe Arachchige Wasana Malkanthi, No.3A/1, Samudra, Paragahakele, Ampara. 2nd and 3rd Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellants Vs. 1. Jagath Priyantha Epa, 2. Deepika Lakmali Kalansooriya, No.S.G. 12B, Gemunupura, Ampara. Petitioner-Appellant-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2019-04-02	SC/APPEAL/89/2016	Shanthi Sagara Gunawardena, ‘Sea Sand’, Habakkala, Induruwa. Appellant Vs. 1. Ranjith Kumudusena Gunawardena, 2. Indika Gunawardena, 3. Nirosha Gunawardena, All of 8D 17, National Housing Scheme, Raddolugama. Respondents AND BETWEEN Ranjith Kumudusena Gunawardena, 8D 17, National Housing Scheme, Raddolugama, 1st Respondent-Appellant Vs. Shanthi Sagara Gunawardena, ‘Sea Sand’, Habakkala, Induruwa, Applicant-Respondent, 2. Indika Gunawardena, 3. Nirosha Gunawardena, Both of 8D 17, National Housing Scheme, Raddolugama, Respondents-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Shanthi Sagara Gunawardena, ‘Sea Sand’, Habakkala, Induruwa, Applicant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Ranjith Kumudusena Gunawardena, 8D 17, National Housing Scheme, Raddolugama, 1st Respondent-Appellant-Respondent, 2. Indika Gunawardena, 3. Nirosha Gunawardena, Both of 8D 17, National Housing Scheme, Raddolugama, Respondents-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda, PC, J			Download
2019-03-25	SC/FR/58/2018	1. J.M.H. Chandani Jayasundara, No. 19/8, Guilford Crescent, Colombo 07. 2. B.P. Niyadandupola, No. 19/8, Guilford Crescent, Colombo 07. 3. Nulara Piyaji Niyadandupola, No. 19/8, Guilford Crescent, Colombo 07. Petitioners Vs. 1. Ms. S.S.K. Aviruppola, Principal, Vishaka Vidyalaya, Colombo 05. 2. Ms. Kalani Sooriyapperuma, Deputy Principal (Administration), Vishaka Vidyalaya, Colombo 05. 3. Ms. Sumudu Weerasinghe, Deputy Principal (Education & Development), Vishaka Vidyalaya, Colombo 05. 4. Ms. Jeevana Ariyaratne, Deputy Principal (Co-Curricular & Extra-Curricular), Vishaka Vidyalaya, Colombo 05. 5. Ms. Pushparani Samarasinghe, Sectional Head (Primary), Vishaka Vidyalaya, Colombo 05. 6. L.M.D. Dharmasena, Chairman, Admissions Appeal Board, Vishaka Vidyalaya, Colombo 05. 7. Ms. Rukmali Kariyawasam, Member, Admissions Appeal Board, Vishaka Vidyalaya, Colombo 05. 8. Sunil Hettiarachchi, Secretary, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Battaramulla. 9. G.N. Silva, Zonal Director of Education, Colombo District, Zonal Education Office. View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda, PC, J			Download
2019-03-25	SC/FR/387/2013	1. Hewa Munumullage Ajith, No. 416/1, Desawalagodella, Koleidanda, Weligama. 2. Hewa Munumullage Akila, “Akila Iron Works”, Koleidanda, Weligama. Petitioners Vs. 1. Kalinga de Silva, Head Quarters Inspector, Police Station, Weligama. 2. M.A.M. Faslan, No. 392/2, Arusiya Mawatha, Aluth Weediya, Weligama. 3. Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 4. Hon. the Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda, PC, J			Download
2019-03-22	SC/APPEAL/212/2016	Christopher W.J. Silva, 18, Skelton Road, Colombo 05. Applicant Vs. Sri Lankan Airlines Limited, Level 19-22 East Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 01. Respondent AND BETWEEN Christopher W.J. Silva, 18, Skelton Road, Colombo 05. Applicant-Appellant Vs. Sri Lankan Airlines Limited, Level 19-22 East Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 01. Respondent-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Christopher W.J. Silva, 18, Skelton Road, Colombo 05. Applicant-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Sri Lankan Airlines Limited, Level 19-22 East Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 01. Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2019-03-22	SC/CHC APPEAL/5/2009	Seylan Bank PLC, Registration No.PQ9, Ceylinco Seylan Towers, 90, Galle Road, Colombo 3. Plaintiff Vs. Premier Marketing Ltd, 456, Galle Road, Colombo 3. Defendant AND NOW Premier Marketing Ltd, 456, Galle Road, Colombo 3. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Seylan Bank PLC, Registration No.PQ9, Ceylinco Seylan Towers, 90, Galle Road, Colombo 3. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. L.T.B. Dehideniya, J			Download
2019-03-18	SC/RULE/1/2016	Justice Vijith Malalgoda, Judge in the Supreme Court, Complainant Vs. Nagananda Kodituwakku, Attorney-at-Law, 99, Subadrarama Road, Nugegoda, Respondent View More	Hon. H.N.J. Perera, CJ			Download
2019-03-14	SC/FR/139/2016	Galgana Mesthrige Priyanthi Perera, ‘Aluthgedara’, Wilhara, Labbala, Petitioner Vs. 1. Rubber Research Institute, 2. N.V.T.A. Weragoda, Chairman, Rubber Research Institute, 3. W.M. Gamini Seneviratne, Director, Rubber Research Institute, 4. A.H. Kularatne, Acting Deputy Director Administration, Rubber Research Institute, All of Rubber Research Institute, Telawala Road, Ratmalana. 5. Upali Marasinghe, Secretary to the Ministry of Plantation Industries, 6. Hon. Naveen Dissanayake, Minister of Plantation Industries, Both of Sethsiripaya, 11th Floor, 2nd Stage, Battaramulla. 7. Professor M. Thilakasiri, Sri Lanka Institute of Development Administration, No.28/10, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 7. 8. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2019-03-07	SC/CHC APPEAL/22/2011	1. Union Bank of Colombo Ltd, No. 15A, Alfred Place, Colombo 03. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Emm Chem (Pvt) Ltd, No. 16, Flower Terrace, Colombo 07. 2. Kodduru Arachchige Don Adrin Lakshman Perera, No. 25/4A, Jayapura Mawatha, Baddegana, Kotte South, Pitakotte. 3. Mailwaganam Surendran, No. 53A, Maradana Road, Hendala, Wattala. Defendants AND NOW In the matter of an Appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment of the High Court of the Western Province Holden in Colombo (exercising Civil/Commercial Jurisdiction dated 01/06/2011) in terms of the provisions of the High Court of Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No.10 of 1996, 1. Kodduru Arachchige Don Adrin Lakshman Perera, No. 25/4A, Jayapura Mawatha, Baddegana, Kotte South, Pitakotte. (2nd Defendant-Appellant) Vs. 1. Union Bank of Colombo Ltd, No. 15A, Alfred Place, Colombo 03. (Plaintiff-Respondent), 2. Emm Chem (Pvt) Ltd, No. 16, Flower Terrace, Colombo 07. 3. Mailwaganam Surendran, No. 53A, Maradana Road, Hendala, Wattala. (Defendant-Respondents) View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC	High Court of Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No.10 of 1996	High Court of Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No.10 of 1996	Download
2019-03-07	SC/FR/598/2011	Samaraweera Arachchige Wasantha Niroshan, Tharuna Seva Mawatha, Moronthuduwa, Milleniya. Petitioner Vs. 1. Police Constable, 82255, Police Station, Moronthuduwa. 2. Police Constable, 82306, Police Station, Moronthuduwa. 3. Police Constable, 83934, Police Station, Moronthuduwa. 4. Nandana, Police Sergeant, Police Station, Moronthuduwa. 5. Liyanarachchi, Officer in Charge, Police Station, Moronthuduwa. 6. Abeyratne Dissanayake, Assistant Superintendent of Police II, Office of the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Panadura. 7. Sumith Edirisinghe, Senior Superintendent of Police, Office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Panadura. 8. N.K. Illangakoon, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 9. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2019-03-06	SC/APPEAL/146/2010	Jayakody Arachchige Chandramali, Kahatagahamulla, Dodangaslanda. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Meerayadeen Mohamed Riyaldeen, No.15/2, Castle Street, Colombo 4. 2. Solamon John Vincent, No.28/2, Bishop Road, Wattala. Defendants AND BETWEEN Jayakody Arachchige Chandramali, Kahatagahamulla, Dodangaslanda. Appearing by her power of Attorney holder Liyanage Don Marcus Stanly Nanayakkara, Newtown Dodangaslanda, Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Meerayadeen Mohamed Riyaldeen, No.15/2, Castle Street, Colombo 4. 2. Solamon John Vincent, No.28/2, Bishop Road, Wattala. Defendant-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Jayakody Arachchige Chandramali, Kahatagahamulla, Dodangaslanda. Appearing by her power of Attorney holder Liyanage Don Marcus Stanly Nanayakkara, Newtown Dodangaslanda, Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Meerayadeen Mohamed Riyaldeen, (Deceased), No.15/2, Castle Street, Colombo 4. 1(a). Shima Rushana Shararaff, No.24, 40th Lane, Wellawatta. Substituted 1a Defendant-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent, 2. Solamon John Vincent, No.28/2, Bishop Road, Wattala. View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2019-03-06	SC/APPEAL/5/2014	Seevali Jeyshta Bandara Arrawwawala, New Town, Udaspaththuwa. Applicant Vs. 1. Agarapathana Plantations Limited, No.53-1/1, Sir Baron Jayatilleke Mawatha, Colombo 1. 2. Lanka Tea and Rubber Plantations (Pvt) Ltd, No.53-1/1, Sir Baron Jayatilleke Mawatha, Colombo 1. Respondents AND 1. Agarapathana Plantations Limited, No.53-1/1, Sir Baron Jayatilleke Mawatha, Colombo 1. 2. Lanka Tea and Rubber Plantations (Pvt) Ltd, No.53-1/1, Sir Baron Jayatilleke Mawatha, Colombo 1. Respondent-Appellants Vs. Seevali Jeyshta Bandara Arrawwawala, New Town, Udaspaththuwa. Applicant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Agarapathana Plantations Limited, No.53-1/1, Sir Baron Jayatilleke Mawatha, Colombo 1. 2. Lanka Tea and Rubber Plantations (Pvt) Ltd, No.53-1/1, Sir Baron Jayatilleke Mawatha, Colombo 1. Respondents-Appellant-Appellants Vs. Seevali Jeyshta Bandara Arrawwawala, New Town, Udaspaththuwa. Applicant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2019-03-06	SC/CHC APPEAL/7/2012	Dynamic Steel (Private) Ltd., 484, Annanagar West Exten, Chennai, 600-101, India. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Kara Steel Mills (Private) Limited, 633, Srimavo Bandaranayake Mawatha, Colombo 14. 2. Faiz-ur Rahaman, Kara Steel Mills (Private) Limited, 633, Srimavo Bandaranayake Mawatha, Colombo 14. Defendants NOW 1. Kara Steel Mills (Private) Limited, 633, Srimavo Bandaranayake Mawatha, Colombo 14. 2. Faiz-ur Rahaman, Kara Steel Mills (Private) Limited, 633, Srimavo Bandaranayake Mawatha, Colombo 14. Defendant-Appellants Vs. Dynamic Steel (Private) Ltd., 484, Annanagar West Exten, Chennai, 600-101, India. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2019-03-06	SC/FR/422/2017	Jothirathna Nanayakkarage Oshem Shelumiyal Nanayakkara (Minor), Appearing by his Next friend Guardian ad litem Jothirathna Nanayakkara Lathik Suranga, Both of No. 470/11 B, Colombo Road, Gintota, Kosgahawatta, Galle. Petitioner Vs. 1. Mr. Sampath Weragoda, The Principal, Richmond College, Galle. 2. Director National Schools, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 4. L.B.B. Theekshana, Guardian and Father, LBN Enuka, No.14, 1st lane, Madapathala, Eliot Road, Galle. 5. The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2019-03-06	SC/FR/430/2017	Halgamuwa Gamage Ashan Kaveesha (Minor), Appearing by his Next friend Guardian ad litem Halgamuwa Gamage Saman Kumara, Both of No. 11/A/01, Gallamulla, Akuressa Road, Yakkalamulla. Petitioner Vs. 1. Mr. Sampath Weragoda, The Principal, Richmond College, Galle. 2. Director National Schools, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 4. L.B.B. Theekshana, Guardian and Father, LBN Enuka, No.14, 1st lane, Madapathala, Eliot Road, Galle. 5. The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2019-03-06	SC/FR/54/2018	K. Nishanthika Pushpa Kumari, No. 23/F/I/3, E.D Dabare Mawatha, Narahenpita. For and on behalf of, Samarasinghe Arachchige Hirundi Udanya. Petitioner Vs. 1. R.A.M. Herath, Principal, Sirimavo Bandaranaike Vidyalaya, Colombo 7. 2. Sunil Hettiarachchi, Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 3. Premasiri Epa, 4. Chintha Kanthi, 5. Kalyani Samarakoon, 6. Amali Gunasekara, 7. Kapila Prasanna, All of 3rd to 7th Respondents, C/o Principal, Sirimavo Bandaranaike Vidyalaya, Colombo 7. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2019-03-06	SC/FR/208/2012	N.A. Nimal Ranjith, No.752, Navodagama, Sevanagala. Petitioner Vs. 1. N. Bandara, Officer-in-Charge, Sevanagala Police Station, Sevanagala. 2. Edirisinghe, Sergeant, Sevanagala Police Station, Sevanagala. 3. Dr. C. Vithana, Medical Officer-in-Charge, Divisional Hospital, Sevanagala. 4. N.K. Illangakoon, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 1. 5. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew			Download
2019-03-05	SC/FR/502/2010	1. P.S.R. Premalal, No.2, First Lane, Vidyala Mawatha, Anuradhapura. 2. W.G. Karunaratne, Neelavila, Suruwirugama, Sooriyawewa. 3. W.M.A.C. Dissanayake, ‘Jeewana’, Kamburupitiya. 4. R.S.K. Mallawaarachchi, 61d, Feeldvive Terrace, Kandy Road, Wewaldeniya. 5. K.L. Mahinda, No. 34, Mawarala Watta, Mawarala, Matara. 6. S.P. Mallawaarachchi, No.83, Anuradhapura Road, Kahatagasdiliya. 7. P.K.W. Kalutota, Palugaswala, Lunama, Ambalantota. 8. R.W.G.D.P. Munasinghe, No.42, Jana Udana House Scheme, Talawa. 9. J.K.D.S. Samadara, ‘Manjula’, Kalahe, Mandawala, Galle. 10. W.D.S. Fernando, No.32, East Moratumulla, Moratuwa. 11. G.G.G. Rejikumara, Palugampala Road, Sannasgama, Lellopitiya. 12. V.A.N. Premarathna, Gurugewatta Road, Wendesiwatta, Ballapana, Galigamuwa. 13. W.G.N. Pathmini, 256/5, Flower Gardens, Weligama, Matara. 14. E.A. Anushka Kumari, No.20, Andagala Road, Matugama. 15. S.K. Samarasinghe, H 11, Nila Niwasa, Penideniya, Peradeniya. 16. P.H. Walpita, ‘Dahampaya’, Talagala, Gonapola Junction. 17. H.I.M. Kulathunga. View More	Hon. L.T.B. Dehideniya, J			Download
2019-02-28	SC/FR/307/2017	1. Gabbala Ralalage Kirula Hastha Bandara, 2. Gabbala Ralalage Kasun Manaram Bandara, both of, No. 528/14 D, 2nd Division, Maradana, Colombo 10. Petitioners Vs. 1. Mr. S. M. Keerthirathna, The Principal, Ananda College, P. de S. Kularatne Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. Mr. T. A. D. Dhammika T. Perera, Member of Interview Board, Ananda College, P. de S. Kularatne Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3. Mr. K. Bimal P. Wijesinghe, Member of Interview Board, Ananda College, P. de S. Kularatne Mawatha, Colombo 10. 4. Mr. R. M. D. D. C. Randeniya, Member of Interview Board, Ananda College, P. de S. Kularatne Mawatha, Colombo 10. 5. Mr. Sunil Hettiarachchi, Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 6. Director of National Schools, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 7. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2019-02-28	SC/APPEAL/29/2016	Kaluthanthrige Dona Jayaseeli, No. 352, Rajasingha Mawatha, Hewagama, Kaduwela. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Kaluthanthirige Dona Dayawathi, No. 2/6, Pannawala, Delgoda. 2. Kaluthanthirige Dona Karunawathi, No. 47, Pegiriwatta Road, Gangodawila, Nugegoda. 3. Kaluthanthirige Don Karunadasa, No. 159, Hewagama, Kaduwela. 3A. U.A. Chandrawathie, No. 159, Hewagama, Kaduwela. 4. Kaluthanthirige Dona Gunaseeli, residence unknown. 5. Liyana Arachchige Podisingho, No. 185, Hewagama, Kaduwela. 5A. Liyana Arachchige Dona Leelawathie, No. 185, Hewagama, Kaduwela. 6. Kaluthanthirige Dona Rupawathi, No. 152/1, Hewagama, Kaduwela. 7. Weligama Arachchige Somadasa Perera, 152/5, Hewagama, Kaduwela. Defendants AND Kaluthanthrige Dona Jayaseeli, No. 352, Rajasingha Mawatha, Hewagama, Kaduwela. Plaintiff-Petitioner Vs. 1. Kaluthanthirige Dona Dayawathi, No. 2/6, Pannawala, Delgoda. 2. Kaluthanthirige Dona Karunawathi, No. 47, Pegiriwatta Road, Gangodawila, Nugegoda. 3. Kaluthanthirige Don Karunadasa, No. 159, Hewagama, Kaduwela. 3A. U.A. Chandrawathie, No. 159, Hewagama, Kaduwela. View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2019-02-27	SC/APPEAL/203/2016	Deniyadura Stephen De Silva, No.307, Muthuwella Mawatha, Modera, Colombo 15. Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Reginet Anthony, No.97/9A, St James Street, Colombo 15. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2019-02-22	SC/FR/198/2011	Tuduge Achalanka Srilal Perera, ‘Isura’, Wellarawa, Wellarawa. Petitioner Vs. (1) Police Sergeant Ananda, Police Station, Madampe. (2) Inspector of Police Indrajith, Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Madampe. (3) Inspector-General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. (4) Hon. Attorney-General, Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2019-02-22	SC/FR/244/2017	1. Ranasinghe Arachchige Nadeesha Seuwandi Ranasinghe, No. 130D, “Saman” Walpola Road, Ragama. 2. Mohamed Huwais Mohamed Naleef, No.7, Salawatta Lane, Wellampitiya. Petitioners Vs. 1. Ceylon Petroleum Storage Terminals Limited, Oil Installation, Kolonnawa. 2. Chairman, Ceylon Petroleum Storage Terminals Limited, Oil Installation, Kolonnawa. 3. Managing Director, Ceylon Petroleum Storage Terminals Limited, Oil Installation, Kolonnawa. 4. P.D.P. Dharmawansa, Deputy General Manager (HR and Admin), Ceylon Petroleum Storage Terminals Limited, Oil Installation, Kolonnawa. 5. W.V.S.A. Fonseka, Chief Accountant, Ministry of Petroleum Resources Development, No. 80, Sir Ernest de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 07. 6. D.M.H.B. Dasanayake, Manager (Internal Audit), Ceylon Petroleum Storage Terminals Limited, Oil Installation, Kolonnawa. 7. K.M.N.A.C. Perera, Human Resource Manager, Ceylon Petroleum Storage Terminals Limited, Oil Installation, Kolonnawa. 8. Manoj Siriwardene, Senior Deputy Manager (Finance), Ceylon Petroleum Storage Terminals Limited, Oil Installation, Kolonnawa. View More	Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC, J			Download
2019-02-18	SC/APPEAL/15/2019, SC/APPEAL/16/2019, SC/APPEAL/17/2019	DFCC Bank PLC, No. 73/5, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Shaeedul Hijry Mohamed Risan alias Shaheedul Hijry Mohamed Rishan, 2. Wedaralagedara Mohamed Mubarak Siththi Sermila alias Sithy Sharmila Rishan, Both of No.01, Charles Circus, Colombo 03, Presently of No. 30/1/3, Glen Arber Place, Colombo 03. Defendants AND THEN BETWEEN 1. Shaeedul Hijry Mohamed Risan alias Shaheedul Hijry Mohamed Rishan, 2. Wedaralagedara Mohamed Mubarak Siththi Sermila alias Sithy Sharmila Rishan, Both of No.01, Charles Circus, Colombo 03, Presently of No. 30/1/3, Glen Arber Place, Colombo 03. Defendant-Petitioners Vs. DFCC Bank PLC, No. 73/5, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Plaintiff-Respondent AND BETWEEN 1. Shaeedul Hijry Mohamed Risan alias Shaheedul Hijry Mohamed Rishan, 2. Wedaralagedara Mohamed Mubarak Siththi Sermila alias Sithy Sharmila Rishan, Both of No.01, Charles Circus, Colombo 03, Presently of No. 30/1/3, Glen Arber Place, Colombo 03. Defendant-Petitioner-Petitioners Vs. DFCC Bank PLC, No. 73/5, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda, PC, J			Download
2019-02-18	SC/APPEAL/90/2016	1. Mapalagama Manage Nishantha Viraj, ‘Nihathamanee’, Niyagama, Thalgaswala. (Minor) Plaintiff By his next friend Mapolagama Pathmini Sriyalatha, ‘Nihathamanee’, Niyagama, Thalgaswala. Vs. 1. Thenuwara Acharige Sardhasena, ‘Nihathamanee’, Niyagama, Thalgaswala. 2. L.P. Chandrasena Karunathilake, Gurugodella Estate, Niyagama, Thalgaswela. 3. Lokugamage Rupasena Karunathilake, Benthara Road, Elpitiya. 4. Sadini Maithree de Silva, Dikwella Stores, Thalgaswela. Defendants AND Mahagama Vidanalage Chandradasa, ‘Rathna Radio Service’, Thalgaswala. Petitioner Vs. Mapalagama Manage Nishantha Viraj, ‘Nihathamanee’, Niyagama, Thalgaswala. Plaintiff-Respondent 1. Thenuwara Acharige Sardhasena, ‘Nihathamanee’, Niyagama, Thalgaswala. 2. L.P. Chandrasena Karunathilake, Gurugodella Estate, Niyagama, Thalgaswela. 3. Lokugamage Rupasena Karunathilake, Benthara Road, Elpitiya. 4. Sadini Maithree de Silva, Dikwella Stores, Thalgaswela. View More	Hon. L.T.B. Dehideniya, J			Download
2019-02-18	SC/FR/21/2015	1. D.K. Karandawela, No.211/1, Ihalakaragahamuuna, Genemulla Road, Kadawatha. 2. U.S. Kariyawasam, No.43, Foster Cross Lane, Colombo.10. 3. H.A.S. Perera, C21, Matha Road, Colombo.08. 4. S.S. Wasanthasena, No. 64, Ketakalapitiya, Debahera, Nittambuwa. 5. A.T.D. De Silva, No.59, Koswatte Road, Nawala, Rajagiriya. 6. J.A.S. Rajapakse, No.83/29/C/01, St’ Katherine Waththa Road, Hokandara East, Hokandara. 7. C.D.K. Weeraman, No.385 1/1, Rajagiriya Road, Rajagiriya. 8. R.P. Rajika, No.160/1/B, Dewala Road, Makola North, Makola. 9. K.S.J. Shantha, No.16/3A, Chetnoll Road, Thumbagoda, Balangoda. Petitioners Vs. 1. Justice Sathya Hettige, PC, Chairman. 1A. Dharmasena Dissanayake, Chairman. 2. S.C. Mannapperuma, Member. 2A. A. Salam Abdul Waid, Member. 3. Ananda Seneviratne, Member. 3A. D. Shirantha Wijayatilaka, Member. 4. N.H. Pathirana, Member. 4A. Prathap Ramanujam, Member. 5. Kanthi Wijetunge, Member. 5A. V. Jegarasasingam, Member. 6. Sunil S. Sirisena, Member. 6A. Santi Nihal Seneviratne, Member. 7. S. Thillanadarajah, Member. 7A. S. Ranugge, Member. 8. A. Mohamed. View More	Hon. L.T.B. Dehideniya, J			Download
2019-02-15	SC/APPEAL/174/2013	Elayathamby Nadesamoorthy, Udayar Road, Karaitivu. Petitioner Vs. 1. T. Asoka Peiris, Secretary, Ministry of Land, Land Development, Janawasa and Ranaviru Welfare, Govijana Mandiraya, 80/5, Rajamalwatte Avenue, Battaramulla. 2. Jayalath Dissanayake, Former Secretary, Ministry of Land, Land Development, Janawasa and Ranaviru Welfare, C/O Secretary, Ministry of Land, Land Development, Janawasa and Ranaviru Welfare, Govijana Mandiraya, 80/5, Rajamalwatte Avenue, Battaramulla. 3. S.M.W. Fernando, Surveyor General, Surveyor General’s Office, Survey Department of Sri Lanka, PO Box 506, No. 150, Kirula Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 4. H.D.L. Gunawardene, Secretary, Public Service Commission, No. 356B, Carlwil Place, Galle Road, Colombo 3. Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Elayathamby Nadesamoorthy, Udayar Road, Karaitivu. Petitioner-Petitioner/Appellant Vs. 1. T. Asoka Peiris, Former Secretary, Ministry of Land, Land Development, Janawasa and Ranaviru Welfare, Govijana Mandiraya, 80/5, Rajamalwatte Avenue, Battaramulla. 1A. Dr. I.H. View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena, PC, J			Download
2019-02-12	SC/APPEAL/76/2018	Office-in-Charge, Police Station, Kollupitiya. Complainant Vs. Thusith Thilina Malagoda, No. 35, Ransive Lane, Colombo 06. Accused And Paleketiyage Samanthi Manohari Paleketiya, No. 49, Mahawa Road, Nikawaratiya. Appellant Vs. Office-in-Charge, Police Station, Kollupitiya. Complainant-Respondent Thusith Thilina Malagoda, No. 35, Ransive Lane, Colombo 06. Accused-Respondent Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent And now between Thusith Thilina Malagoda, No. 35, Ransive Lane, Colombo 06. Accused-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Paleketiyage Samanthi Manohari Paleketiya, No. 49, Mahawa Road, Nikawaratiya. Appellant-Respondent Office-in-Charge, Police Station, Kollupitiya. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda, PC			Download
2019-02-07	SC/APPEAL/125/2013	Rajamany, Widow of Ramasamy Oppilamany Ganeshanathan, Kandar Madam, Vannar Ponnai, Jaffna. Presently of 110/1, 5th Lane, Colombo 03. Appearing by her Attorney, Thurairajah Sukumar of Madagal Road, Pandetteruppu, Jaffna. Plaintiff Vs. Vairamuthu Kovindapillai, No. 62, Palam Road, Kandar Madam, Jaffna. Defendant AND BETWEEN Vairamuthu Kovindapillai, No. 62, Palam Road, Kandar Madam, Jaffna. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Rajamany, Widow of Ramasamy Oppilamany Ganeshanathan, Kandar Madam, Vannar Ponnai, Jaffna. Presently of 110/1, 5th Lane, Colombo 03. Appearing by her Attorney, Thurairajah Sukumar of Madagal Road, Pandetteruppu, Jaffna. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Vairamuthu Kovindapillai, No. 62, Palam Road, Kandar Madam, Jaffna. Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Rajamany, Widow of Ramasamy Oppilamany Ganeshanathan, Kandar Madam, Vannar Ponnai, Jaffna. Presently of 110/1, 5th Lane, Colombo 03. Appearing by her Attorney, Thurairajah Sukumar of Madagal Road, Pandetteruppu, Jaffna. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda, PC, J			Download
2019-02-07	SC/FR/153/2016	1. Rajapakashage Nishanthi Karunanayaka, No. 68, Katuwasgoda, Veyangoda. 2. Irosha Niwanthi De Silva, No. 01, 9th Lane, Colombo 03. 3. Hettikankanamalage Don Ayesha Harshani Mali Perera, No. 21, Middle Class National Housing Scheme, Mailagashandiya, Anuradhapura. 4. Pathirana Mudiyanselage Kalyani Kusumalatha, No. 31/K, Pollebedda, Mahaoya. 5. Attanayaka Mudiyanselage Renuka Kumari Wijerathna, Polwatta, Pollebedda, Mahaoya. 6. Dissanayaka Mudiyanselage Duleeka Rukshani Thilakarathne, No. 273, Airport Road, Anuradhapura. 7. Harshani Dilrukshi Wanninayaka, No. 810/B, Dharmapala Mawatha, Wijayapura, Anuradhapura. 8. Kuruppu Arachchige Chathuri Niroshika, No. 304/27/3, Pinnagollawatta, Nittambuwa. 9. Thise Appuhamilage Dilka Nishani Siriwardana, No. 30/79, Mayadunna, Gonagolla, Ampara. 10. Mercy Thanuja Kumari Balaharuwa, Palugaswewa, Eppawala. 11. Kariyawasam Majuwana Gamage Sachee Rangana, Wagoda, Bogaha Handiya, Elpitiya. 12. Konara Mudiyanselage Dushmanthi Thilakasiri, Irrigation Quarters, Monaragala. 13. Robo. View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda, PC, J			Download
2019-02-06	SC/APPEAL/105/2018	1. Godawela Gamage Dulani Kamal Renuka, 2. Kaushika Sandasara, 3. Chamod Sandamal, All are at No. 10B, Kurunduwatta, Isadeen Town, Matara. 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs are appearing by their next friend the 4th Plaintiff, 4. Walpita Mudiyanselage Mahinda Kithsiri Walpita, No. 1/179, Borella Road, Godagama, Homagama. Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners Vs. 1. Amarakoon Dissanayake Wasantha, No. 277, Kuttikala, Padalangala. 2. Amarakoon Dissanayake Chandana, No. 769, Viharagala, Sooriyawewa. Defendants-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2019-01-24	SC/FR/413/2017	B.A. Nulara Nethumi, 5 ½, Gomes Path, De Fonseka Road, Colombo 05. Appearing by, B.A. J. Indrathilaka, 5 ½, Gomes Path, De Fonseka Road, Colombo 05. Petitioner Vs. 1. S.S.K. Awiruppola, The Principal, Vishaka Vidyalaya, Vajira Road, Colombo 05. 2. Sunil Hettiarachchi, Secretary to the Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Pelawatte, Battaramulla. 3. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, Acting CJ			Download
2019-01-24	SC/FR/414/2017	Binudi Yehansa Manage, No.141/3B, Vajira Road, Colombo 05. Appearing by, Kumarasiri Manage, No.141/3B, Vajira Road, Colombo 05. Petitioner Vs. 1. S.S.K. Awiruppola, The Principal, Vishaka Vidyalaya, Vajira Road, Colombo 05. 2. Sunil Hettiarachchi, Secretary to the Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Pelawatte, Battaramulla. 3. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, Acting CJ			Download
2019-01-22	SC/APPEAL/48/2011	National Housing Development Authority, P.O. Box 1826, 5th Floor, Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. D. S. Paranayapa, No. 263A (1), Devala Road, Koswatte, Battaramulla. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, Acting CJ			Download
2019-01-22	SC/APPEAL/232/2017	1. M. L. M. Ameen, 2. Mahmud Riad Ameen, Both of No. 01, Col. T. G. Jayawardana Mawatha, Colombo 03. Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioners Vs. Ammavasi Ramu alias Ramaiah, South Wanarajah Estate, Dikoya. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, Acting CJ			Download
2019-01-03	SC/APPEAL/154/2010	The State, Complainant Vs. Devunderage Nihal, Accused AND BETWEEN Devunderage Nihal, Accused-Appellant Vs. The Attorney General, Complainant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN The Attorney-General, Complainant-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Devunderage Nihal, Accused-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2018-12-14	SC/APPEAL/103/2012	The Director General, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, No. 36, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. Complainant Vs, Imbulana Liyanage Dharmawardana, No. 145/53, Walawuwatta, Waliweriya. Accused And Imbulana Liyanage Dharmawardana, No. 145/53, Walawuwatta, Waliweriya. Accused- Appellant Vs, The Director General, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, No. 36, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. Complainant-Respondent And now between The Director General, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, No. 36, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. Complainant-Respondent-Appellant Vs, Imbulana Liyanage Dharmawardana, No. 145/53, Walawuwatta, Waliweriya. Accused- Appellant-Respondent View More	HON. VIJITH K. MALALGODA, PC, J			Download
2018-12-13	SC/FR/351/2018	Rajavarothiam Sampanthan 176, Customs Road, Trincomalee Petitioner Vs. 1. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 2. Mahinda Deshapriya Chairman 3. N J Abeysekera PC Member 4. Prof. Rathnajeevan Hoole Member All of Election Commission, Election Secretariat Sarana Mawataha, Rajagiriya Respondents AND 1. Prof. Gamini Lakshman Pieris No.37, Kirula Place, Colombo 5. 2. Udaya Prabath Gammanpilla 65/14G, Wickramasinghe Mawatha, Kumaragewatta Road, Pelwatta, Battaramulla 3. Wellawattage Jagath Sisira Sena de Silva No.174/10, Uthuwankanda Road, Thalawathugoda 4. Mallika Arachchige Channa Sudath Jayasumana. 21/1A, Upananda Road, Attidiya. 5. Premanath Chaminda Dolawatta No.50, Ihala Bomiriy, Kaduwela. Added Respondents View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-12-13	SC/FR/351/2018 & 352/2018, 353/2018, 354/2018, 355/2018, 356/2018, 358/2018, 359/2018, 360/2018, 361/2018	Rajavarothiam Sampanthan, No176, Customs Road, Trincomalee. Petitioner (SC FR 351/2018) 1. Kabir Hashim, 156 Lake Drive, Colombo 8 2. Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, 306 (D2) Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7 Petitioners (SC FR 352/2018) 1. Centre for Policy Alternatives (Guarantee) Limited No. 6/5, Layards Road Colombo 00500 2. Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu No. 3, Ascot Avenue Colombo 00500 Petitioners (SC FR 353/2018) Lal Wijenayake Secretary, United Left Front, 1003, 1/1 Sri Jayewardenepura Mawatha Rajagiriya Petitioner (SC FR 354/2018) Gabadagamage Champika Jayangani Perera, Attorney-at-Law, 60 Anderson Road, Kalubowila, Dehiwela. Petitioner (SC FR 355/2018) 1. Anura Kumara Dissayanake, No, 464/20, Pannipitiya Road, Pelwatta, Battaramulla. 2. Bimal Ratnayake, No.1, 2nd Lane Jambugasmulla Mawatha, Nugegoda 3. Vijitha Herath, No. 154, Yakkala Road, Gampaha 4. Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa, No. 41, Hospital Road, Homagama. 5. Sunil Hadunetti, No. 4, Yeheyya Road, Izadeen Town, Matara 6. Nihal Galapaththi View More	HON. H. N. J. PERERA, J			Download
2018-12-12	SC/APPEAL/95/2015	Henry Perera Samarakoon, No.200, Batahena Road, Sooriyagama, Kadawatha. Plaintiff -Vs- 1. Abeysinghe Pathiranage Indrani, No.166 / 2 / B, Weboda Road, Kirillawala, Kadawatha. 2. Rupasinghe Jayasundara Muhandhiram Tilak Pathmasiri Rupasinghage, I.G.Gold House, Super Market, Borella, Colombo 08. 3. Padma Alwis, No.715/1/a, Erawwala Road, Pannipitiya. 4. Sandaradura Nihal Lakshman Silva, No. 3/7, Ragama Road, Mahabage. 5. Cader Meedin Mohamed Anzar, No.464/2, Kasawatte, Batagoda, Kandy. Defendants AND BETWEEN 5. Cader Meedin Mohamed Anzar, No.464/2, Kasawatte, Batagoda, Kandy. 5th Defendant Petitioner -Vs- Henry Perera Samarakoon, No.200, Batahena Road, Sooriyagama, Kadawatha. Plaintiff - Respondent 1. Abeysinghe Pathiranage Indrani, No.166/2/B, Weboda Road, Kirillawala, Kadawatha. 2. Rupasinghage Jayasundara Muhandhiram Tilak Pathmasiri Rupasinghage, I.G. Gold House, Super Market, Borella, Colombo 08. 3. Padma Alwis, No.715/1/a, Erawwala Road, Pannipitiya. 4. Sandaradura Nihal Lakshman Silva, No. 3/7, Ragama Road View More	HON. MURDU N. B. FERNANDO, PC, J			Download
2018-12-12	SC/CHC APPEAL/53/2012	Suntel Limited, No. 110, Sri James Peiris Mawatha, Colombo 2. Plaintiff Vs. Electroteks Network Services (Private) Limited, No. 429D, Galle Road, Ratmalana. Defendant AND NOW BETWEEN Dialog Broadband Networks (Private) Limited, No. 475, Union Place, Colombo 2. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. Electroteks Network Services (Private) Limited, No. 429D, Galle Road, Ratmalana. Defendant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2018-12-12	SC/FR/62/2018	1. Menura Nanwidu Rambukkanage, No:27, Nihal Silva Mawatha, Kirulapone, Colombo 06. 2. S.T.Kodithuwakku, No: 27, Nihal Silva Mawatha, Kirulapone, Colombo 06. PETITIONERS Vs. (1) B.A. Abeyrathne, The Principal and the Chairman of the Interview Board to admit Students to Grade 1 of Royal College Of Colombo, Royal College, Colombo 07. (2) A. Galahitiyawa Member of the Interview Board to admit Students to Grade 1 of Royal College Of Colombo, Royal College, Colombo 07. (3) K.D.S. Siyaguna, Member of the Interview Board to admit Students to Grade 1 of Royal College Of Colombo, Royal College, Colombo 07. (4) Harshana Matharaarachchi, Member of the Interview Board to admit Students to Grade 1 of Royal College Of Colombo, Royal College, Colombo 07. (5) K.A.H. Karasingha, Member of the Interview Board to admit Students to Grade 1 of Royal College Of Colombo, Royal College, Colombo 07. (6) K.G. Wimalasena The Chairman of the Appeals and Objections Board to admit Students to Grade 1 of Royal College of Colombo, Royal College View More	HON. MURDU N. B. FERNANDO, PC, J			Download
2018-12-03	SC/APPEAL/5/2013	1. Maththumagala Kankanamalage Victor Alwis 2. Mallawaarachchige Nalani Chandralatha 3. Maththumagala Kankanamalage Dushantha Sanjeewa All of No.191/29 Maladolawatta, Ihala Biyanwala, Kadawatha Plaintiff Vs Maththumagala Kankanamalage Newton Alwis No.589, Kandy Road, Eldeniya, Kadawatha Defendant AND THEN BETWEEN Maththumagala Kankanamalage Newton Alwis No.589, Kandy Road, Eldeniya, Kadawatha Defendant-Appellant Vs 1. Maththumagala Kankanamalage Victor Alwis 2. Mallawaarachchige Nalani Chandralatha 3. Maththumagala Kankanamalage Dushantha Sanjeewa All of No.191/29 Maladolawatta, Ihala Biyanwala, Kadawatha Plaintiff-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Mallawaarachchige Nalani Chandralatha 2. Maththumagala Kankanamalage Dushantha Sanjeewa All of No.191/29 Maladolawatta, Ihala Biyanwala, Kadawatha Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellants Vs Maththumagala Kankanamalage Newton Alwis No.589, Kandy Road, Eldeniya, Kadawatha Defendant-Appellant-Respondent-Respondent View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-12-03	SC/APPEAL/137/2015	Tropicaland Commodities ( Private) Limited of First Floor, State Bank of India Building, Fort, Colombo -01. Plaintiff-Appellant. Vs. Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. 12 -14, Chemin Rieu, CH 1208, Geneva, Switzerland Carrying on business through its office of Sri Lanka, Dr. Danister de Silva Mawatha, Colombo -08. Defendant-Respondent View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-12-03	SC/APPEAL/194/2012	31a. Philip Neri HettiarachchiNo. 196, Rajawatta, Seththappaduwa, Pamun2. HettiarachchigeDonIgnatius Glennie3. Hettiarachchige GodfreyBoth of No. 196, Rajawatte, Pamunugama.Defendant-Respondent-PetitionersVs.1a.Paththinikuttige Mary BernadetteFernando1b.Baddeliyanage Don RuphusBoth of No. 149, Seththappaduwa, Pamunugama.Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondents4a.Arachchige Rose Mary NirmalaNo. 301A, Bollathe, Ganemulla.Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-12-03	SC/APPEAL/207/2016	Hasini Dilshani Wijesinghe Jayawardane No.465/50, Nelum Place, Jalthor, Ranala. Minor appearing by her Next Friend Amitha Damayanthi Konggahage Jayawardane No.465/50, Nelum Place, Jalthor, Ranala. Plaintiff Vs Pitakanda Wahumpurage Rohana Sumith Ananda. No.402, Himbutana Road, Mulleriyawa, New Town. KMD Samantha No.467/8, Rajasinghe Mawatha, Udumulla, Mulleriyawa, New Town. Wajira Sumith Udunuwara No.406, Udumulla Mulleriyawa, New Town Defendants AND Wajira Sumith Udunuwara No.406, Udumulla Mulleriyawa, New Town 3rd Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs 1. Amitha Damayanthi Konggahage Jayawardane No.465/50, Nelum Place, Jalthor, Ranala. Plaintiff-Respondent 2. Pitakanda Wahumpurage Rohana Sumith Ananda. No.402, Himbutana Road, Mulleriyawa, New Town. 3. KMD Samantha No.467/8, Rajasinghe Mawatha, Udumulla, Mulleriyawa, New Town. Defendant-Respondents AND NOW Wajira Sumith Udunuwara No.406, Udumulla Mulleriyawa, New Town 3rd Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant- Petitioner-Appellant Vs 1. Amitha Damayanthi Konggahage Jayawardane View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-12-03	SC/FR/384/2016	Upali Sarath Kumara, Pothuwewa, Maddegama, Wellawa. PETITIONER -Vs- 1. S.A. Anura Sathurusinghe, Conservator General of Forests, Forest Department, “ Sampathpaya” No.3, Battaramulla. 2. M.L. Abdul Majeed, Conservator of Forests (Planning and Monitoring) (formerly Protection and Law Enforcement), Forest Department, “Sampathpaya”, No.3, Battaramulla. 3. Nimal Rathnaweera, Special Forester (Protection and Law Enforcement), Forest Department, “Sampathpaya”, No.3, Battaramulla. 4. P.A.G.S. Nandakumara, Conservator of Forests (Protection and Law Enforcement) Forest Department, “Sampathpaya” No.3, Battaramulla. 5. R.S. Kulatunga, Additional Conservator General of Forests, (Forest Protection, Operations & Management), Forest Department, “Sampathpaya”, No.3, Battaramulla. 6. L.A.D. Geetha Indrani, Additional Conservator General of Forests (Human Resource Management, Administration & Institutional Development), Forest Department, “Sampathpaya”, No.3, Battaramulla. 7. Udaya R. Seneviratne, Secretary, Ministry of Mahaweli View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-11-29	SC/FR/24/2018	1. HIMANSHU SUNETH NANAYAKKARA 2. KALAVANA VIDANALAYA KANTHILATHA LAKMINI KUMARI NANAYAKKARA 3. THISULI SENETHMA NANAYAKKARA [MINOR] Appearing through her Next Friend HIMANSHU SUNETH NANAYAKKARA All three of No. 26B, Fife Road, Colombo 05. PETITIONERS VS. 1. S.S.K. AVIRUPPOLA Principal, Visakha Vidyalaya, Vajira Road, Colombo 05. 2. VICE PRINCIPAL [HEAD OF PRIMARY SECTION] Visakha Vidyalaya, Vajira Road, Colombo 05. 3. CHAIRPERSON OF SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY Visakha Vidyalaya, Vajira Road, Colombo 05. 4. SUNIL HETTIARACHCHI Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla 5. DR. JAYANTHA WICKRAMANAYAKA Director of Education, National Schools Branch, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 6. L.M.D. DHARMASENA Principal, Mahanama College, Colombo 03. 7. HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	HON. PRASANNA JAYAWARDHENA, PC, J			Download
2018-11-27	SC/FR/514/2010	Hewawasam Sarukkalige Rathnasiri Fernando, 07 D, Warapitiya, Darga Nagaraya. PETITIONER Vs. (1) Police Sergeant Dayarathna (Service No 501) Police Station, Welipenna. (2) Police Constable Madusanka (Service No 67080) Police Station, Welipenna. (3) Jayasingha Police Staff Assistant, Police Station, Welipenna. (4) Police Inspector A.D.Kariyawasam, Office-in-Charge, Police Station, Welipenna. (5) Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. (6) Honorable Attorney General, Attorney General Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	HON. MURDU N. B. FERNANDO, PC, J			Download
2018-11-23	SC/FR/599/2009	Galapita Hene Gedara Nandani Kumari, Kahakotuwe Gedara, Borgambara, Kaikawela, Matale. Petitioner Vs, 1. Padma Kumari Ekanayake, Kahakotuwe Gedara, Borgambara, Kaikawela, Matale. 2. H.M. Ekanayake, Office-in-Charge, Matale Prison, Matale. 3. Office-in-charge, Police Station, Raththota. 4. PS 12862 Wasantha, Police Station, Raththota. 5. Superintendent of Prison, Bogambara Prison, Kandy. 6. B.M. Amunugama, Female Guard, Bogambara Prison, Kandy. 7. L.D. Wijesingha, Female Guard, Bogambara Prison, Kandy. 8. M.S. Kumari Subasingha, Female Guard, Bogambara Prison, Kandy. 9. N.P. Somapala, Female Guard, Bogambara Prison, Kandy. 10. Commissioner General of Prisons, Department of Prisons, Baseline Road, Colombo 09. 11. The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 12. Hon. the Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	HON. VIJITH K. MALALGODA, PC, J			Download
2018-11-21	SC/CHC APPEAL/4/2017	John Devakumar Wilson, No. 173/B, Model Farm Road, Colombo 08. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Rajendra Wasanthikumari 2. Sinnadurai Rajendran Both A9 Road, Paravipanchan, Killinochchi. 3. Masilaman Sivarasa, Anandapuram, Killinochchi. 4. Sellaiya Sendiban, Pungawana Junction, Mulativu Road, Killinochchi. 5. Siva Johnson, A9 Road, Paravipanchan, Killinochchi. 6. Suppaiya Selvendran, No. 336, YMCA Junction, Bharathipuram, Killinochchi. 7. Veluraja Sekaran, No. 414 02/02, Thirungar South, Killinochchi. Defendants And now between In the matter of an application, inter alia, under section 757 of the Civil Procedure Code and section 5A(1) and 5A(2) of the High Court of the provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment Act No. 54 of 2006 for leave to Appeal from the Order made by the District Court of Killinochchi in case No. L/325 on 10. 03. 2014) John Devakumar Wilson, No. 173/B, Model Farm Road, Colombo 08. Plaintiff-Petitioner Vs. 1. Rajendra Wasanthikumari 2. Sinnadurai Rajendran Both A9 Road, Paravipanchan, Killinochchi. View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2018-11-21	SC/APPEAL/139/2014	Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Complainant Vs. 1. Panangalage Don Nilanka 2. Kodituwakkulage Pradeep Samantha alias Fredie Accused And Now 1. Panangalage Don Nilanka 2. Kodituwakkulage Pradeep Samantha alias Fredie Accused-Appellants Vs. The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent And Now Between Kodituwakkulage Pradeep Samantha alias Fredie Presently at Welikada Prison Baseline Road Borella. 2nd Accused-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. The Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2018-11-21	SC/APPEAL/55/2013	Kambapolegedara Sumith Jayalath, Walgama, Yatagama, Rambukkana. Plaintiff Vs Athaudagedara Siriyawathie, Walgama, Yatagama, Rambukkana. Defendant AND Kambapolegedara Sumith Jayalath, Walgama, Yatagama, Rambukkana. Plaintiff Appellant Vs Athaudagedara Siriyawathie, Walgama, Yatagama, Rambukkana. Defendant Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Athaudagedara Siriyawathie, Walgama, Yatagama, Rambukkana. Defendant Respondent Appellant Vs Kambapolegedara Sumith Jayalath, Walgama, Yatagama, Rambukkana. Plaintiff Appellant Respondent View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-11-21	SC/FR/137/2016	1. T.M.V.K. THENNAKOON No. 98, Thennakoon Traders, Belummahara, Mudungoda. 2. T.M.G. TENNAKOON No.148/4, Belummahara, Mudungoda. 3. H.G. LILINONA No. 78/B, Belummahara, Mudungoda. 4. N.W. UNDUGODA No. 190/3A Mudungoda. 5. W.A. SHAMINDAPRIYA PATHMAKUMARA No. 75, Bogaha Road, Gothatuwa, Angoda. 6. M.G. INOKA DILRUKSHI No. 935/3, Bogaha Junction Road, Gothatuwa. 7. P.S.U.K. PERERA No. 110/2, Kandy Road, Belummahara, Mudungoda PETITIONERS VS. 1. HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 2. RAVI KARUNANANYAKE Minister of Finance, Ministry of Finance, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 2A.MANGALA SAMARAWEERA Minister of Finance, Ministry of Finance, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CUSTOMS No. 40, Main Street, Colombo 11. 4. COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF MOTOR TRAFFIC Department of Motor Traffic, No. 341, Elvitigala Mawatha, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 5. A.K. SENEVIRATNE Director General, Department of Fiscal Policy, Ministry of Finance, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 5A.K.A. VIMALENTHIRAJA View More	HON. PRASANNA JAYAWARDHENA, PC, J			Download
2018-11-12	SC/APPEAL/29/2009	K.M.A. ANULAWATHIE MENIKE Randiwala, Mawanella. PLAINTIFF VS. A.H.M.J. ABEYRATNE ‘Lakshmi’, Yatimahana, Makehelwala DEFENDANT AND K.M.A. ANULAWATHIE MENIKE Randiwala, Mawanella. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT VS. A.H.M.J. ABEYRATNE ‘Lashkmi’, Yatimahana, Makehelwala DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN A.H.M.J. ABEYRATNE ‘Lakshmi’, Yatimahana, Makehelwala DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- PETITIONER/ APPELLANT VS. K.M.A. ANULAWATHIE MENIKE Randiwala, Mawanella. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	HON. PRASANNA JAYAWARDHENA, PC, J			Download
2018-11-09	SC/APPEAL/118/2017	The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Complainant. Vs. 1. Junaiden Mohomed Haaris. 2. Abdul Razak Mohomed Salam (deceased) 3. Pakeer Mohomed Kamaldeen Accused. AND NOW 1. Junaiden Mohomed Haaris. 3. Pakeer Mohomed Kamaldeen 1st and 3rd Accused Appellants. Vs. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant Respondent. AND NOW BETWEEN Junaiden Mohamed Haaris, No.13, Kothmale Road, Nawalapitiya. Presently at, Welikada Prison, Borella, Colombo 08. 1st Accused Appellant Petitioner Vs. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2018-11-09	SC/APPEAL/220/2014	Office-in-Charge, Police station, Buttala. Complainant Vs, Kotuwila Kankanamalage Premalal Leonard Perera, No. 02, Kuda Gammanaya, Pelwatta Sugar Company, Buttala. Accused And between Kotuwila Kankanamalage Premalal Leonard Perera, No. 02, Kuda Gammanaya, Pelwatta Sugar Company, Buttala. Accused- Appellant Vs, 1. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 2. Office-in-Charge, Police station, Buttala. Defendant-Respondents And now between Kotuwila Kankanamalage Premalal Leonard Perera, No. 02, Kuda Gammanaya, Pelwatta Sugar Company, Buttala. Accused- Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs, 1. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 2. Office-in-Charge, Police station, Buttala. Complainant-Respondents-Respondents-Respondents View More	HON. VIJITH K. MALALGODA, PC, J			Download
2018-11-08	SC/APPEAL/75/2011	NAGALINGAM SELVARAJA Dikhena, Weweldeniya, Kegalle. PLAINTIFF VS. RAMAIYA RAJAMMA No. 245, North Circular Road, Weweldeniya, Kegalle. DEFENDANT AND RAMAIYA RAJAMMA No. 245, North Circular Road, Weweldeniya, Kegalle. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT VS. NAGALINGAM SELVARAJA Dikhena, Weweldeniya, Kegalle. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN RAMAIYA RAJAMMA No. 245, North Circular Road, Weweldeniya, Kegalle. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT -PETITIONER/APPELLANT VS. NAGALINGAM SELVARAJA Dikhena, Weweldeniya, Kegalle. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT -RESPONDENT View More	HON. PRASANNA JAYAWARDHENA, PC, J			Download
2018-11-05	SC/FR/459/2017	Mrs. R.M. Dayawathi of 20/2, 14th Milepost, Walawatte, Udawala, Teldeniya. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Principal, Girls’ High School, Kandy. 2. The Director, National Schools, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Battaramulla. 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Battaramulla. 4. The Honourable Attorney General, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2018-10-31	SC/FR/412/2016	1. MALIKA JOTHIRATHNA 2. R.M.N. ODARA [a Minor] Both of No. 26, Halwathura, Willegoda Ambalangoda. PETITIONERS VS. 1. SUMITH PARAKRAMAWANSHA 2. REKHA NAYANI MALLAWARACHCHI 3. DIYAGUBADUGE DAYARATNE 4. MALLIYAWADU SHIRLEY CHANDRASIRI 5. NILENTHI SANTHAKA THAKSALA DE SILVA The former Principal, the Secretary and the Members of the Interview Board, Dharmashoka College, Ambalangoda. 6. W.T.B. SARATH 7. P.D. PATHIRATHNA 8. K.P. RANJITH 9. JAGATH WALLAGE The President and Members of the Appeals Board, Dharmashoka College, Ambalangoda. 10. HASITHA WETHTHIMUNI, Principal, Dharmashoka College, Ambalangoda. 11. DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SCHOOLS Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 12. THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL The Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. PETITIONERS View More	HON. PRASANNA JAYAWARDHENA, PC, J			Download
2018-10-30	SC/FR/168/2010 WITH SC/FR/170/2010, SC/FR/189/2010, SC/FR/190/2010 AND SC/FR/246/2010	1. Rajapaksha Senarathge Gamini Jayakodi, Pasala Idiripita, Thiladiya, Puttalam. and 119 others PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. and 324 others RESPONDENTS SC FR 170/2010 1. M.K.M.B. Jayawardena, No. 106, “Barathywass”, Koralawella, Moratuwa. and 35 others PETITIONERS Vs. 325. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. and 324 others RESPONDENTS SC FR 189/2010 1. M.A. Harsha Dammika Perera, 1/2/1, Anderson Flats, Colombo 05. and 43 others PETITIONERS Vs. 1B. Poojith Jayasundera, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. and 564 others RESPONDENTS SC FR 190/2010 1. Rannathige Aruna Shantha, A-400-1-Pirivena Area, Ampara. 2. Kamal Priyantha Kodithuwakku, 251/11, Samagi Mawatha, Kadawatha. and 45 others PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Mahinda Balasuriya, Former Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. and 613 others RESPONDENTS SC FR 246/2010 1. Hendawasam Manil Bhathiya, Jayasinghe Wenamulla, Ambalangoda. and 50 others View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2018-10-23	SC/FR/479/2009	1. PALLE KANKANAMGE SUNIL SHANTHA, Imbulgahakanda, Sadagoda, Meegahathenna. 2. LOKUNARANGODAGE SHANTHA, Amundara, Rideewita, Meegahathenna. 2A. PALLE KANKANAMGE YAMUNA NANDANI WIJEGUNAWARDENA, 597/01, Imbulgahakanda, Sadagoda, Meegahathenna. PETITIONERS VS. 1. SUB-INSPECTOR SENEVIRATNE, Police Station, Meegahathenna. 2. MUKUNANA KARIYAKARANAGE ANURUDDHA MANGALA, Amundara, Rideewita, Polgampala. 3. OFFICER IN CHARGE MEEGAHATHENNA POLICE STATION, Police Station, Meegahathenna. 4. THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE Police Headquarters, Colombo 1. 5. HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	HON. PRASANNA JAYAWARDHENA, PC, J			Download
2018-10-22	SC/FR/364/2015	1. W.A.P. Mudunkotuwa, No. 53/H/12, Police Flats, P.F.F.H.Q., Colombo 05. And 189 Others. Petitioners Vs 1. S. Dadallage, Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration, Provincial Councils, Government and Democratic Governance. And 13 Others Respondents View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-10-19	SC/APPEAL/171/2011	Subasinghage Heenhamy, Hinguraara, Embilipitiya. Plaintiff Vs Hewagamage Ariyarathne, Near Yatiyana Kade, Embilipitiya. Presently of No. 31, Near the Hospital, New Town, Embilipitiya. Defendant AND Hewagamage Ariyarathne, Near Yatiyana Kade, Embilipitiya. Presently of No. 31, Near the Hospital, New Town, Embilipitiya. Defendant Appellant Vs Subasinghage Heenhamy, Hinguraara, Embilipitiya. Plaintiff Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Subasinghage Heenhamy, Hinguraara, Embilipitiya. Plaintiff Respondent Appellant (Deceased) Jayaweera Gama Ethige Gunaratne, No. 1337, Godauda Waadiya, Hinguraara, Embilipitiya. Substituted Plaintiff Respondent Appellant Vs Hewagamage Ariyarathne, Near Yatiyana Kade, Embilipitiya. Presently of No. 31, Near the Hospital, New Town, Embilipitiya. Defendant Appellant Respondent View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-10-19	SC/APPEAL/31/2016	1. W.G.Chandrasena, No. 136/1, Lake Round, Kurunegala. 2. W.S.Wijeratne, No. 38A, Siri Saranankara Road, Dehiwala. Petitioners Vs 1. Sudharma Karunaratne, Director General of Customs, Sri Lanka Customs, Head Office, Bristol Street, Colombo 1. 2. M.M.I. Marikkar, Superintendent of Customs, Sri Lanka Customs, Head Office, Bristol Street, Colombo 1. Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. W.G.Chandrasena, No. 136/1, Lake Round, Kurunegala. 2. W.S.Wijeratne, No. 38A, Siri Saranankara Road, Dehiwala. Petitioner Appellants Vs 1. Dr. Neville Gunawardena, Director General of Customs, Sri Lanka Customs, Head Office, Bristol Street, Colombo 1. (Substituted 1st Respondent Respondent) 1A. R.Samasinghe, Acting Director General of Customs, Sri Lanka Customs, Head Office, Bristol Street, Colombo 1. (Substituted 1st Respondent Respondent) 1B. Chulananda Perera, Director General of Customs, Sri Lanka Customs, Head Office, Bristol Street, Colombo 1. (Substituted 1st Respondent Respondent) 1C. Ms. P.S.M. Charles, Director General of Customs View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-10-18	SC/APPEAL/164/2011, SC/APPEAL/165/2011	G. Kothandan, “Bethany” Golf Links Road, Bandarawela Applicant Vs, Agarapatane Plantations Limited, No. 53-1/1, Sir Baron Jayatilleke Mawatha, Colombo 01 Respondent And Agarapatane Plantations Limited, No. 53-1/1, Sir Baron Jayatilleke Mawatha, Colombo 01 Respondent -Appellant Vs, G. Kothandan, “Bethany” Golf Links Road, Bandarawela Applicant-Respondent And now between Agarapatane Plantations Limited, No. 53-1/1, Sir Baron Jayatilleke Mawatha, Colombo 01 Respondent-Appellant-Appellant Vs, G. Kothandan, “Bethany” Golf Links Road, Bandarawela Applicant- Respondent -Respondent View More	HON. VIJITH K. MALALGODA, PC, J			Download
2018-10-16	SC/APPEAL/20/2015	1.Dodampahala Gamage Gunapala 2.Dodampahala Gamage Weerasinghe 3.Dodampahala Gamage Sumaderis All of Ambagahawatte, Kandeketiya, Ratmalwala. Plaintiffs Vs 1. K.P.Nuwan Ranjan De Silva, Helekada, Angunukolapelessa. 2. Angunukolapelessa Pradeshiya Sabhawa Angunukolapelessa Defendants AND THEN BETWEEN 1.K.P.Nuwan Ranjan De Silva, Helekada, Angunukolapelessa. 2.Angunukolapelessa Pradeshiya Sabhawa Angunukolapelessa Defendant Appellants Vs 1.Dodampahala Gamage Gunapala 2.Dodampahala Gamage Weerasinghe 3.Dodampahala Gamage Sumaderis All of Ambagahawatte, Kandeketiya, Ratmalwala. Plaintiff Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1.Dodampahala Gamage Gunapala 2.Dodampahala Gamage Weerasinghe 3.Dodampahala Gamage Sumaderis All of Ambagahawatte, Kandeketiya, Ratmalwala. Plaintiff Respondent Appellants Vs 1. K.P.Nuwan Ranjan De Silva, Helekada, Angunukolapelessa. 2. Angunukolapelessa Pradeshiya Sabhawa Angunukolapelessa Defendant Appellant Respondents View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-10-12	SC/FR/402/2016	1. Laboratory Equipment Co. (Pvt) Ltd, No. 126/3/1, Sri Baron Jayatileka Mawatha, YMB Building, Colombo 1. 2. Ruwindi International Trade (Pvt) Ltd, No. 126/M/4, Sri Baron Jayatileka Mawatha, YMB Building, Colombo 1. 3. Proso Manpower Tours & Travels (Pvt) Ltd, No. 126/18, Ground Floor, Sri Baron Jayatileka Mawatha, YMB Building, Colombo 1. 4. Inter Marine C&F (Pvt) Ltd, No. 126/2/28, Sri Baron Jayatileka Mawatha, YMB Building, Colombo 1. 5. Monsell International (Pvt) Ltd, No. 126/19/B, Ground Floor, Sri Baron Jayatileka Mawatha, YMB Building, Colombo 1. 6. Expo Cargo Links (Pvt) Ltd, No. 126/3/19, Sri Baron Jayatileka Mawatha, YMB Building, Colombo 1. 7. Sripala Shipping (Pvt) Ltd, No. 126/3/2, Sri Baron Jayatileka Mawatha, YMB Building, Colombo 1. 8. S. Saverimuttu and Co, No. 126/3/3/, 3rd Floor, Sri Baron Jayatileka Mawatha, YMB Building, Colombo 1. 9. Demiyan Sunil Abeyratne Abeyratne & Co, No. 126/2/18, 2nd Floor, Sri Baron Jayatileka Mawatha, YMB Building, Colombo 1. 10. Treven Edward Weinman, Trust F View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2018-10-11	SC/TAB/2A – D/2017	Vithanalage Anura Thushara De Mel 1st Accused - Appellant Srinayaka Pathiranalage Chaminda Ravi Jayanath 2nd Accused – Appellant Kowile Gedara Dissanayaka Mudiyanselage Sarath Bandara 3rd Accused - Appellant Arumadura Lawrence Romelo Duminda Silva 4th Accused -Appellant Vs. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent View More	HON. PRIYASATH DEP, PC, CJ			Download
2018-10-11	SC/APPEAL/152/2011	1. Kothmale Gajanayake Mudiyanselage Sanduni Rasanjali Bandara (being a minor, through her next friend, her father; the 2nd Defendant) 2. Kothmale Gajanayake Mudiyanselage Priyantha Bandara (the next friend of the above mentioned Plaintiff minor) Both of 295/15, Sri Somananda Mawatha, Arukgoda, Alubomulla. PLAINTIFFS -Vs- 1. E. Chandrani alias Chandrani Epitawala, Dias Memorial Hospital (Kethumathi), Panadura. 2. Western Provincial Council, Western Provincial Council Office, Colombo. 3. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. And others DEFENDANTS And then 1. E. Chandrani alias Chandrani Epitawala, Dias Memorial Hospital (Kethumathi), Panadura. 2. Western Provincial Council, Western Provincial Council Office, Colombo. 3. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. DEFENDANT- APPELLANTS -Vs- 1. Kothmale Gajanayake Mudiyanselage Sanduni Rasanjali Bandara 2. Kothmale Gajanayake Mudiyanselage Priyantha Bandara Both of 295/15, Sri Somananda Mawatha, Arukgoda, Alubomulla View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2018-10-11	SC/FR/108/2016	1. Tirathai Public Co. Ld, 516/1, Moo 4 Bangpoo Industrial Estate, Praksa Muang, Samutprakan 10280, Thailand. 2. H.R. Holdings (Pvt) Ltd. 476/10, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Petitioners - Vs - 1. Ceylon Electricity Board, No. 50, Sir Chittampalam Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 2. Dr. B.M.S. Batagoda, Secretary, Ministry of Power & Renewable Energy, 72, Ananda Coomarswamy Mawatha, Colombo 07. 3. Mr. S.A.N. Saranatissa, Chairman, Ministry Procurement Committee (Ministry of Power & Renewable Energy) Additional Secretary, 72, Ananda Coomarswamy Mawatha, Colombo 07. 4. Mr. M.C. Wickramasekera, Member, Ministry Procurement Committee (Ministry of Power & Renewable Energy) General Manager, 50, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 5. Dr. A.M. Asanga Dayarathne, Member, Ministry Procurement Committee (Ministry of Power & Renewable Energy), Additional Secretary, Ministry of Policy Planning, Economic Affairs, Child, Youth and Cultural Affairs, 72, Ananda Coomarswamy Mawatha, Colombo 07. 6. Mr. L.D.J. Fernando View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2018-10-10	SC/APPEAL/89/2010	Seyyadu Mohommaduge Razik, Gallenbindunuwewa, Horowpotana. Plaintiff Vs 1. Suleiman Adam Kandu, Kivul Kade, Horowpathana. 2. Abdul Hameed Mahamad Mihilar, Fancy Textiles, Mahaveediya, Horowpathana. Defendants AND THEN Seyyadu Mohommaduge Razik, Gallenbindunuwewa, Horowpotana. Plaintiff Appellant Vs 1. Suleiman Adam Kandu, Kivul Kade, Horowpathana. 2. Abdul Hameed Mahamad Mihilar, Fancy Textiles, Mahaveediya, Horowpathana. Defendant Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Seyyadu Mohommaduge Razik, Gallenbindunuwewa, Horowpotana. Plaintiff Appellant Appellant Vs 1. Suleiman Adam Kandu, Kivul Kade, Horowpathana. 2. Abdul Hameed Mahamad Mihilar, Fancy Textiles, Mahaveediya, Horowpathana. Defendant Respondent Respondent View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-10-10	SC/APPEAL/202/2015	Wickrama Arachchi Kolambage Sanjeewa Kumara C/O D.M. Herath Banda, Thenthankuriyawa, Anamaduwa. Applicant Vs, K.A. Nandana Kuruppu, Nandana Brothers, No. 124/15, I.D.H. Mawatha, Puttalam. Respondent And K.A. Nandana Kuruppu, Nandana Brothers, No. 124/15, I.D.H. Mawatha, Puttalam. Respondent -Appellant Vs, Wickrama Arachchi Kolambage Sanjeewa Kumara C/O D.M. Herath Banda, Thenthankuriyawa, Anamaduwa. Applicant-Respondent And now between Wickrama Arachchi Kolambage Sanjeewa Kumara C/O D.M. Herath Banda, Thenthankuriyawa, Anamaduwa. Applicant-Respondent-Appellant Vs, K.A. Nandana Kuruppu, Nandana Brothers, No. 124/15, I.D.H. Mawatha, Puttalam. Respondent-Appellant- Respondent View More	HON. VIJITH K. MALALGODA, PC, J			Download
2018-10-10	SC/FR/507/2012	1. H.M. Ranaweera, Hitigegama, Hatton 2. W.M. Wimalaratne, Galgodehinna, Morohenegama 3. W.G. Siriyaratne, Pitakanda, Hitigegama, Hatton 4. W.A. Shriyani, Hitigegama, Hatton 5. P.W.G.S. Sunil Jayawardana, Parathalawa, Polpitiya, Pitawala Petitioners Vs, 1. S. M. Gotabhaya Jayaratna, Secretary, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya” Pellawatte, Battaramulla. 1A. W.M. Bandusena, Secretary, Ministry of Education “Isurupaya” Pellawatte, Battaramulla. 1B. Mr. Sunil Hettiarachchi, Secretary, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya” Pellawatte, Battaramulla. 2. M. Premawansa, Secretary, Provincial Ministry of Education, Central Provincial Council, Kandy. 3. Principal, Madeniya Maha Vidyalaya, Hitigegama, Hatton. 4. Divisional Secretary, Ambagamuwa Divisional Secretariat Division, Divisional Secretariat Office, Ginigathhena. 5. S.U. Wijeratne, Additional Secretary (Planning) Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya” Pellawatte, Battaramulla. 6. Mr. Milton Premasiri, Principal, Sir Nissankamalla Maha Vidyalaya, Hitigegama, Hatton. View More	HON. VIJITH K. MALALGODA, PC, J			Download
2018-10-08	SC/FR/859/2009	W.N.D. Gunasekara 378/10/B, Rathnarama Road, Hokandara – North, Hokandara. Petitioner -Vs- 1. Police Constable Chandana (PC 25410) Grandpass Police Station, Grandpass 2. Anton Jayasinghe, Police Transport Division, Sub Garage, Kundasale. 3. N.K.Illangakoon Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters, Colombo 01 4. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12 Respondents View More	HON. PRIYASATH DEP, PC, CJ			Download
2018-10-08	SC/APPEAL/159/2010	Anuradhapura Nandawimala Thero, Viharadhipathi, Dolukanda Rankothhena Aranya Senasasanaya, Wedeniya, Hunupola, Nikadalupotha Defendant-Petitioner– Appellant -Vs- R M Dharamatissa Herath Hunupola, Nikadalupotha Plaintiff-Respondent- Respondent View More	HON. PRIYASATH DEP, PC, CJ			Download
2018-10-05	SC/APPEAL/213/2012	Abeydeera Jayasooriya Seena Patabendige Kusumawathie of “ Sena Welandasala”, Hungama Plaintiff Vs Jayasooriya Arachchi Patabendige Wijeratne No. 203, Tangalle Road, Hungama. Defendant AND THEN BETWEEN Jayasooriya Arachchi Patabendige Wijeratne No. 203, Tangalle Road, Hungama. Defendant Appellant Vs Abeydeera Jayasooriya Seena Patabendige Kusumawathie of “ Sena Welandasala”, Hungama Plaintiff Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Jayasooriya Arachchi Patabendige Wijeratne No. 203, Tangalle Road, Hungama. Defendant Appellant Appellant Vs Abeydeera Jayasooriya Seena Patabendige Kusumawathie of “ Sena Welandasala”, Hungama. Plaintiff Respondent Respondent View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-10-05	SC/APPEAL/147/2015	SMB Leasing PLC, (Previously Seylan Merchant Bank Ltd.) No. 110, D.S.Senanayake Mawatha, Colombo 08 Plaintiff Vs 1. Hewapathiranage Don Cletus Jeyrad Senanayake, No. 40, Epitamulla Road, Pitakotte. 2. Oliver Bennete Jayanethi, No. BIR/3/9, Manning Town Housing Scheme, Colombo 08. 3. Solanga Arachchige Vindya Perera, No. 299, A, Kotte Road, Nugegoda. And also of No. 40, Epitamulla Road, Pitakotte. And at the Business address: No. 62, 1/1, Park Street, Colombo 02. Defendants AND THEN BETWEEN SMB Leasing PLC, (Previously Seylan Merchant Bank Ltd.) No. 110, D.S.Senanayake Mawatha, Colombo 08 Plaintiff Judgment Creditor Vs Solanga Arachchige Vindya Perera, No. 299, A, Kotte Road, Nugegoda. And also of No. 40, Epitamulla Road, Pitakotte. And at the Business address: No. 62, 1/1, Park Street, Colombo 02. 3rd Defendant Judgment Debtor AND NOW BETWEEN SMB Leasing PLC, (Previously Seylan Merchant Bank Ltd.) No. 110, D.S.Senanayake Mawatha, Colombo 08 Plaintiff Judgment Creditor Appellant Vs Solanga Arachchige Vindya Perera View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-10-04	SC/SPL LA/160/2018	S.P. Morawaka Liquidator, Janatha Fertilizer Enterprise Limited, 19, Dhawalasingharama Mawatha, Colombo 15. Petitioner Vs. 1. Commissioner General of Labour, Department of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Colombo 5. 2. Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Colombo North), District Labour Office, 4th Floor, Labour Secretariat, Department of Labour, Colombo 5. 3. Labour Officer, District Labour Office, Department of Labour, Anuradhapura. 4. Assistant Commissioner of Labour, District Labour Office, Anuradhapura. 5. D.K. Wijesundara, No.741/3, Freeman Mawatha, Anuradhapura. 6. Assistant Secretary (Admission), Ministry of Agriculture, “Govijana Mandiraya”, Battaramulla. Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN D.K. Wijesundara, No.741/3, Freeman Mawatha, Anuradhapura. 5th Respondent-Petitioner Vs. S.P. Morawaka Liquidator, Janatha Fertilizer Enterprise Limited, 19, Dhawalasingharama Mawatha, Colombo 15. Petitioner-Respondent 1. Commissioner General of Labour, Department of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Colombo 5. View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-10-02	SC/APPEAL/54A/2008	CHAMINDA ABEYKOON No. 52, Rockhouse Lane, Modera, Colombo-15 PLAINTIFF VS. H. CARALAIN PIERIS No.34/3/E, Ellie House Road, Modera, Colombo 15. DEFENDANT AND H. CARALAIN PIERIS (deceased) DEFENDANT- APPELLANT P. NICHOLAS ANTHONY FERNANDO No.34/3/E, Ellie House Road, Modera, Colombo 15. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT- APPELLANT VS. CHAMINDA ABEYKOON No. 52, Rockhouse Lane, Modera, Colombo-15. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN CHAMINDA ABEYKOON No. 52, Rockhouse Lane, Modera, Colombo-15. PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENT- PETITIONER VS. P. NICHOLAS ANTHONY FERNANDO No.34/3/E, Ellie House Road, Modera, Colombo 15. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT- APPELLANT 1) EVONNE KUMARI FERNANDO 2) ANURUDDHIKA ROSHINI FERNANDO 3) DISNA RANJANI FERNANDO 4) DILIP FERNANDO All of 34/3E, Mowbray Lane, Colombo 15. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANTS- APPELLANTS- RESPONDENTS View More	HON. PRASANNA JAYAWARDHENA, PC, J			Download
2018-09-28	SC/APPEAL/183/2016	HallewaMudiyanselage Mangalika Jayasinghe, No. 161/2, “Sanka”, Indolamulla, Dompe. Plaintiff Vs Nanayakkarawasam Gamgodage SunethraUdeniBandara Jayasinghe, No. 237/E, Weddagala, Thiththapaththara. Defendant AND BETWEEN HallewaMudiyanselage Mangalika Jayasinghe, No. 161/2, “Sanka”, Indolamulla, Dompe. Plaintiff Appellant Vs Nanayakkarawasam Gamgodage Sunethra UdeniBandara Jayasinghe, No. 237/E, Weddagala, Thiththapaththara. Defendant Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN HallewaMudiyanselage Mangalika Jayasinghe, No. 161/2, “Sanka”, Indolamulla, Dompe. Plaintiff AppellantAppellant Vs Nanayakkarawasam Gamgodage Sunethra UdeniBandara Jayasinghe, No. 237/E, Weddagala, Thiththapaththara. Defendant Respondent Respondent View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-09-28	SC/FR/290/2014	1. JPC Trade Company Ltd East Lower Block World Trade Centre, Colombo 01 2. R. Lahiru Rakshitha, Country Manager, JPC Trade Company Ltd East Lower Block World Trade Centre, Colombo 01 Petitioners Vs, 1. Mr. Jagath P. Wijeweera, Director General of Customs, Sri Lanka Customs, No. 40, Main Street, Colombo 11. 1(a).Mr. Chulananda Perera, Director General of Customs, Sri Lanka Customs, No. 40, Main Street, Colombo 11. 1(b).Mrs. P.S.M. Charles, Director General of Customs, Sri Lanka Customs, No. 40, Main Street, Colombo 11. 2. Mr. M. Paskaran, Director of Customs (Social Protection Directorate) Sri Lanka Customs, No. 40, Main Street, Colombo 11. 2(a). Mr. Athula Lankadewa, Director of Customs (Social Protection Directorate) Sri Lanka Customs, No. 40, Main Street, Colombo 11. 3. Mr. P. Gallage, Superintendent of Customs, Sri Lanka Customs, No. 40, Main Street, Colombo 11. 4. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	HON. VIJITH K. MALALGODA, PC, J			Download
2018-09-21	SC/APPEAL/184/2017	DHILMI KASUNDA MALSHANI SURIYARACHCHI No. 42/3, Thambwiliwatha Road, Piliyandala. PETITIONER VS. 1. SRI LANKA MEDICAL COUNCIL No. 31, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. 2. SOUTH ASIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND MEDICINE LIMTED No. 60, Suhada Mawatha, Millenium Drive, Off Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga Mawatha, Malabe. Colombo. 3. LAKSHMAN KIRIELLA Minister of Higher Education and Highways, Ministry of Higher Education and Highways, Ward Place, Colombo 7. 4. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND HIGHWAYS Ministry of Higher Education and Highways, Ward Place, Colombo 7. 5. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION No. 20, Ward Place, Colombo 7. 6. DR. RAJITHA SENARATNE Minister of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, Ministry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, No. 385, Ven. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN SRI LANKA MEDICAL COUNCIL No. 31, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. 1ST RESPONDENT- PETITIONER/ APPELLANT VS. DHILMI KASUNDA MALSHANI SURIYARACHCHI No. 42/3 View More	HON. PRASANNA JAYAWARDHENA, PC, J			Download
2018-09-18	SC/APPEAL/73/2015	Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. Complainant Vs. Dissanayake Mudiyanselage Jayasiri Accused And Now Dissanayake Mudiyanselage Jayasiri Accused-Appellant Vs. The Hon. Attorney-General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. Respondent And now Between Dissanayake Mudiyanselage Jayasiri Presently at Bogambara Prison, Kandy. Accused-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. The Hon. Attorney-General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondend- Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2018-09-17	SC/APPEAL/11/2014	1. Ibrahimkandu Sithy Latheefa 2. Aboobucker Jamaliya Thumma Both of Barber Road, (Valluver Road) , Pandirippu 1, Kalmunai. Plaintiffs Vs 1. Kalimuttu Valliammai (deceased) 2. Muttuvel Kamaladevi alias Pooranam, 3. Patrick Vincent alias Anton 4. Muttuvel Thaneledchumi All of Valluver Road, Pandirippu-1 Kalmunai. Defendants AND THEN BETWEEN 1. Muttuvel Kamaladevi alias Pooranam, 2. Patrick Vincent alias Anton 3. Muttuvel Thaneledchumi All of Valluver Road, Pandirippu-1 Kalmunai Defendant Appellants Vs 1. Ibrahimkandu Sithy Latheefa 2. Aboobucker Jamaliya Thumma Both of Barber Road, (Valluver Road) , Pandirippu 1, Kalmunai. Plaintiff Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1.Muttuvel Kamaladevi alias Pooranam, 2.Patrick Vincent alias Anton 3.Muttuvel Thaneledchumi All of Valluver Road, Pandirippu-1 Kalmunai Defendant Appellant Appellants Vs 1.Ibrahimkandu Sithy Latheefa 2.Aboobucker Jamaliya Thumma Both of Barber Road, (Valluver Road) , Pandirippu 1, Kalmunai. Plaintiff Respondent Respondents View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-09-12	SC/APPEAL/1/2014	Samarasinghe Gamage Janaka Manjula No.180A, Yaya 08, Ambagaswewa, Medirigiriya. Appearing by his Next Friend. Disabled Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner Jamburegoda Gamage Thakshala No.180A, Yaya 08, Ambagaswewa, Medirigiriya. (Duly appointed Next Friend in D.C. Polonnaruwa Case No.N.L.F. 11/06) Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Meegaskumbure Gedera Susantha Piyatissa No. 154, Yaya 09, Maha Ambagaswewa, Medirigiriya. 2. Wasalathanthrige Don Chandana No.156, Yaya 09, Maha Ambagaswewa, Medirigiriya. 3. Meegaskumbure Gedera Samantha Piyatissa No.159, Yaya 09, Maha Ambagaswewa, Medirigiriya. 4. Werallagolle Gedera Wasantha Sarath Kumara, No. 154, Yaya 09, Maha Ambagaswewa, Medirigiriya. 5. Hewa Manage Chaminda Ruwan Kumara No. 154, Yaya 09, Maha Ambagaswewa, Medirigiriya. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent-Respondents View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-09-10	SC/CHC APPEAL/30/2006	1. C. Aloy W. Fernando, No. 43/99, Poorwarama Mawatha, Colombo 5 Plaintiff - Vs - 1. Anton Reginald Atapattu, Director, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Maligawatta Secretariat, Colombo 10. 2. M.T.K. Nagodawithana, Acting Director, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Maligawatta Secretariat, Colombo 10 3. Hon. Mahinda Rajapakse, Minister of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, New Secretariat Building, Maligawatta, Colombo 10 4. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Defendants AND NOW 2. M.T.K. Nagodawithana, Acting Director, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Maligawatta Secretariat, Colombo 10 2nd Defendant-Appellant 2A. Mr. S. W. Pathirana, Director General, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, New Secretariat Building, Maligawatta, Colombo 10 Substituted 2A Defendant-Appellant 2B. Mr. Nimal Hettiarachchi, Director General, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, New Secretariat Building, Maligawatta, Colombo 10 Substituted 2B Defendant-Appellant View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2018-09-07	SC/FR/338/2012	K.W.S.P. JAYAWARDHANA No. 2b 9/R.N.H.S, Raddolugama. AND 24 OTHERS. PETITIONERS VS. 1. GOTABHAYA JAYARATNE Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla, as at July 2012 and his successor, D.M.A.R.B. DISSANAYAKE, as at September 2013, 2. DR. DAYASIRI FERNANDO Chairman, Public Service Commission. AND 8 OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AS AT JULY 2012. 11. HON. D.M.JAYARATNE Hon. Prime Minister, Colombo. AND 59 OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CABINET OF MINISTERS AS AT JULY 2012. 71. HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL Attorney General’s Department, Colombo. RESPONDENTS 1A. W.M.BANDUSENA Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 1B. SUNIL HETTIARACHCHI Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 2A. DHARMASENA DISSANAYAKE Chairman, Public Service Commission. , AND 8 OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AS AT NOVEMBER 2015. 11A. HON. RANIL WICKREMASINGHE Hon. Prime Minister, Colombo. AND 39 OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CABINET OF MINISTERS AS AT MAY 2015. 11A. HON. RANIL WICKREMASINGHE View More	HON. PRASANNA JAYAWARDHENA, PC, J			Download
2018-09-07	SC/HC CALA/134/2016	1. Nawinna Kottage Dona Lalitha Padmini 2. Wellalagodage Ganga Geeth Kumara Both of No. F41, Bandaranaikapura, Rajagiriya. Plaintiffs -Vs- 1. N.K.D. Pradeepa Nishanthi Kumari No. F43, Bandaranaikapura, Rajagiriya. 2. Dammika Weerakoon, No. F43, Bandaranaikapura, Rajagiriya. 3. National Housing Development Authority Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Defendants Between 1. N.K.D. Pradeepa Nishanthi Kumari No. F43, Bandaranaikapura, Rajagiriya. 2. Dammika Weerakoon, No. F43, Bandaranaikapura, Rajagiriya. Defendant – Appellants -Vs- 1. Nawinna Kottage Dona Lalitha Padmini 2. Wellalagodage Ganga Geeth Kumara Both of No. F41, Bandaranaikapura, Rajagiriya. Plaintiff – Respondents 3. National Housing Development Authority Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 3rd Defendant – Respondent And Now Between 1. Nawinna Kottage Dona Lalitha Padmini 2. Wellalagodage Ganga Geeth Kumara Both of No. F41, Bandaranaikapura, Rajagiriya. Plaintiff – Respondent – Petitioners -Vs- 1. N.K.D. Pradeepa Nishanthi Kumari View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2018-09-06	SC/APPEAL/252/2014	Oliver Ranjith Samaranayake, 929/6, Kotte Road, Etul Kotte, Kotte.Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant-Vs-1.Rajapakse Mohottige David, ( Deceased) 1A and 2. Rajapakse Mohottige Dona Nilanthi, Both of Dodangahawatte, Samanabedda, Tittapattera.Defendant-Respondent-Respondent-Respondents3.Don Nimal KarunaratneSamanabedda, Tittapattara.Added 3rdDefendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-09-06	SC/FR/365/2012	1. Talpe Merenchige Eeasha Nanayakkara, No.139/7A, Akuregoda Road, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. Petitioner Vs, 1. Sathya Hettige, Chairman 1A. Darmasena Dissanayaka, Chairman 2. Kanthi Wijetunga Member 2A. A. Salam Abdul Waid, Member 3. S.C. Mannapperuma, Member 3A. D. Shirantha Wijayatilaka, Member 4. Ananda Seneviratne, Member 4A. Prathap Ramanujam, Member 5. N.H. Pathirana, Member 5A. V. Jegarasasingam, Member 6. S. Thillai Nadarajah, Member 6A. Santi Nihal Seneviratne, Member 7. Sunil S. Sirisena, Member 7A. S. Ranugge, Member 8. A. Mohamed Nahiya Member 8A. D.L. Mendis, Member 9. I.M. Zoysa GUnsekara, Member 9A. Sarath Jayathilaka, Member 10. T.M.L.C. Senaratne, Secretary 1st to 10th Respondents all of: The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05 11. M.I.M. Rafeek, Secretary to the Ministry of Tourism and Sports, No. 09, Pilip Gunawardena Mawatha, Colombo 07 Also: The Acting Director General of the Department of Wildlife Conservation, No. 811/A, Jayanthipura Road, Battaramulla View More	HON. VIJITH K. MALALGODA, PC, J			Download
2018-09-06	SC/FR/84/2017	1. Hadunnethige Amitha Saman Yuneka 2. Adhikari Dissanayakalage Sumedha Mahesh Jayarathne Both of, No. 57/108, 2nd Lane, Vidyala Mawatha, Avissawella. Petitioners Vs, 1. B.A. Abeyrathne, Principal, Royal College, Colombo. 2. L.W.K. Silva 3. R.M.I.P. Karunaratne 4. L.K. Jayathilake 5. A.G.P.A. Gunawansa 6. T.Tennakoon All members of Interview Board for Grade One Admission 2017, Royal College, Colombo. 7. A.G.N. Jayasekara 8. G.V. Jayasuriya 9. R.M. Ratnayake 10. M.H. Sunny 11. U. Malalasekara 12. Inoka Gunn All members of Appeal Board for Grade One Admission 2017, Royal College, Colombo. 13. P.N. Illapperuma, Director, National Schools, Department of Education, Ministry of Education, ‘Isurupaya’ Pelawatte, Battaramulla. 14. Sunil Hettiarachchi, Secretary, Ministry of Education, ‘Isurupaya’ Pelawatte, Battaramulla. 15. Hon. Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, ‘Isurupaya’ Pelawatte, Battaramulla. 16. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	HON. VIJITH K. MALALGODA, PC, J			Download
2018-09-05	SC/APPEAL/76/2010	IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF KANDY Rev. Galboda Sumangala Thero of Asgiri Viharaya, Kandy. (Temporary trustee of Niththawela Rajamaha Viharaya, Kandy) Plaintiff Vs. Rev. Welihelathenne Somaloka Thero of Asgiri Viharaya, Kandy. (Temporary trustee of Niththawela Rajamaha Viharaya, (Kandy) Substituted Plaintiff Vs. 1. ChandasekeraWasala Mudiyanselage George Chandrasekera of 8/4 Mawilmada, Kandy. 2. ChandasekeraWasala Mudiyanselage Anuradha Chandrasekera, alias, Arty Chandrasekera of No.82, 1st Lane, Mawilmada, Kandy. 3. Rev. Arambegama Saranankara Thero of Keda Pansala , Asgiri Viharaya, Kandy. Defendants. AND BETWEEN IN THE HIGH COURT OF Central PROVINCE 1. ChandasekeraWasala Mudiyanselage George Chandrasekera of 8/4 Mawilmada, Kandy. 2. ChandasekeraWasala Mudiyanselage Anuradha Chandrasekera, alias, Arty Chandrasekera of No.82, 1st Lane, Mawilmada, Kandy. 3. Rev. Arambegama Saranankara Thero of Keda Pansala , Asgiri Viharaya, Kandy. Defendants-Appellants Vs. Rev. Welihelathenne Somaloka Thero View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2018-09-05	SC/FR/191/2017	1. Rohini Manel Hettiarachchi Parathalakanda, Erathne. 2. Walimuni Senaratne Mendis, 5th Post, Batathota, Kuruwita. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Central Environmental Authority, No. 104, ParisaraPiyasa, DenzilKobbekaduwa Mawatha, Battaramulla. 2. Sri Lanka Sustainable Energy Authority, 3G-174 A, BMICH, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 3. Mr. Anura Satharasinghe, Conservator General of Forest, Department of Forest, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 4. A.S.J. Godellawatta, Former Divisional Secretary of Kuruwita, Presently at Provincial Commissioner of land, Sabaragamuwa Provincial Council, New town, Ratnapura. 5. Mr. Sunil Kannangara, (Former District Secretary o Ratnapura), Currently, District Secretary of Colombo, District Secretariat, Thimbirigasyaya. 6. Hon. Attorney General, (To represent His Excellency Hon. Maithripala Sirisena, Minister of Environment) Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 7. Kuruganga Hydro (Pvt) Ltd, No. 27-02, East Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 01. 8. Mrs. MalaniLokupothagama View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2018-08-31	SC/APPEAL/177/2015	Rajeswari Nadaraja, 6/1, Frankfurt Place, Colombo 4. Petitioner-Petitioner -Vs- 1 (a) Hon. M. Najeeb Abdul Majeed 1 (b) Hon. Johnston Fernando 1c) Hon. Bandula Gunawardena 1(d)Hon.Gamini Jayawickrema Perera 1 (e) Hon. Rishard Badurdeen Minister of Industry and Commerce and Co-operatives Development, No. 73/1, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 2. Hon. Mahipala Herath Provincial Chief Minister, Provincial Minister of Law & Peace, Finance & Planning, Local Government, Education & Technology, Estate Welfare, Public Transport Co-Operative Development, Housing, Sports, Electricity, Cultural and Youth Affairs Sabaragamuwa Provincial Council, Secretaries Complex, New Town, Ratnapura. 3 (a) Mr. A.P.G. Kitsiri 3 (b) Mr. D.D. Upul Shantha de Alwis 3 (c) Mr. Dhammika Rajapaksa 3 (d) Mr. D. Jeewanadan Commissioner of Cooperative Development/ Registrar of Cooperative Societies No. 330, Union Place, Colombo 02. 4. Mr. Kapila Perera 4 (a) Palitha Nanayakkara Commissioner of Cooperative Development/Registrar of Cooperative Societies View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2018-08-03	SC/APPEAL/163/2014	Ponnadura Shantha Silva Ridee Mawatha, Kalamula Kalutara. Accused-Appellant Vs. 1. Officer-In-Charge, Police Station, Kalutara South. 2. The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondents And Now Between Ponnadura Shantha Silva Ridee Mawatha, Kalamulla Kalutara. (Presently in Kalutara Prison) Accused-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. 1. Officer-In-Charge, Police Station, Kalutara South. 2. The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent- Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2018-08-03	SC/APPEAL/27/2011	Ileperuma Arachchige Edwin Perera Gunathilaka, Galapatha, Bahurupola. Plaintiff K.M. Perera, 111C, Wewalduwa Road, Dalugama, Kelaniya. Substituted Plaintiff Vs 1. Dona Yasawathie Weerakkodi of Karannagoda (Deceased) 1A. Nimal Lakshman Kannangara of Karannagoda. 2. Terlin Lenora Hamine of Doodangoda 3. Shanthilatha Waidyasekara of Karannagoda. 4. Dona Matilda Jayasundera 5. Agnas Edussuriya 6. Kusuma Edussuriya 7. Chandra Edussuriya 8. Richard Edussuriya 9. Gilbert Edussuriya 10. Hilton Edussuriya 11. Grasilda Edussuriya All of Galpatha, Bahurupola. 12. Don Babunsinghe Kadanarachchi Of Kandana, Horana. 13. Don Lisi Perera Gunathilaka (Deceased) 13A. M.A.D.Chandrarathne of Kalutara, Ukwatte. 14. Poththapitiyage Thilonona 15. Poththapitiyage Dhopi Nona All of Aluthgama, Bandaragama 16. Yakupitiyage Alonoa of Palpola 17. Thomas Athulathmudali of Galpatha. 18. Y.M.B.Ratnayake of Bahurupola, Galpatha. (Deceased) 19. Aslin Perera Ileperuma of Galpatha. 20. Dayawathie Abeysekera of Athurugiriya 21. Dona M. Jayawardhana View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-08-03	SC/APPEAL/41/2008	Vithanage Richard Perera, No. 268, Rathnarama Road, Hokandara North, Hokandara. Plaintiff Vs 1. M.P.Perera, 202/1, Hokandara North, Hokandara. (Deceased) 1A. T.Ariyawathie, 199/2, Kahantota Road, Malabe. 2. H. Nandawathie, 199/1, Kahantota Road, Malabe. 3. Meemanage Gunadasa Perera 191/1, Hokandara North, Hokandara. 4. H.E.Caldra, 229, Kanatte Road, Malabe. (Deceased) 4A. H. Sunil Caldera, 229, Kanatte Road, Malabe. Defendants AND BETWEEN 3. Meemanage Gunadasa Perera, 191/1, Hokandara North, Hokandara. 4A. H. Sunil Caldera, 229, Kanatta Road, Malabe. Defendant Appellants Vs Vithanage Richard Perera, No. 268, Rathnarama Road, Hokandara North, Hokandara. Plaintiff Respondent 1A. T.Ariyawathie, 199/2, Kahantota Road, Malabe. 2. H. Nandawathie, 199/1, Kahantota Road, Malabe. Defendant Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Vithanage Richard Perera, No. 268, Rathnarama Road, Hokandara North, Hokandara. (Deceased) Perumbulli Achchige Sopihamy, No. 268, Rathnarama Road, Hokandara North, Hokandara. Substituted Plaintiff Respondent View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-07-31	SC/APPEAL/132/2009	Sithamparapillai Kathieravelu, No. 217, Station Road, Vairavapuliyankulam, Vavunia. Plaintiff. Vs 1. Ramasamy Gowrinathan, No. 193, Station Road, Vavuniya. 2. Periyathamby Sivasothinathan Station Road, Vavuniya. Defendants. AND THEN BETWEEN Siethamparapzillai Kathieravealu, No. 217, Station Road, Vairavapuliyankulam, Vavunia. Plaintiff Appellant Vs 1. Ramasamy Gowrinathan, No. 193, Station Road, Vavuniya. 2. Periyathamby Sivasothinathan Station Road, Vavuniya. Defendant Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Siethamparapzillai Kathieravealu, No. 217, Station Road, Vairavapuliyankulam, Vavunia. Plaintiff Appellant Appellant Vs 1. Ramasamy Gowrinathan, No. 193, Station Road, Vavuniya. 2. Periyathamby Sivasothinathan Station Road, Vavuniya. Defendant Respondent Respondent View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-07-26	SC/APPEAL/101/2014	D.M.B. Warnakulasooriya, No.113, Maligakanda Road, Colombo 10. Applicant Vs, Hotel Developers (Lanka) Ltd. Hilton Colombo, No.02, Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mw, P.O Box. 1000, Colombo. Respondent And between D.M.B. Warnakulasooriya, No.113, Maligakanda Road, Colombo 10. Applicant-Appellant Vs, Hotel Developers (Lanka) Ltd. Hilton Colombo, No.02, Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mw, P.O Box. 1000, Colombo. Respondent- Respondent And Now between D.M.B. Warnakulasooriya, No.113, Maligakanda Road, Colombo 10. Applicant-Appellant-Appellant Vs, Hotel Developers (Lanka) Ltd. Hilton Colombo, No.02, Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mw, P.O Box. 1000, Colombo. Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	HON. VIJITH K. MALALGODA, PC, J			Download
2018-07-26	SC/FR/56/2012	Suppiah Sivakumar No. 51/2, Pinnakatiya Watte, Ellepola, Senerathwela, Theldeniya. Petitioner Vs. 1. Sergeant 6934 Jayaratne, Theldeniya Police Station, Theldeniya. 2. Civil Security Constable Pathirana, 24324, Theldeniya Police Station, Theldeniya. 3. Civil Security Constable 12243 Abeyratne, Theldeniya Police Station, Theldeniya. 4. Office-in-Charge, Theldeniya Police Station, Theldeniya. 5. ASP. T.M.S.T. Tennakoon, Theldeniya Police Station, Theldeniya. 6. N. K. Illangakoon, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 7. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2018-07-26	SC/WRIT/1/2011	Anoma S. Polwatte, No. 12, Kurunegala Road, Nugawela Petitioner Vs, 1. Ms. L. Jayawickrama, Director General, The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, P.O. Box 1431, 36, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. Mr. Ganesh R. Dharmawardena Director General, The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, P.O. Box 1431, 36, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. 1st Substituted-Respondent Ms. Dilrukshi Dias Wickramasinghe, PC Director General, The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, P.O. Box 1431, 36, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. 1st Substituted-Substituted-Respondent Mr. Sarath Jayamanne, PC Director General, The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, P.O. Box 1431, 36, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. 1st Substituted-Substituted- Substituted- Respondent 2. Mr. J.A.S. Ravindra, Secretary, The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, P.O. Box 1431, 36, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. 3. Hon. Attorney General View More	HON. VIJITH K. MALALGODA, PC, J			Download
2018-07-24	SC/APPEAL/101/2010	Inter Company Employees Union, No.470, Kandy Road, Peliyagoda, Kelaniya. (On behalf of H. D. N. S. Karunaratne) Applicant Vs. Asian Hotels Corporation Ltd. C/o Trans Asia Hotel, No.115, Sir Chittampalam. A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2 Respondent and H. D. N. S. Karunaratne No.73/61, Saman Uyana Battaramulla. Applicant-Appellant Vs. Asian Hotels Corporation Ltd. C/o Trans Asia Hotel, No.115, Sir Chittampalam. A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2 Respondent-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Asian Hotels and Properties PLC (Formerly known as Asian Hotels Corporation Ltd.) No. 77, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. H. D. N. S. Karunaratne No.73/61, SamanUyana Battaramulla. Applicant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2018-07-23	SC/APPEAL/134/2012	Shirley Anthony Fernando 14A, 8th Lane, Borupana, Ratmalana Place of employment Colonne Filling Station, Galle Road, Ratmalana 4th Defendant - Appellant –Appellant Vs Hewa Narandeniyage Jinadasa No.164/D, 1/2 De Zoysa Flats, Galle Road, Moratuwa Plaintiff – Respondent – Respondent 1. Paragahadurage Ratnapala 164/D, Galle Road, Angulana Moratuwa. 2. Nageshwari Thambiah 3. Rita Thambiah Both of No.2/40, Dunbrune Street, Hulsto, Poric, New South Wales, 2193, Sydney, Australia. 5. Pathirage Indika Anuradha Delwita Perera 14, 8th Cross Lane, Ratmalana Defendants – Respondents- Respondents View More	HON. PRIYASATH DEP, PC, CJ			Download
2018-07-19	SC/APPEAL/50/2016	Ceylon Petroleum Corporation 109, Rotunda Tower, Galle Road, Colombo 03 Presently; 609, Dr. Danister De Silva Mawatha, Colombo 09 Petitioner- Petitioner-Appellant -Vs- 1. Athauda Seneviratne Minister of Labour Relations and Manpower Minister of Labour Relations and Manpower, Labour Secretariat, Colombo 05 2. D.S Edirisinghe Commissioner of Labour Department of Labour Colombo 05 3. M. S. B. Ralapanawa Attorney – at- Law (Arbitrator) No.194SriJayawardenapura Mawatha Welikada, Rajagiriya 4. Inter Company Employees Union No.158/18, E.D Dabare Mawatha Colombo 05 5. Lanka IOC Private Ltd Trincomalee Oil Terminal Chinabay, Trincomalee 6. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12 Respondent-Respondent-Respondents View More	HON. PRIYASATH DEP, PC, CJ			Download
2018-07-18	SC/APPEAL/140/2010	Amarasinghe Kankanamlage Appeal No. 118/10Kamal Rasika Amarasinghe Inspector of Police, High Court ColomboHCMCA 127/07Welikada. Accused-Appellant-Petitioner MC Colombo Case No. 71986/04 Vs. Officer-in-Charge Special Investigation Unit, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. Complainant--Respondent - Respondent Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12 . Respondent -Respondent View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-07-18	SC/APPEAL/149/2015	Piyasena Nuwarapaksha, No.434, Pita Kotte, Kotte Plaintiff Vs Singer (Sri Lanka) Ltd, No.320, Union Place, Colombo 2 Defendant AND BETWEEN Piyasena Nuwarapaksha, No.434, Pita Kotte, Kotte Plaintiff-Appellant Vs Singer (Sri Lanka) Ltd, No.320, Union Place, Colombo 2 Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BEWEEN Piyasena Nuwarapaksha, No.434, Pita Kotte, Kotte Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs Singer (Sri Lanka) Ltd, No.320, Union Place, Colombo 2 Defendant-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-07-18	SC/APPEAL/177/2013	1. Hewa Pedige Ranasingha No, 30/16, Kegalla Road, Daluggala, Rambukkana. 2. Samagi Saman Widanagamage 3. Yodinge Ashoka Lakshman Eliwalatenna 4. R.K.A.D.Lalith Wasantha Ranaweera Petitioner-Petitioners Vs 1. Secretary Ministry of Agricultural Development and Agri Services Battaramulla. 2. Director General of Agriculture Department of Agriculture Peradeniya. 3. Commissioner of Examinations Department of Examinations Battaramulla. 4. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo. Respondent-Respondents View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-07-18	SC/APPEAL/188/2011	Punchiralage Keerala Pandikaramaduwa, Parinigama Plaintiff Keeralage Parakrama Pandikaramaduwa, Parinigama Substituted Plaintiff Vs 1. W. M. Dingiribanda No. 39, Nuwaraeli Koliniya, Pandikaramaduwa, Parinigama 2. K.A. Chandralatha No.39, Nuwaraeli Koliniya Pandikaramaduwa, Parinigama Defendants AND Keeralage Parakrama Pandikaramaduwa, Parinigama Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant Vs 1. W. M. Dingiribanda No. 39, Nuwaraeli Koliniya, Pandikaramaduwa, Parinigama 2. K.A. Chandralatha No.39, Nuwaraeli Koliniya Pandikaramaduwa, Parinigama Defendant-Respondents AND NOW BEWEEN K.A. Chandralatha No.39, Nuwaraeli Koliniya Pandikaramaduwa, Parinigama 2nd Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant & Substituted 1st Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs Keeralage Parakrama Pandikaramaduwa, Parinigama Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant- Respondent-Respondent View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-07-18	SC/FR/241/2014	1. KARUWALAGASWEWA VIDANELAGE SWARNA MANJULA Tilakapura, Kalakarambewa. 2. NAWARATHNA HENALAGE ROSALIYA Tilakapura, Kalakarambewa. PETITIONERS VS. 1. C.I.V.P.J. PUSHPAKUMARA Officer-in- Charge, Police Station, Kekirawa. 2. RATNAYAKE Acting Officer-in- Charge, Police Station, Kekirawa. 3. BHODINARAYAN ACHARIGE SWARNASHEELI Kottalbadda, Kekirawa. 4. ANURA PRIYATHILAKA Kottalbadda, Kekirawa. 5. N.K. ILLANGAKOON Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 6. HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS 5A.PUJITHA JAYASUNDERA Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. ADDED RESPONDENT View More	HON. PRASANNA JAYAWARDHENA, PC, J			Download
2018-07-06	SC/APPEAL/31/2009 AND SC/APPEAL/35/2009-78/2009	Lakshman Ravendra Watawala Chairman/ Director General, Board of Investment of Sri Lanka, 26th Floor, West Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 01. Applicant - Vs - Chandana Karunathilake B02, Textile Factory Housing Complex, Thulhiriya. Respondent AND Chandana Karunathilake B02, Textile Factory Housing Complex, Thulhiriya. Respondent-Appellant - Vs - Lakshman Ravendra Watawala, Chairman/Director General, Board of Investment of Sri Lanka, 26th Floor, West Tower, Echelon Square, Colombo 01. Applicant-Respondent AND NOW 1. Lakshman Ravendra Watawala, Chairman/Director General, Board of Investment of Sri Lanka, 26th Floor, West Tower, Echelon Square, Colombo 01. Applicant-Respondent-Appellant 1B. Kulappuarachchige Don Dhammika Perera, Chairman/Director General, Board of Investment of Sri Lanka, 26th Floor, West Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 01. 1C. Jayampathy Divale Bandaranayake, Chairman/ Director General, Board of Investment of Sri Lanka, 26th Floor, West Tower, World Trade Centre View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2018-07-05	SC/APPEAL/33/2010	Don Peter Ranasinghe, No. 49, Athurugiriya Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. Plaintiff vs. 1. P.K. Nandasekera, No. 50, Athurugiriya Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. 2. P. K. Sudath Premakumara, No. 50, Athurugiriya Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. 3. P.K. Sunil Samarasekara, No. 50, Athurugiriya Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. 4. Meshrek Bank PLC, Srimath Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, P.O.Box 302, Colombo 02. Defendants AND THEN BETWEEN 1. P.K.Sudath Premakumara, No. 50, Athurugiriya Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. 2. P.K.Sunil Samarasekera, No. 50, Athurugiriya Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. 2nd and 3rd Defendant Appellants Vs Don Peter Ranasinghe, No. 49, Athurugiriya Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. ( Deceased ) Plaintiff Respondent AND THEN AGAIN BETWEEN 1. P.K.Sudath Premakumara, No. 50, Athurugiriya Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. 2. P.K.Sunil Samarasekera, No. 50, Athurugiriya Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. 2nd and 3rd Defendant Appellant Petitioners Vs Jeewandarage Jayawathi Perera, No. 49, Athurugiriya Road, Kottwa, Pannipitiya. Substituted View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-07-05	SC/CHC APPEAL/8/2005	Aitken Spence & Company Limited, No. 305, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 2. Petitioner vs. 1. The Garment Services Group Ltd., Swan House, 52-53 Poland Street, London WIV 3DF. 2. Dennis Day Limited, Swan House, 52-53 Poland Street, London WIV 3DF. 3. Aitken Spence Garments Ltd., No.305, VauxhallStreet, Colombo2. 4. J.M.S. Brito, Cinnamon Garden Residencies, No. 67, Ward Place, Colombo 07. 5. R.E.V. CasieChetty, No. 50, Rosmead Place, Colombo 7. 6. E.P.A. Cooray, No. 95/15, Kalyani Mawatha, Wattala. 7. K.D.A.Lawrence, No. 41/1, Old Nawala Road, Nawala. 8. D.S.Rose, 4th Floor, Mercantile Investment Building, No. 236, GalleRoad, Colombo 3. 9. M. Rhodes, Swan House, 52-53 Poland Street, London WIV 3DF. 10. Mrs. K.R.M.Weerakoon, No. 589/8, Kandy Road, Ranmutugala, Kandy. 11. M. Gabay, No. 7, Sukhastan Gardens, Colombo 7. Respondents AND NOW 1. D D Garments Limited ( formerly known as ‘The Garment Services Group Ltd.’ ) , Swan House, 52-53 Poland Street, London WIV 3DF. 2. Dennis Day Limited, Swan House, 52-53 Poland Street View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-07-05	SC/SPL LA/210/2016	Corinne Marvin Therese Fernandopulle, “Arunagiri”, Thoppuwa, Kochchikade. Presently at No. 28, Ronald Street, Black Town, New South Wales 2148, Sydney, Australia. By her Attorney Tutullo Richard Jansz, No. 85, Anderson Road, Kalubowila, Dehiwela. Plaintiff Vs 1. Ignatius Robin Fernandopulle, 2. Lucille Bernadette Leonie Fernandopulle, Both of No. 11, Railway Station Road, Negombo. Defendants AND BETWEEN 1. Ignatius Robin Fernandopulle, 2. Lucille Bernadette Leonie Fernandopulle, Both of No. 11, Railway Station Road, Negombo. 1ST and 2nd Defendant Petitioners Vs Corinne Marvin Therese Fernandopulle, “Arunagiri”, Thoppuwa, Kochchikade. Presently at No. 28, Ronald Street, Black Town, New South Wales, 2148, Sydney, Australia. Plaintiff Respondent AND THEN BETWEEN 1. Ignatius Robin Fernandopulle, 2. Lucille Bernadette Leonie Fernandopulle, Both of No. 11, Railway Station Road, Negombo. 1ST and 2nd Defendant Petitioner Petitioners Vs Corinne Marvin Therese Fernandopulle, “Arunagiri”, Thoppuwa, Kochchikade View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-06-29	SC/APPEAL/9/2011	Weragoda Arachchillage Weraj Sharm Weragoda, of No. 95, Castle Street, Colombo 8. Plaintiff Vs 1. Kullaperuma Arachchilage Kusuma- -wathie, “Sampath” Tholangamuwa. ( deceased ) Defendant 1a. Ganehi Achchi Vederalalage Jayasekera, 1b. Ganehi Achchi Vederalalage Sampath Priyadarshana Jayasekera 1c. Ganehi Achchi Vederalage Hasitha Dharshani Jayasekera 1d. Ganehi Achchi Vederalalage Dimuthu Priyadarshana Jayasekera 1e. Ganehi Achchi Vederalalage Jayasekera, ( as Guardian ad litem Over 1c and 1d Substituted Defendants, minors ), All of “Sampath”, Tholangamuwa. Substituted Defendants 2. Shridara Wasantha Rajakaruna, Madoltenne Estate, Waharaka. 2nd Defendant AND THEN BETWEEN Weragoda Arachchillage Weraj Sharm Weragoda, of No. 95, Castle Street, Colombo 8. Plaintiff Appellant Vs 1. Kullaperuma Arachchilage Kusuma- -wathie, “Sampath” Tholangamuwa. ( deceased ) Defendant 1a. Ganehi Achchi Vederalalage Jayasekera, 1b. Ganehi Achchi Vederalalage Sampath Priyadarshana Jayasekera 1c. Ganehi Achchi Vederalage Hasitha Dharsh View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-06-29	SC/APPEAL/95/2016	1. Henda Witharana Badralatha 2. Henda Witharana Nandasiri Both at Kurunduwatte, Wathugedera Plaintiffs Vs 1. K.W.Chandra Mallika, 2. K.W.Wijesiri alias Wimalasena 3. K.K.V. Pramawathi All of Kurunduwatte, Wathugedera. Defendants AND 1.Henda Witharana Badralatha 2.Henda Witharana Nandasiri Both at Kurunduwatte, Wathugedera Plaintiff Appellants Vs 1.K.W.Chandra Mallika, 2.K.W.Wijesiri alias Wimalasena 3.K.K.V. Pramawathi All of Kurunduwatte, Wathugedera. Defendant Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1.Henda Witharana Badralatha 2.Henda Witharana Nandasiri Both at Kurunduwatte, Wathugedera Plaintiff Appellant Appellants Vs 1. K.W. Chandra Mallika, Kurunduwatte, Wathugedera, Presently at No. 4/13, Heegalduwa Road, Wilegoda, Ambalangoda. 2. K.W.Wijesiri alias Wimalasena, Kurunduwatte, Wathugedera. 3. K.K.V.Pramawathi, Kurunduwatte, Wathugedera, Both presently at C/o K.W.Viraji, Near Dallukanda Junction, Thalgasgoda, Ambalangoda. Defendant Respondent Respondents View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-06-28	SC/FR/356/2016	R.P.Karunarathna Bandara No. 31, Nika Wewa Handiya, Nochchiyagama. PETITIONER V. 1.P.B.Disanayaka Governor of the North Central Province Governor’s Office, Anuradhapura. 2.S.G.M.C.K.Seniviratne Chairman 3.H.M.K.Herath Member 4.H.M.H.B.Ratnayaka Member Provincial Public Service Commission of North Central Province, Kachcheri Building, Anuradhapura. 5.Peshala Jayarathna Chief Minister of North Central Province Provincial Council Administrative Building Harischandra Mawatha, Anuradhapura. 6.E.M.N.W.Ekanayaka The Provincial Education Director, Provincial Department of Education, Anuradhapura. 7.D.M.Kumiduni Ariyawansa Zonal Education Director Anuradhapura Zonal Education Office Anuradhapura. 8.W.T.A Manel Secretary of the Ministry of Education Of the North Central Province, Provincial Council Administrative Building, Harischandra Mawatha, Anuradhapura. 9.N.M.N.R.B.Nwarathna Senior Assistant Secretary of the Ministry of Education of the North Central Province, Provincial Council Administrative Building, Harischand View More	HON. H. N. J. PERERA, J			Download
2018-06-26	SC/FR/94/2018	1. EPIC Lanka (Private) Limited, EPIC Techno Village, No.158/’/A, Kaduwela Road, Talangama, Battaramulla. 2. Dr. Nayana Darshana Prasad Dehigama, Executive Chairman & Managing Director EPIC Lanka (Private) Limited, No.158/’/A, Kaduwela Road, Talangama, lBattaramulla. PETITIONERS Vs 1. Hon. S. B. Navinna, Minister of Internal Affairs, Wayamba Development and Cultural Affairs, Ministry of Internal Affairs, Wayamba Development and Cultural Affairs, 8th Floor, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla 2. Controller General Department of Immigration and Emigration of Sri Lanka, “Suhurupaya”, Sri Subhuthipura Road, Battaramulla. 3. Hon. Harin Fernando, Minister of Telecommunication and Digital Infrastructure and Foreign Employment. Ministry of Telecommunication and Digital Infrastructure, No.437A, Galle Road, Colombo 03 4. The Chief Executive Officer, The Information and Communication Technology Agency of Sri Lanka, No.160/24, Kirimandala Mawatha, Colombo 05. 5. The Information Technology Agency of Sri Lanka, No.160/24, Kirimanda View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2018-06-25	SC/FR/491/2011	Rajakaruna Herath MudiyanselageKeerthirathna, Surakkulama, Mudalakkuliya.Petitioner Vs.1.PremarathnaPolice Constable, Police Station, Anamaduwa.2.Officer in Charge, Police Station, Anamaduwa.3.Inspector General of Police, Sri Lanka Police Headquarters, Colombo 01.4.Honourable Attorney General, Department of the Attorney General, Colombo 12.Respondents View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-06-22	SC/APPEAL/54/2017 & SC/APPEAL/54A/2017	Archbishop of Colombo, Bishop’s House, Colombo 08. Petitioner Vs, 1. Hon. Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 2. Mr. W.M. Bandusena, The Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 3. Hon. Ranjith Somawansa, Provincial Minister of Education, Cultural and Art Affairs, Ranmaga Paya, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. 4. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents 5. Kolamba Thanthrige Janaka Pushpakumara, Secretary- School Development Society, Pamunuwila Primary School, No. 123/3, Pamunuwila, Gonawala. 6. M.L.S. Perera, Auditor School Development Society, No. 370, Bathalahena Watta, Gonawala Added Respondents And Now 1. Hon. Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 2. Mr. W.M. Bandusena, The Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 3. Hon. Ranjith Somawansa, Provincial Minister of Education, Cultural and Art Affairs, Ranmaga Paya, Kaduwel View More	HON. VIJITH K. MALALGODA, PC, J			Download
2018-06-21	SC/APPEAL/149/2017	Horathal Pedi Durayalage Nimal Ranasinghe Ambagahagedera, Nagollagoda. Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs Officer-in-Charge Police Station Hettipola Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondents View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-06-21	SC/APPEAL/156/2015	Danthasinghe Patabendi Hangidigedera Abeyrathna No.29, Pannawa, Ganewatta. Plaintiff Vs B.G. Nimal Kumara Hemasiri of Kumbukgate Defendant And B.G. Nimal Kumara Hemasiri of Kumbukgate Defendant-Appellant Vs Danthasinghe Patabendi Hangidigedera Abeyrathna No.29, Pannawa, Ganewatta. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BEWEEN B.G. Nimal Kumara Hemasiri of Kumbukgate Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs Danthasinghe Patabendi Hangidigedera Abeyrathna No.29, Pannawa, Ganewatta. (Deceased) 1a. Danthasinghe Patabendi Hangidigedera Mangalika Abeyrathna 2a. Danthasinghe Patabendi Hangidigedera Lakshman Prasad Abeyrathna Both of No.29, Pannawa, Ganewatta. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent- Respondent-Respondents View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-06-21	SC/APPEAL/197/2012	Samarasinghe Dassanayakege Babun Nona alias Dassanayakege Babun Nona Samarasinghe No.509/6, Namal Mawatha, Habarakada, Homagama. Plaintiff Vs 1. Kalyanawathi Wickramasinghe 2. Kanduboda Arachchige Rajeewa Kumara Perera No.269/3, Habarakada, Homagama. Defendants AND BETWEEN 1. Kalyanawathi Wickramasinghe 2. Kanduboda Arachchige Rajeewa Kumara Perera No.269/3, Habarakada, Homagama. Defendant-Appellants Samarasinghe Dassanayakege Babun Nona alias Dassanayakege Babun Nona Samarasinghe No.509/6, Namal Mawatha, Habarakada, Homagama. Vs Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BEWEEN Samarasinghe Dassanayakege Babun Nona alias Dassanayakege Babun Nona Samarasinghe No.509/6, Namal Mawatha, Habarakada, Homagama. (The Plaintiff died before the Judgment delivered in the District Court and now her son was substituted in her place) Deceased Plaintiff Upali Dayaratne Perera No.269/2, Habarakada, Homagama. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs 1. Kalyanawathi Wickramasinghe 2. Kanduboda Arachchige Rajeewa Kumara Perera View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-06-21	SC/FR/210/2001	1. K.L.W.Perera 2. Rohini Sudasinghe 3. A.S.J.Wijayashantha 4. B.M.Chandrawathi 5. H.M.D.Kumari Herath 6. H.A.L.Wijerathna 7. A.W.P. Kulathunga 8. M.D.R.C. Dissanayake 9. P.H.Chulakanthi 10.T.D. Anoma Chithrani 11. P.A. Sugathapala 12. T.D.Ranaweera 13.W.K.Lakshmi 14. N.H.K. Navarathna 15. M.S.S.Chandrasekara 16. S. Ariyarathna 17. K.L.W.Priyanyhi 18.H.P.C.S.Kumarihamy All of Sri Jayawardenapura General Hospital, Thalapathpitiya, Nugegoda. Petitioners 1. Sri Jayawardenapura General Hospital Board, Thalapathpitiya, Nugegoda. 2. G.Chandima De Silva 2(a). Dr. H.A.P.Kahandaliyanage (Chairman) 3. Dr. J.B. Peiris 4. Dr. A.L.M. Beligaswatta 4(a). Dr.V.K.P Indraratne 5. Abeysinghe 6. Dr.H.H.R. Samarasinghe 6(a) P.J.Ambawatte 7. Dr.(Mrs.) C.N. Karunarathne 7(a). Dr. Harsha Kumudini Samarasinghe 8. K.V.P.Ranjith De Silva 8(a) Mr. Chamath De Silva 9. Dr. D.L.D. Lanerolle 9(a).Dr. N.S.A. Senaratne 10. D.G.Dayarathne 10(a).Mr.S.M. Nanda Lalitha Senanayake 11. Dr. P.G.Maheepala 12. Prof. Janaka De Silva 13. Hon. Attorney General View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-06-21	SC/SPL LA/19/2007	PKW Wijesinghe No. 120/A, Anura Publications, Kudugala Road, Wattaegama, Kandy. Petitioner Vs 1. Upali Chandrasiri Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station Wattegama. 2. Thilakaratne Police Sergeant Police Station Wattegama. Colombo 01. 3. Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Wattegama. 4. DIG Central Province-West Police Headquarters, Kandy. 5. Inspector General of Police Police Head Quarters, Kandy. 6. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-06-14	SC/APPEAL/63/2016	Shirani Buffin No.7 King Charles Walk Wimbledon Park, London SW196, JA England. Presently at No.71G Polhenwatte, Housing Scheme Kelaniya PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENT- APPELLANT Vs. 1. M.A. Anthony Neville No.275/01, Old Kandy Road, Dalugama, Kelaniya 2. M. A. Rohan Dulip No.57, 6th Lane, Kotahena New address, No.47/A 9th Lane, Ethul Kotte, Kotte DEFENDANT – PETITIONER - RESPONDENTS View More	HON. PRIYASATH DEP, PC, CJ			Download
2018-06-14	SC/APPEAL/102/2009	PALAMANDADIGE LALITHA PADMINI FERNANDO 116/4, Sevagama, Polonnaruwa. PLAINTIFF VS. CEYLON TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED No.178, Srimath Ramanadan Mawatha, Colombo 15. DEFENDANT AND BETWEEN CEYLON TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED No.178, Srimath Ramanadan Mawatha, Colombo 15. DEFENDANT-PETITIONER VS. PALAMANDADIGE LALITHA PADMINI FERNANDO 116/4, Sevagama, Polonnaruwa. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN CEYLON TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED No.178, Srimath Ramanadan Mawatha, Colombo 15. DEFENDANT-PETITIONER -PETITIONER/APPELLANT VS. PALAMANDADIGE LALITHA PADMINI FERNANDO 116/4, Sevagama, Polonnaruwa. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT -RESPONDENT View More	HON. PRASANNA JAYAWARDHENA, PC, J			Download
2018-06-12	SC/CHC APPEAL/52/2012	Chistobel Matilda Joshua, No. 35/1, Kawdana Road, Dehiwala. (deceased) Plaintiff John Sylvester Horatio Joshua, No. 15/1, Beach Road, Mount Lavinia. And Presently Of No. 5, Police Park Avenue, Colombo 05. Substituted Plaintiff Vs Seylan Bank PLC, CeylincoSeylan Towers, No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Defendant AND NOW BETWEEN John Sylvester Horatio Joshua, No. 15/1, Beach Road, Mount Lavinia. And Presently Of No. 5, Police Park Avenue, Colombo 05. Substituted Plaintiff Appellant Vs Seylan Bank PLC, CeylincoSeylan Towers, No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Defendant Respondent View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-06-11	SC/FR/661/2012	1. A.A.Sarath, 83/15, Wijithapura Mawatha, Mahakandara Madapatha. And 23 Others Petitioners Vs 1. Commissioner General of Excise, Department of Excise, No. 34, W.A.D.Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 2. And 82 Others Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 31. W.A.P.W.K. Wickramarachchi, And 45 Others 31st to 62nd and 67th to 82nd Respondents – Petitioners, All, C/O The Department of Excise, No. 34, W.A.D.Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. Respondent Petitioners Vs A.A. Sarath, 83/15, Wijithapura Mawatha, Mahakandara, Madapatha And 23 Others Petitioner Respondents 1. Commissioner General of Excise, Department of Excise, No. 34, W.A.D.Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. And 34 Others 17 th to 30th and 63rd to 66th Respondent Respondents C/o The Department of Excise, No. 34, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 83. The Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp Street, Colombo 12. Respondent Respondents View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-06-07	SC/APPEAL/123/2014	GUNESHI MALLIKA GOMES [nee GUNAWARDENA] No.15/1/A, Gomes Path, Colombo 4. PLAINTIFF VS. JAMMAGALAGE RAVINDRA RATNASIRI GOMES No.15/1/A, Gomes Path, Colombo 4. DEFENDANT AND BETWEEN GUNESHI MALLIKA GOMES [nee GUNAWARDENA] No.15/1/A, Gomes Path, Colombo 4. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT VS. JAMMAGALAGE RAVINDRA RATNASIRI GOMES No.15/1/A, Gomes Path, Colombo 4. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN GUNESHI MALLIKA GOMES [nee GUNAWARDENA] No.15/1/A, Gomes Path, Colombo 4. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT- PETITIONER/APPELLANT VS. JAMMAGALAGE RAVINDRA RATNASIRI GOMES No.15/1/A, Gomes Path, Colombo 4. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT View More	HON. PRASANNA JAYAWARDHENA, PC, J			Download
2018-06-01	SC/FR/452/2008	1. Rev. Athuthudave Gunasiri Thero, Chairman, Sri Wijeyashrama Vihara Sanwardana Samithiya, No. 1080, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha, Bandaranayakapura, Rajagiriya. 2. Wanigasuriya Arachige Priyani, Secretary, Sri Wijeyashrama Vihara Sanwardena Samithiya, No. 1080, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha, Bandaranayakapura, Rajagiriya. 3. Jayakody Arachilage Jayalath Premawansa, Treasurer, Sri Wijeyashrama Vihara Sanwardena Samithiya, No. 1080, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha, Bandaranayakapura, Rajagiriya. PETITIONERS Vs 1. Muthuwelu Manimuththu, Former Chairman, Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation, No. 7/2, Liberty Plaza Colombo 3. And : 10/A. 2/1, Ward Place, Colombo 7. 2. Karunasena Hettiarachchi, Chairman, Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation, No. 3, Welikada, Rajagiriya. 3. Valance Guneratne, Former Managing Director, Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation, No. 12, Vandervert Place, Colombo 12. 4. Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation, No. 3, Welikada, Rajagiriya View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-05-30	SC/FR/201/2017	1. K. J. A Chathumi Sehasa, 2. K. J. A Aminda Kumara, Both of 26A, Viyananda Mawatha, Weliwatta, Galle PETITIONERS -Vs- 1. Mrs. S. Irani Pathiranawasam, Principal, Southlands Balika Vidyalaya Light House Street, Fort, Galle. 2. Mr. Ranjith Tilakarathne, Principal, Aloysius College, Templers Road, Galle. 3. S. K. De Silva 4. D. L. Chitra 5. Ranga Mohotti 6. Upali Amaratunga 2nd to 6th Respondents are Members of the Appeals and Objections Investigations Board, Southlands Balika Vidyalaya, Light House Street, fort, Galle. 7. Mr. Sunil Hettiarachchi, Secretary, Ministry of Education, 3rd Floor, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 8. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2018-05-25	SC/FR/70/2017	Kumarapperuma Arachchige Chandana Prasanna, No. 835/12, Peradeniya Road, Mulgampala, Kandy For and on behalf of: Kumarapperuma Arachchige Thinuga Sethum Petitioner Vs, 1. R.D.M.P. Weerathunga, Principal, Kingswood College, Kandy. 2. Sunil Hettiarachchi, Secretary, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. 3. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	HON. VIJITH K. MALALGODA, PC, J			Download
2018-05-23	SC/APPEAL/4/2013	Mohamed Thamby Lebbe Noor Mohamed (Deceased) Rajarata Furniture, Kaduruwela. PLAINTIFF V. N.M.Abdul Hameed, 1/126, Pimburana Junction, Sungawila. DEFENDANT AND BETWEEN N.M.Abdul Hameed 1/126, Pimburana Junction, Sungawila. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT V. Noor Mohamed Ahamed Saheed Rajarata Furnture, Kaduruwela. SUBSTITUTED-PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND PRESENTLY BETWEEN Noor Mohamed Ahamed Saheed Rajarata Furniture, Kaduruwla. SUBSTITUTED-PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER V. N.M.Abdul Hameed, 1/126, Pimburana Junction, Sungawila. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	HON. H. N. J. PERERA, J			Download
2018-05-22	SC/FR/194/2013	Pankumburage Rohitha Anura Kumara, Malmeekanda, Bodhiya Asala, Opanayaka. ` Petitioner Vs, 1. H. Harisan Hettihewa, Inspector of Police, Police Station, Boralesgamuwa. 2. Lakshman Alwis, Inspector of Police, Police Station, Boralesgamuwa. 3. Jinadasa (22085) Police Sergeant Police Station, Boralesgamuwa. 4. Kariyawasam, Inspector of Police, Police Station, Opanayaka. 5. Upali, Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Opanayaka. 6. W.M.M. Wickramasinghe, Senior Superintendents of Police, Nugegoda Division, Police Station, Mirihana. 7. Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01 8. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12 Respondents View More	HON. VIJITH K. MALALGODA, PC, J			Download
2018-05-18	SC/APPEAL/36/2016	Ratnayake Mudiyanselage Heen Menika of No. 246/30, Soysa Mawatha, Thewatta Road, Ragama. ( deceased ) Plaintiff 1a. Mallawa Arachchige Don Ananda No. 246/30, Soysa Mawatha, Thewatta Road, Ragama. 1b. Mallawa Arachchige Dona Pushpa Kumarihami, No. 27, Lankamatha Road, Ragama. 1c. Mallawa Arachchige Don Samson Pushpakumara, No. 388, Mahara, Kadawatha. 1d. Mallawa Arachchige Don Dharmakeerthi, No. 323 F, Christ King Place, Batagama North, Ja-Ela. 1e. Mallawa Arachchige Don Wijesiri R 28, Lankamatha Road, Ragama 1f. Mallawa Arachchige Don Ranjith Pathmasiri Pushpakumara, No. 664/1, Kandaliyadde Paluwa Ragama. 1g. Mallawa Arachchige Dona Sriyani Malkanthi, No. 28, Kandaliyadde Paluwa, Ragama. 1h. Mallawa Arachchige DonaRanjani Pushpakanthi, No. 28/1, Kandaliyadde Paluwa, Ragama. Substituted Plaintiffs Vs 1. Weerasuriya Arachchilage Noris Banda, No. 93, Temple Lane, Horape, Ragama. 2. Siriwardena Disanayake, Siri Niwasa, Waragoda Estate, Kelaniya. Defendants AND 1b. Mallawa Arachchige Dona Pushpa Kumarihami, No. 27 View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-05-16	SC/FR/466/2015	1. M. G. Padmaseeli No. 08-B, 63/4, National Housing Scheme, Mattegoda. 2. K. G. I. Shirani No. 191/2/D, Hubutiyawa, Nittambuwa. 3. L. A. Samanthi Gunasinghe No. 203/14, Kotagedara Road, Madapatha, Piliyandala. 4. H. G. Malani No. 55-C2, Suriya Garden, Maalapalla, Homagama. 5. W. M. V. Priyanthi Sirisuriya No. 241/1/C, 3rd Lane, Kalapaluwawa, Rajagiriya. 6. S. P. Neela Kumudini No. ¾, “Amba Sewana”, Pilikuththuwa, Buthpitiya. Petitioners Vs. 1. Sri Lanka Transport Board, No. 200, Kirula Road, Colombo 05. 2. Ramal Siriwardena Chairman, Sri Lanka Transport Board, No. 200, Kirula Road, Colombo 05. 3. P. D. Balasuriya Chief Executive Officer, Sri Lanka Transport Board, No. 200, Kirula Road, Colombo 05. 4. N. Godakanda Director General, Department of Management Services, Ministry of Finance, General Treasury, Colombo 01. 5. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-04-06	SC/APPEAL/169/2011	YASOMA CHAMPA NILMINI ABEYGUNAWARDENA No.80/5, “Nilmini”, Athurugiriya Road, Homagama. PLAINTIFF VS. SUNIL GOTABAYA LAMABADUSURIYA No. 50A, Bellantara Road, Nikape Dehiwela and /or No.50/1 Abeywickrema Avenue, Mt. Lavinia. DEFENDANT AND SUNIL GOTABAYA LAMABADUSURIYA No. 50A, Bellantara Road, Nikape Dehiwela and /or No.50/1 Abeywickrema Avenue, Mt. Lavinia. DEFENDANT- APPELLANT VS. YASOMA CHAMPA NILMINI ABEYGUNAWARDENA No.80/5, “Nilmini”, Athurugiriya Road, Homagama. PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN SUNIL GOTABAYA LAMABADUSURIYA No. 50A, Bellantara Road, Nikape Dehiwela and /or No.50/1 Abeywickrema Avenue, Mt.Lavinia DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PETITIONER/APPELLANT VS. YASOMA CHAMPA NILMINI ABEYGUNAWARDENA No.80/5, “Nilmini”, Athurugiriya Road, Homagama. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT View More	HON. PRASANNA JAYAWARDHENA, PC, J			Download
2018-04-05	SC/APPEAL/135/2012	S.A.C.Ranawaka. No. 206, Panselgodella, Galamuna. Plaintiff Vs 1. Upali Chandrawansha, Revenue Administrator, C/O Lankapura Pradeshiya Sabha, Lankapura, Thalpotha. 2. Pradeshiya Sabha, Lankapura, Thalpotha. Defendants AND THEN Upali Chandrawansha, Revenue Administrator, C/O Lankapura Pradeshiya Sabha, Lankapura, Thalpotha. Defendant Appellant Vs S.A.C. Ranawaka, No.206, Panselgodella, Galamuna Plaintiff Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN S.A.C. Ranawaka, No.206, Panselgodella, Galamuna Plaintiff Respondent Appellant Vs Upali Chandrawansha, Revenue Administrator, C/O Lankapura Pradeshiya Sabha, Lankapura, Thalpotha Defendant Appellant Respondent View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-04-04	SC/APPEAL/99/2014	Sinna Lebbe Saliya Umma of Mawana, Mawanella. PLAINTIFF -Vs- Shahul Hameed Mohammed Yaseen of No. 129/2, Courts Road, Marawa, Mawanella. DEFENDANT Between Sinna Lebbe Saliya Umma of Mawana, Mawanella. PLAINTIFF- PETITIONER -Vs- 1. Shahul Hameed Mohammed Yaseen of No. 129/2, Courts Road, Marawa, Mawanella. DEFENDANT- RESPONDENT 2. Zainul Abdeen Mohammed Naufer of No. 40A, Kandy Road, Mawanella. 3. Mohammed Saly Mohammed Musthafa of No. 74, Hemmathagama Road, Mawanella. RESPONDENTS And Between 3. Mohammed Saly Mohammed Musthafa of No. 74, Hemmathagama Road, Mawanella. 3rd RESPONDENT PETITIONER -Vs- Sinna Lebbe Saliya Umma of Mawana, Mawanella. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER- RESPONDENT 1. Shahul Hameed Mohammed Yaseen of No. 129/2, Courts Road, Marawa, Mawanella. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT 2. Zainul Abdeen Mohammed Naufer of No. 40A, Kandy Road, Mawanella. 2ND RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT And Now Between Sinna Lebbe Saliya Umma of Mawana, Mawanella. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER- RESPONDENT-APPELLANT -Vs- 1. Shahul Hameed Mohammed View More	Hon. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, PC			Download
2018-04-03	SC/CHC APPEAL/4/2006	Murughasan Chandrika No.13, Perumal Kovil Street, Nagapattinam, 611001 Tamilnadu, India Carrying on a business as proprietorship Under the name style and firm Rajithi Agencies No.139, Linghi Chetty Street, Gulam Arcade, Chennai 600 001 India. PLAINTIFF V. 1.Romav Limited Bucklersbury House, 3, Queen Victoria Street, London EC4N 8EL 2.Unicorns Clearing And Forwarding (private) Limited 2nd Floor, Greenlanka Tower, No.46/46, Navam Mawatha, Colombo 2. DEFENDANTS Unicorns Clearing And Forwarding (private) Limited 2nd Floor, Greenlanka Towers, No.46/46, Navam Mawatha, Colombo 2. 2nd DEFENDANT-APPELLANT V. 1.Murughasan Chandrika No.13, Perumal Kovil Street, Nagapattinam, 611001 Tamilnadu. India.Carrying on a business as Proprietorship under the name style and firm- Rajithi Agencies, No.139, Linghi Chetty Street, Gulam Arcade, Chennai 600 001 India. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT 2.Romav Limited Bucklersbury House, 3, Queen Victoria Street, London EC4N 8EL 1st DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT View More	HON. H. N. J. PERERA, J			Download
2018-04-02	SC/APPEAL/4/2016	Mohamed Naleem Mohomed Ismail, No. 28, Chettiyar Road, Pandiruppu 01, Kalmunai. Plaintiff Vs, Samsulebbe Hamithu No. 426, Main Street, Maruthamuni. Defendant And between Mohamed Naleem Mohomed Ismail, No. 28, Chettiyar Road, Pandiruppu 01, Kalmunai. Plaintiff- Appellant Vs, Samsulebbe Hamithu No. 426, Main Street, Maruthamuni. Defendant-Respondent And now between Mohamed Naleem Mohomed Ismail, No. 28, Chettiyar Road, Pandiruppu 01, Kalmunai. Plaintiff -Appellant-Appellant Vs, Samsulebbe Hamithu No. 426, Main Street, Maruthamuni. Defendant - Respondent-Respondent View More	HON. VIJITH K. MALALGODA, PC, J			Download
2018-03-27	SC/SPL LA/125/2014 & SC/SPL LA/126/2014	Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12 Complainant -Vs- 1. Singappuli Arachchilage Rumesh Sameera Dasanayake alias Gaminige Kolla 2. Baduwala Wahumpurage Podinona 3. Kalanchidevage Suresh Nandana Accused. AND BETWEEN 1. Singappuli Arachchilage Rumesh Sameera Dasanayake alias Gaminige Kolla 2. Baduwala Wahumpurage Podinona 3. Kalanchidevage Suresh Nandana Accused-Appellants -VS- The Honourable Attorney General Attorney Generals’ department, Colombo – 12 Complainant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Singappuli Arachchilage Rumesh Sameera Dassanayake alias Gaminige Kolla 2. Baduwala Wahumpurage Podinona Accused-Appellant-Petitioners (SC SPL LA 126/2014) Kalanchidevage Suresh Nandana 3rd Accused-Appellant-Petitioner (SC SPL LA 125/2014) -Vs- The Honourable Attorney General Attorney Generals’ department, Colombo – 12 Complainant-Respondent- Respondent View More	Hon. Buwaneka Aluwihare PC J			Download
2018-03-27	SC/APPEAL/73/2010	1. Akurange Jayasinghe 2. Akurange Samarasinghe Both of Medagaladeniya, Udagaladeniya, Rambukkana. PLAINTIFFS Vs. Akurange Gunawathie(Deceased) (a) I. Lakshman Weerasekera Medagaladeniya, Udagaladeniya, Rambukkana. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT AND BETWEEN 1. Akurange Jayasinghe 2. Akurange Samarasinghe Both of Medagaladeniya, Udagaladeniya, Rambukkana. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS Vs. (a) I. Lakshman Weerasekera Medagaladeniya, Udagaladeniya, Rambukkana. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Akurange Jayasinghe Medagaladeniya, Udagaladeniya, Rambukkana. 1st PLAINIFF-APPELLENT- PETITIONER 2. Akurange Samarasinghe (Now Deceased) Vs. (a) I. Lakshman Weerasekera Medagaladeniya, Udagaladeniya, Rambukkana. SUBSTITUTE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT RESPONDENT. View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2018-03-27	SC/FR/97/2014	Fathima Hishana 43, Buthgamuwa Road Welikada, Rajagiriya Appearing by her Next Friend Mohamed hirzi Shahul Hameed 43, Buthgamuwa Road Welikada, Rajagiriya Petitioner -Vs- 1. Nayana Thakshila Perera Principal Janadhipathi Balika Vidyalaya, School Lane—Nawala, Rajagiriya 2. Ms. Hemamali The Vice Principal Janadhipathi Balika Vidyalaya, School Lane—Nawala, Rajagiriya 3. Mrs. P. De. S. Naotunna Class Teacher—Grade 7C Janadhipathi Balika Vidyalaya, School Lane—Nawala, Rajagiriya 4. J.M.C Jayanthi Wijethunge Provincial Secretary of Education Shrawasthi Mandiraya, 32, Marcus Fernando Mawatha, Colombo 07. 4A. M.A.B. Daya Senerath Provincial Secretary of Education Shrawasthi Mandiraya, 32, Marcus Fernando Mawatha, Colombo 07. 4B. S.G. Wijebandu Provincial Secretary of Education Shrawasthi Mandiraya, 32, Marcus Fernando Mawatha, Colombo 07. 5. Mr. P.N. Ilapperuma The Provincial Director of Education, Provincial Department of Education 76, Ananda Coomaraswamy Mawatha, Colombo 7. 5A. Mr. Wiman Gunaratne, The Provincial D View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2018-03-26	SC/FR/120/2017	Dr. (Mrs.) Chandini Perera, 33/3, Jambugasmulla Road, Nugegoda. Petitioner 1. Dr. J.M.W. Jayasundara Bandara, Director General of Health Services, Ministry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, 385, ‘Suwasiripaya’, Rev. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 1A. Dr. Anil Jasinghe, Director General of Health Services, Ministry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, 385, ‘Suwasiripaya’, Rev. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. Dr. Anil Jasinghe, Director General of Health Services, Ministry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, 385, ‘Suwasiripaya’, Rev. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2A. Dr. W.K. Wickremasinghe, Acting Deputy Director General of Health, The National Hospital of Sri Lanka, Colombo 10. 3. Dr. (Mrs.) Samiddhi Samarakoon, Deputy Director, Neurotroma Accident and Orthopaidec Services, The National Hospital of Sri Lanka, Colombo 10. 4. Dr. Cyril de Silva, Deputy Director, The National Hospital of Sri Lanka, Colombo 10. 5. Hon. Dr. Raj View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-03-23	SC/APPEAL/176/2016	Kusuma Sri Wanasinghe No.4B/6/7, Mattegoda Hosing Scheme, Mattegoda. Plaintiff Vs Princymala Abeysuriya. No.9A/79/5, Mattegoda Hosing Scheme, Mattegoda. Defendant IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 328 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDOURE CODE. Appuhannadige Kotahewage Lesly Ariyasinghe. No.125, Kirulapana Mawatha, Colombo 5. Petitioner Vs Kusuma Sri Wanasinghe No.4B/6/7, Mattegoda Hosing Scheme, Mattegoda. Plaintiff Judgment Creditor Respondent Princymala Abeysuriya. No.9A/79/5, Mattegoda Hosing Scheme, Mattegoda. Defendant Judgment Debtor Respondent AND BEWEEN Appuhannadige Kotahewage Lesly Ariyasinghe. No.125, Kirulapana Mawatha, Colombo 5. Petitioner-Petitioner Vs 1. Kusuma Sri Wanasinghe No.4B/6/7, Mattegoda Hosing Scheme, Mattegoda. Plaintiff Judgment Creditor Respondent-Respondent 2. Princymala Abeysuriya. No.9A/79/5, Mattegoda Hosing Scheme, Mattegoda. Defendant Judgment Debtor Respondent-Respondent AND NOW BEWEEN Appuhannadige Kotahewage Lesly Ariyasinghe. No.125, Kirulapana Mawatha, Colombo 5. Petitio View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-03-22	SC/APPEAL/56/2015	View More	HON. H. N. J. PERERA, J			Download
2018-03-22	SC/APPEAL/82/2014	M.I.S.Batcha, No.19, Lily Road, Wellawatta, Colombo 6. PLAINTIFF V. L.E.Muttiah, No.19A, Lily Road, Wellawatta, Colombo 6. DEFENDANT AND BETWEEN L.E.Muttiah, (Deceased) No.19A. Lily Road, Wellawatta, Colombo 6. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT M.S.Muttiah, No 19A, Lily Mawatha, Wellawatta, Colombo 6. SUBSTITUTED-DEFENDANT-APPELLANT V. M.I.S.Batcha, No 19, Lily Road, Wellawatta, Colombo 6. PLIANTIFF-RESPONDENT AND M.I.S.Batcha, No 19, Lily Road, Wellawatta, Colombo 6. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER V. M.S.Muttiah, No.19A, Lily Mawatha, Wellawatta, Colombo 6. SUBSTITUTED-DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	HON. H. N. J. PERERA, J			Download
2018-03-21	SC/CHC APPEAL/33/2007	Southland Apparels (Pvt.) Ltd., No. 80, Hulftsdorp Street, Colombo 12. Plaintiff Vs Hatton National Bank Plc., HNB Tower, Darley Road, Colombo 10. Defendant AND NOW BETWEEN Hatton National Bank Plc., HNB Tower, Darley Road, Colombo 10. Defendant Appellant Vs Southland Apparels (Pvt.) Ltd., 80, Hulftsdorp Street, Colombo 12. Plaintiff Respondent View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-03-21	SC/FR/389/2012	1. Kalu Arachchige Amila Duminda, No. 300, Yatiyana Watta Road, Yatiyana. 2. Muditha Mihipala Kumarage, Ukwatta, Thotahoda, Akmeemana. 3. Vindana Lasantha Jayakody, No. 213/4, Thalawathugoda Road, Mirihana, Kotte. 4. D.C.Gayan Sarinda, No. 443/A, Lake Road, Akuregoda, Thalangama South, Battaramulla. 5. Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Sanka Dipsara Weerakoon, No. 147, Kumbukwewa, Maho. 6. Kamburugamuwe Loku Arachchige Chameera Sanjeewa, No. 220/2, Enderamulla, Wattala. 6. Gannoruwa Palagama Gedera Nayana Yasamali Dewasurendra, ‘Yasamali’, Ridigama, Kurunegala. 7. Don Kannangara Koralage Meadini Diana Kannangara, Polkotuwa, Ovitiyagala, Horana. 8. Nupe Hewage Thushanthim, No. 158/1A/1, Rajasinghe Mawatha, Ihala Imbulgoda, Imbulgoda. 9. Harshani Shamila Samarasingha, ‘ Jeewana’, Uda Aparekka, Aparekka, Matara. 10. Balakumary Fernando (Kumaravelu), No. 82, College Street, Colombo 13. 11. Wattage Chamini Lasanthika Perera, No. 35/3, Bodhu Pedesa Road, Nunggamugoda, Kelaniya. 12. Samarakkody Dasanayakage Chamila Nilakshi View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-03-15	SC/APPEAL/201/2014	H. K. Sumanasena, Manager (Acting), Special Investigations Unit, Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment 234, Denzel Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Battaramulla. Plaintiff -Vs- MallawarachchigeKanishka Gunawardhana Licensee, Samasa Foreign Employment Agency, 89, 3rd Floor, Super Market, Borella, Colombo 08. Accused. And In the matter of an appeal in terms of Article 154 (3) (b) of the Constitution read with section 4 of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No.19 of 1990 and section 320 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No.15 of 1979. Mallawarachchig Kanishka Gunawardhana, Licensee, Samasa Foreign Employment Agency, 89, 3rd Floor, Super Market, Borella, Colombo 08. Accused Appellant -Vs- 1 H.K.Sumanasena, Manager (Acting), Special Investigations Unit, Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment 234, Denzel Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Battaramulla. 2. Hon. The Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. Respondents And now In the matter of an application for Special Leave to Appeal in terms View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2018-03-12	SC/APPEAL/79/2013	Sri Lankan Airlines Limited, Level 19-22, East Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 1. Petitioner Vs 1. Sri Lankan Airlines Aircrafts Technicians Association, No. 14, Mahawela Place, Kirulapone, Colombo 06. 2. D.S.Edirisinghe, Commissioner of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 3. T.Piyasoma, No. 77, Pannipitiya Road, Battaramulla. 4. Hon. Atauda Seneviratne, Minister of Labour Relations and Foreign Employment, Labour Secretariat, Colombo 05. Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Sri Lankan Airlines Limited, Level 19-22, East Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 1. Petitioner Petitioner Vs 1. Sri Lankan Airlines Aircrafts Technicians Association, No. 14, Mahawela Place, Kirulapone, Colombo 6. 2. D.S.Edirisinghe, Commissioner Of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 2A. W.J.L.U. Wijayaweera, Commissioner General of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 3A. Mrs. Pearl Weerasinghe, Commissioner General of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Narahenpita, Colo View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-03-06	SC/APPEAL/96/2017	Mohamed Ghouse Mohamed Sulaiman Zurfick, No. 142/4, W.A.de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 6. Plaintiff Vs M.N.Naufer, No. 43, Hulftsdorp Street, Colombo 10. And currently at, Bogambara Prison, Kandy. Defendant AND THEN BETWEEN Mohamed Ghouse Mohamed Sulaiman Zurfick, No. 142/4, W.A.de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 6. Plaintiff Petitioner Vs M.N.Naufer, No. 43, Hulftsdorp Street, Colombo 10. And currently at, Bogambara Prison, Kandy. Defendant Respondent AND THEREAFTER BETWEEN Mohamed Ghouse Mohamed Sulaiman Zurfick, No. 142/4, W.A.de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 6. Plaintiff Petitioner Appellant Vs M.N.Naufer, No. 43, Hulftsdorp Street, Colombo 10. And currently at, Bogambara Prison, Kandy. Defendant Respondent Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN M.N.Naufer, No. 43, Hulftsdorp Street, Colombo 10. And currently at, Bogambara Prison, Kandy. Defendant Respondent Respondent Appellant Vs Mohamed Ghouse Mohamed Sulaiman Zurfick, No. 142/4, W.A.de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 6. Plaintiff Petitioner Appellant Respondent View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-03-05	SC/FR/393/2008	Janaka Sampath Batawalage, P.355, Niwasipura, Ekala Ja-Ela. Petitioner Vs. 1. Inspector Prasanna Ratnayake, Police Station, Dam Street, Colombo 12. 2. Sub Inspector Seneviratne, Police Station, Dam Street, Colombo 12. 3. Sub Inspector Herath, Police Station, Dam Street, Colombo 12. 4. The Inspector General of police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 1. 5. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2018-03-05	SC/FR/825/2009	Loku Hetiarachchige Sanjana Pradeep Kumara Petitioner Vs. 1. S. M. J. Samaranayake, Chief Inspector of Police, Officer in Charge Police Station, Kirindiwela. 2. Nandatissa Sambandaperuma, Home Guard, Police Station, Kirindiwela 3. Laxman Cooray, Superintendent of Police, Gampaha. Presently detained at the Terrorist Investigation Division. 4. Sarath Kumara, Senior Superintendent of Police, Senior Superintendent of Police Office, Gampaha. 5. K. P. P. Pathirana, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Western (North) Range, DIG’s Office, Peliyagoda. 6. Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 7. Sarath Weerasekara, Rear Admiral, Headquarters of the Department of Civil Defence, Station Road, Colombo 04. 7A. Ananda Peris, Rear Admiral, Headquarters of the Department of Civil Defence, Station Road, Colombo 04. 8. K. P. Karunaratne, Hospital Road, Radawana. 9. Nimalsiri Wijethunge, Hospital Road, Radawana. 10. Dias Kumara Wijethunge, No.436D, Hospital Road, Radawana. 11. Yashmi Sambandaperuma, No.17 View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2018-03-02	SC/FR/337/2015	FRIGI Engineering Services (Pvt) Ltd. M/S Dunham Bush Industries Sdn Bhd Joint Venture C/O: FRIGI Engineering Services (Pvt) Ltd. 145, Siri Dhamma Mawatha Colombo 10 Petitioner Vs. Secretary Ministry of Food Security CWE Secretariat Building No.27, Vauxhall Street Colombo 02 And 45 others Respondents View More	HON. CHITRASIRI, J			Download
2018-02-28	SC/APPEAL/79/2010	1.A.M. Mohamed Mawjood, No. 30B, Rattota Road, Matale. 2.K. M. Mohamed Farook, No. 16, Kumbiyangoda, Matale. Plaintiffs Vs 1. Rev. Yatawatte Sumanajothi, ‘Vivekaramaya’, Yatawatte. 2. Herath Baron Munasinghe (deceased) 3. Edirisinghelage Shanthi 4. Herath Mudiyanselage Kanthi Munasinghe 5. Herath Mudiyanselage Geetha Munasinghe All of No.63, Dharmapala Mawatha, Matale. Defendants AND THEN BETWEEN K. M. Mohamed Farook, No. 16, Kumbiyangoda, Matale. 2nd Plaintiff Appellant Vs 1. Rev. Yatawatte Sumanajothi, ‘Vivekaramaya’, Yatawatte. 2. Edirisinghelage Shanthi 3. Herath Mudiyanselage Kanthi Munasinghe 4. Herath Mudiyanselage Geetha Munasinghe All of No.63, Dharmapala Mawatha, Matale. Defendant Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN K.M.Mohamed Farook, No. 16, Kumbiyangoda, Matale. 2nd Plaintiff Appellant Appellant Vs 1. Rev. Yatawatte Sumanajothi, ‘Vivekaramaya’, Yatawatte. 2. Edirisinghelage Shanthi 3. Herath Mudiyanselage Kanthi Munasinghe 4. Herath Mudiyanselage Geetha Munasinghe All of No.63, Dharmapala Mawatha, Matale. View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-02-26	SC/FR/434/2016	Kamani Madhya Jinadasa Attorney-at-Law [for and on behalf of Citizen X, person living with the Human Immuno Virus (HIV)] Petitioner Vs. 1. SriLankan Airlines Limited Company Registration No.PB 67 Airline Centre Bandaranayaka International Airport Katunayaka 2. Dr. Anoma Jayasinghe Group Medical Officer SriLankan Airlines Limited Bandaranayaka International Airport Katunayaka 3. Nihal Somaweera Secretary Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation 7th Floor, Sethsiripaya stage II Battaramulla. 4. Dr. Sisira Liyanage Director National STD/AIDS control Programme No.29, De Seram Place Colombo 10. 5. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12 Respondents View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-02-22	SC/APPEAL/147/2017	1. Chanaka Thilan Rodrigo, 12/5, Dutugemunu Street, Kalubowila, Dehiwala. 2. Anitha Sharmini John nee Rodrigo, 19, Lillington Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050, New Zealand. Petitioners Vs 1. Cyril Rodrigo Restaurants Ltd., No. 85, Pepiliyana Road, Nugegoda. 2. Tarini Rodrigo, 68/8A, 2nd Lane, Senanayake Avenue Nawala. 3. Ruvini Devasurendra, No. 17, Spathodea Avenue, Colombo 5. 4. Kantha de Silva, No. 5, Spathodea Avenue, Colombo 5. 5. Nexia Corporate Consultants (Pvt.) Ltd., No. 181, Nawala Road, Colombo 5 Respondents AND THEN In an application for revocation and/or variation of the ex parte interim order. 3. Ruvini Devasurendra, No.17, Spathodea Avenue, Colombo 5. 4. Kantha de Silva, No. 5, Spathodea Avenue, Colombo 5. 3rd and 4th Respondent Petitioners Vs 1.Chanaka Thilan Rodrigo, 12/5, Dutugemunu Street, Kalubowila, Dehiwala. 2. Anitha Sharmini John nee Rodrigo, 19, Lillington Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050, New Zealand. 1st and 2nd Petitioner Respondents 1. No. 85, Pepiliyana Road, Cyril Rodrigo Restaurants Lt View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-02-20	SC/APPEAL/14/2016	Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent-Petitioner Vs, Bimbirigodage Sujith Lal, Yahaladuwa Road, Baddegama. Accused-Appellant And Now Between Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent- Appellant Vs, Bimbirigodage Sujith Lal, Yahaladuwa Road, Baddegama. Accused-Appellant-Respondent View More	HON. VIJITH K. MALALGODA, PC, J			Download
2018-02-20	SC/FR/97/2015	1. R.M. Premil Priyalath de. Silva, 2. P.W.Reka Samanthi, 3. R.M.D.S.R.de. Silva (Minor) All at 20/1, R.E. de. Silva Mawatha, Ambalangoda. Petitioners Vs, 1. Akila Viraj Kariyawasam (M.P) Hon. Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya” Battaramulla. 2. Upali Marasinghe, Secretary- Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya” Battaramulla. 3. Sumith Parakramawansha, Principal- Dharmashoka Vidyalaya, Galle Road, Ambalangoda. 4. R.N. Mallawarachchi 5. Diyagubaduge Dayarathne 6. M. Shirley Chandrasiri 7. N.S.T. de, Silva 3rd to 07th above all Members of the Interview Board (Admissions to Year 01) C/o: Dharmashoka Vidyalaya, Galle Road, Ambalangoda 8. W.T.B. Sarath 9. P.D.Pathirathne 10. K.P.Ranjith 11. Jagath Wellage 04th and 08th to 11th above all Members of the Appeal Board (Admissions to Year 01) C/o: Dharmashoka Vidyalaya, Galle Road, Ambalangoda 12. Mr. Ranjith Chandrasekara Director- National Schools, “Isurupaya” Battaramulla. 13. Hon. the Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Re View More	HON. VIJITH K. MALALGODA, PC, J			Download
2018-02-19	SC/APPEAL/121/2010	P.N. Maharajah, No. 133/5, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. Deceased-Petitioner 1. Nagan Maharajah Weerasingham, 2. Muniyandi Aswath Ammal 3. Nagam Maharajah Nirmala All of, No. 133/5, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 4. Nagam Maharajah Thilagawathie 5. Nagam Maharajah Thilakaranee Both of, No. 16/10, Liyanage Mawatha, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya. Substituted-Petitioners Vs, 1. Hema Wijesekara, The Commissioner of National Housing, National Housing Department, “Sethsiripaya”Battaramulla. 2. Perumal Muniyandi Sundarammal (Deceased), No. 133/5, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 3. M.S. Jaldeen 4. H. Akurugoda 5. R.W.M.S.B. Rajapkse 6. N.T. Padmadasa All members of the Board of Review under Ceiling on Housing Property Law No. 10G, Sri Vipulasena Mawatha, Colombo 10. Respondents 7. Sunil Kannangara Director-Housing, National Housing Department, ‘Sethsiripaya’ Battaramulla. Added Respondent Now Between 1. Nagan Maharajah Weerasingham, 2. Muniyandi Aswath Ammal 3. Nagam Maharajah Nirmala All of, No. 133/5 View More	HON. VIJITH K. MALALGODA, PC, J			Download
2018-02-19	SC/APPEAL/134/2016	1. Hettige Don Tudor, 142, Lanka Porcelain, Katuwawala, Boralesgamuwa. 2. Hettige Lakshman Sandasiri, 117, Udupeella, Matale. 3. Hettige Dona Seetha Padmini Sandasiri, 142 B, Katuwawala, Borelesgamuwa. Plaintiffs Vs Hettige Don Ananda Chandrasiri, 82C, Katuwawala, Boralesgamuwa. And Others Defendants AND THEN BETWEEN 11. Hettige Dona Lalitha 12. Hettige Don Sunila, Both of, No. 142/2A, Katuwawala, Boralesgamuwa. 11th and 12th Defendant Appellants Vs 1.Hettige Don Tudor, 142B, Lanka Porcelain, Katuwawala, Boralesgamuwa. 2.Hettige Lakshman Sandasiri, 117, Udupeella, Matale. 3.Hettige Dona Seetha Padmini Sandasiri, 142, Katuwawala, Boralesgamuwa. Plaintiff Respondent AND 1.Hettige Don Ananda Chandrasiri, 82C, Katuwawala, Borelesgamuwa. 2.Hettige Don Edwin alias Edman, Abhaya Niwasa, Katuwawala, Borelesgamuwa. (Deceased) 2A. Hettige Dona Lalitha, 142/2A, Katuwawala, Boralesgamuwa. 3. Hettige Dona Emanona, 220/7, Glunberg Place, (Off Dambahena Road), Maharagama. (Deceased) 3A. W.A.Nandasena, 323/6, Pelanwatta, Pannipit View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-02-19	SC/APPEAL/92/2010	Gammeddegoda Saranatissa Thero, Controlling Viharadhipathi of Sri Sudharshanaramaya, Horangalle, Thalgaswela and Saila Bimbaramaya, Indurupatwila. Plaintiff Vs Horangalle Samiddhi Thero of Sri Sudharshanaramaya, Horangalle. Horangalle. Defendant AND Gammeddegoda Saranatissa Thero, (Deceased) Controlling Viharadhipathi of Sri Sudharshanaramaya, Horangalle, Thalgaswela and Saila Bimbaramaya, Indurupatwila. Plaintiff Appellant Gammaddegoda Amarasiri Thero, Sri Mahindaramaya, K.E, Perera Mawatha, Thalwatta, Kelaniya. Substituted Plaintiff Appellant Vs Horangalle Samiddhi Thero, Sri Sudharshanaramaya, Horangalle. Defendant Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Horangalle Samiddhi Thero, Sri Sudharshanaramaya, Horangalle. Defendant Respondent Appellant Vs Gammaddegoda Amarasiri Thero, Sri Mahindaramaya, K.E, Perera Mawatha, Thalwatta, Kelaniya. Substituted Plaintiff Appellant Respondent View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-02-19	SC/CHC APPEAL/32/2009	People’s Bank, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Plaintiff Vs The Partnership business being carried on under the name and style of Zaid Tea. 1.Miran Naushad Jamaldeen, No. 52, Sea Beach Road, Colombo 11. 2.Siththi Ayesha Naushad, No. 52, Sea Beach Road, Colombo 11. Defendants AND NOW The Partnership business being carried on under the name and style of Zaid Tea. 1.Miran Naushad Jamaldeen, No. 52, Sea Beach Road, Colombo 11. 2.Siththi Ayesha Naushad, No. 52, Sea Beach Road, Colombo 11. Defendant Appellants Vs People’s Bank, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Plaintiff Respondent View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-02-09	SC/APPEAL/81/2014	Leader Publication (Pvt) Limited C/o Com- Sec Management Services (Pvt) Ltd No.41, Alfred House Gardens, Colombo3 And presently of No.24, Katukuruduwatta Road, Ratmalana. Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner-Petitioner-Appellant Vs Ronnie Peiris No.155, Notting Hill Gate, London W 113LF, United Kingdom. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-02-07	SC/APPEAL/114/2017	Edmange Sampath Amarasiri, Pahala Minuwangete, Minuwangete. Accused-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Officer-in-Charge Police Station, Wariyapola. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-02-05	SC/APPEAL/116/2017	Enasalmada Aluth Gedara Ariyasinghe, Malgammana, Gangeyaya, Maraka. Defendant-Respondent Petitioner VS Enasalmada Aluth Gedara Wijesinghe, No.17, Malgammana, Maraka. Plaintiff-Appellant Respondent View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-01-30	SC/SPL LA/57/2017	K.A.Shantha Udayalal Accused - Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-01-24	SC/RULE/3/2014	Weerasekera Arachige Dona Saddhawathie, No. 732, Sri Nanda Mawatha, Madinnagoda, Rajagiriya Complainant Vs. Hemantha Situge, Law Library Hulsftsdorp, Colombo12 Respondent View More	Hon. Buwaneka Aluwihare PC J			Download
2018-01-24	SC/RULE/3/2014	Weerasekera Arachige Dona Saddhawathie, No. 732, Sri Nanda Mawatha, Madinnagoda, Rajagiriya. Complainant Vs Hemantha Situge, Law Library, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. Respondent View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2018-01-22	SC/APPEAL/95/2017	Mahamarakkalage Mahindarathne Kudabolana, Ambalantota. Plaintiff Vs Rate Ralalage Gedera Anuradha Chathurangani No.634, Hirimbura Road, Labuduwa. Defendant AND Mahamarakkalage Mahindarathne Kudabolana, Ambalantota. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs Rate Ralalage Gedera Anuradha Chathurangani No.634, Hirimbura Road, Labuduwa. Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Rate Ralalage Gedera Anuradha Chathurangani No.634, Hirimbura Road, Labuduwa. Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs Mahamarakkalage Mahindarathne Kudabolana, Ambalantota. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent-Respondent View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-01-18	SC/APPEAL/119/2015	DANGOLLAGE KAMAL NANDASIRI Kadadara, Imbulana. PLAINTIFF VS. 1. DANGOLLAGE VINITHA NILMINI Kadadara, Imbulana. 2. KARIYAWASAM WICKRAMA ARACHCHILAGE PIYASENA Kadadara, Imbulana 3. KARIYAWASAM WICKRAMA ARACHCHILAGE THILAKARATHNA Kadadara, Imbulana. DEFENDANTS AND 2. KARIYAWASAM WICKRAMA ARACHCHILAGE PIYASENA Kadadara, Imbulana 2A.KARIYAWASAM WICKRAMA ARACHCHILAGE LEELAWATHIE Kadadara, Imbulana. 3. KARIYAWASAM WICKRAMA ARACHCHILAGE THILAKARATHNA Kadadara, Imbulana. 3A.KARIYAWASAM WICKRAMA ARACHCHILAGE LEELAWATHIE Kadadara, Imbulana. 2A AND 3A DEFENDANTS- APPELLANTS VS. DANGOLLAGE KAMAL NANDASIRI Kadadara, Imbulana. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT DANGOLLAGE VINITHA NILMINI Kadadara, Imbulana. 1st DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN DANGOLLAGE KAMAL NANDASIRI Kadadara, Imbulana. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT- PETITIONER/APPELLANT VS. DANGOLLAGE VINITHA NILMINI Kadadara, Imbulana. 1st DEFENDANT- RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT 2. KARIYAWASAM WICKRAMA ARACHCHILAGE PIYASENA Kadadara, Imbulana 2A.KARIYAWASAM WICKRAMA ARACHCHILAGE LEELAWATHIE Kadad View More	HON. PRASANNA JAYAWARDHENA, PC, J			Download
2018-01-18	SC/APPEAL/59/2012	MADDUMAGE SIRISENA PERERA No. 168, Bellanwila, Boralesgamuwa. PLAINTIFF MADDUMAGE SULOCHANA PRIYANGIKA PERERA No. 107A, Sarabhoomiya, Batakeththara, Piliyandala. Presently at No. 24E, Nawakanda Road, Jaltara, Ranala. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF VS. 1. MADDUMAGE NIMAL GUNASIRI PERERA No. 99, Bellanwila, Boralesgamuwa. 2. GODAWELA WAHUMPURAGE LEELAWATHIE ALIAS MANIKE 3. RANASINGHE ARACHCHIGE GAMINI 4. RANASINGHE ARACHCHIGE GEETHANI 5. RATHNAYAKE SHANTHA PATHMASIRI 6. RANASINGHE ARACHCHIGE DILANI All of No. 181, Bellanwila (near Junction), Boralesgamuwa. DEFENDANTS AND MADDUMAGE SULOCHANA PRIYANGIKA PERERA No. 107A, Sarabhoomiya, Batakeththara, Piliyandala. Presently at No. 24E, Nawakanda Road, Jaltara, Ranala. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT VS. 1. MADDUMAGE NIMAL GUNASIRI PERERA No. 99, Bellanwila, Boralesgamuwa. 2. GODAWELA WAHUMPURAGE LEELAWATHIE ALIAS MANIKE 3. RANASINGHE ARACHCHIGE GAMINI 4. RANASINGHE ARACHCHIGE GEETHANI 5. RATHNAYAKE SHANTHA PATHMASIRI 6. RANASINGHE ARACHCHIGE DILANI All of No. 181, Bellanwila ( View More	HON. PRASANNA JAYAWARDHENA, PC, J			Download
2018-01-18	SC/CHC APPEAL/10/2005	THE SWADESHI INDUSTRIAL WORKS LIMITED No.57, Colombo Road, Kandana. PLAINTIFF VS. 1. DURAI VISVANATHAN RAJPRASAD C/O M/S Rani Grinding Mills, No. 219, Main Street, Matale. . 2. DIRECTOR OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY National Intellectual Property Office, 3rd Floor, Samagam Medura, Colombo. DEFENDANTS AND DURAI VISVANATHAN RAJPRASAD C/O M/S Rani Grinding Mills, No. 219, Main Street, Matale. 1ST DEFENDANT- APPELLANT VS. THE SWADESHI INDUSTRIAL WORKS LIMITED No.57, Colombo Road, Kandana. PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENT DIRECTOR OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY National Intellectual Property Office, 3rd Floor, Samagam Medura, Colombo. 2ND DEFENDANT- RESPONDENT View More	HON. PRASANNA JAYAWARDHENA, PC, J			Download
2018-01-12	SC/SPL LA/239/2017	1.Illandarage Wasantha Detawala, Karadupana, Kegalle.2.Mahanamagam Geeganage Piyadasa alias Baale Detawala, Karadupana, Kegalle.3.Panawala Ralalage Sarath Bandara Panawala, Thibbatumunuwa, Hettimulla, Kegalle.Accused-Petitioners-Petitioners-Vs-Hon. Attorney-General, Attorney-General's Department, Colombo-12.Complainant-Respondent-Respondent View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2018-01-10	SC/FR/362/2017	K.H.G. Kithsiri, 477 F I, Deniyawaththa Road, Battaramulla. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Hon. Faizer Musthapha MP, Minister of Provincial Councils and Local Government, No. 206/1, Lake Drive, Colombo 08. 2. Hon. Karu Jayasuriya, Speaker of Parliament of Sri Lanka, No. 02, Amarasekera Mawatha, Colombo 05. 3. Jayantha C. Jayasuriya P.C., Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 4. Mahinda Deshapriya, Chairman, Election Commission. 5. N.J. Abesekere P.C. Member, Election Commission. 6. Prof. S.R.H. Hoole Member, Election Commission The 4th to 6th Respondents above named [All of the Election Secretariat, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya.] RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Buwaneka Aluwihare PC J			Download
2017-12-15	SC/FR/35/2016	1. Mohamed Hussain Hajiar Muhammad 5/4, Meda Mawatha Weligama. 2. M.H.T. Indrajith Priyadarshana Krishali Hiriketiya Road, Dikwella. 3. Bandula Wijesekera Sirimeda Medura Lelwala Neluwa. 4. Miyanawathura Ihala Gamage Sunil, Morawaka Road, Lelwala Neluwa 5. Daya Pushpakumara Hewa Battige Gunasandana Kamburugamuwa. 6. Lakshman Nirmal Samarasinghe Samaragiri Komangoda Thihagoda. 7. Sanath Hettiarachchi ‘Nirmala’ Kamburupitiya Road, Kirinda Puhulwella. 8. Abeywickrema Pahuruthotage Dayananda, Hanferd Rakwana Road Deniyaya. 9. Sunil Alladeniya ‘Suhanda’ Kaddugewatta, Deiyandara. 10. Ishwarage Mahinda, No. 3, Mananketiya Urubokka. 11. Sujeewa Wedage ‘Gayana’ Kapugama North Devinuwara. 12. Weerasuriya Mudiyanselage Sanjeewa Priyantha, ‘Ranmini’ Gathara Kamburupitiya. 13. Walliwala Gamage Nihal de Silva ‘Siri Niwasa’, Ihala Athuraliya, Akuressa. 14. Somasiri Weeraman Kadduwa Road, Malimbada Palatuwa. 15. I.D. Indunil Prasanga Jayaweera, 75, Yasabedda Road, Akuressa. 16. Hewa Halpage Charles Gunadasa, Pelagawawatte, U View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep,PC, CJ			Download
2017-12-15	SC/APPEAL/13/2016	Batagala Dona Dharmaratne Manike Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs, Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent View More	hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2017-12-15	SC/FR/487/2011	H.M.M. Fashan, Karaitivu, Ponparappi, Puttalam. Petitioner Vs. 1. S.D.A Borellessa, Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 1A. J.J. Rathnasiri, Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 07 2. K.V.P.M.J. Gamage, Director General of Combined Services, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 3. Lathisha P. Liyanage, Director General of Combined Services, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 4. Jayantha Wijerathna, Chief Secretary, North Western Province, 1st Floor, Provincial Office Complex, Kurunegala. 5. N.H.A. Chithrananda, District Secretary, District Secretariat, Puttalam. 6. Ravindra Wikramasinghe, Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Wanathavilluwa. 6A. Sanjeevani Herath, Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Wanathavilluwa. 7. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Priyantha Jayawardena P.C. J			Download
2017-12-15	SC/FR/413/2013	Anura Gonapinuwala, 180, S.H. Dahanayake Mawatha, Galle. Petitioner Vs. 1. Sathya Hettige, Chairman, Public Service Commission. 2. S.C. Mannapperuma. 3. Ananda Seneviratne. 4. N.H. Pathirana. 5. S. Thillanadarajah. 6. A. Mohamed Nahiya. 7. Kanthi Wijethunga. 8. Sunil S. Sirisena. 9. I.M. Zoysa Gunasekara. Members of the Public Service Commission, 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 2A. A. Salam Abdul Waid. 3A. D. Shirantha Wijayatilaka 4A. Dr. Prathap Ramanujam 5A. V. Jegarasasingam. 6A. Santi Nihal Seneviratne 7A. S. Ranugge 8A. D.L. Mendis 9A. Sarath Jayathilaka Members of the Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 10. T.H.L.C Senaratne, Secretary, Public Service Commission, 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 10A. H.M.G. Senevirathne, Secretary, Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, 11. J. Dadallage Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration, Provincial Council and Democratic Governance, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 11A View More	Hon. Priyantha Jayawardena, P.C. J.			Download
2017-12-15	SC/APPEAL/45/2015	Ranasinghe Pedige Lional Subhasinghe, Kothwila Road, Ehaliyagoda. Plaintiff Vs, D.A.D. Engineering (Pvt) Ltd, No. 215/84, Bandaragama Road, Kesbewa, Piliyandala. Defendant And between D.A.D. Engineering (Pvt) Ltd, No. 215/84, Bandaragama Road, Kesbewa, Piliyandala. Defendant-Petitioner Vs, Ranasinghe Pedige Lional Subhasinghe, Kothwila Road, Ehaliyagoda. Plaintiff-Respondent And now between D.A.D. Engineering (Pvt) Ltd, No. 215/84, Bandaragama Road, Kesbewa, Piliyandala. Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs, Ranasinghe Pedige Lional Subhasinghe, Kothwila Road, Ehaliyagoda. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2017-12-14	SC/APPEAL/67/2015	Eliyadura Osman Weerasena Silva, No.4/3, Train Houses, Modera Moratuwa. Plaintiff VS. Eliyadura Padma Ranjani, No.126, Batuwita, Gonapola Junction. Defendant AND Eliyadura Padma Ranjani, No.126, Batuwita, Gonapola junction. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Eliyadura Osman Weerasena Silva No.4/3, Tain Houses, Modara, Moratuwa. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW Eliyadura Padma Ranjani, No.126, Batuwita, Gonapola junction. Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Eliyadura Osman Weerasena Silva, No.4/3, Train Houses, Modera Moratuwa. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. B.P.ALUWIHARE, PC, J,			Download
2017-12-14	SC/FR/361/2015	Rev. Watinapaha Somananda Thero No.101, Sri Vajirasrama Buddhist Centre, Ananda Rajakaruna Mw, Colombo 10. Petitioner 1. Hon. Akila Viraj Kariyawawam Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya” Pelawatta, Battaramulla. Sri Lanka 2. Mr. W. M. Bandusena, Secretary, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Pelawata, Bataramulla. Sri Lanka. 3. Mr. S.U. Wijerathna The Additional Secretary, “Isurupaya”, Pelawatta, Bataramulla. 4. G.R.Chandana Kumara Kadigamuwa No.136 D, Isuru Mawatha, Ellakkla. 5. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	HON. BUWANEKA ALUWIHARE, PC, J.			Download
2017-12-13	SC/FR/118/2013	Wijekoon Herath Mudiyanselage Nimal Bandara No. 20/4, Thekkawatta Road, Thennekumbura, Kandy. PETITIONER Vs. 1. National Gem and Jewellery Authority No. 25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 3. 2. Prasad Galhena 2A. Amitha Kumara Gamage 2B. Anura Gunawardena 2C. Asanaka Sanjeewa Welagedara Chairman and Chief Executive Office National Gem and Jewellery Authority No. 25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 3. SUBSTITUTED 2ND RESPONDENT 3. Sarath Samarakoon 3A. D.M Rupasinghe 3B. B.M.P.N.M. Wickramasinghe 4. Janaka Ratnayake 4A. A.K. Seneviratne 5. Chandra Ekanayake 5A. Bandula Egodage 5B. Ajith Perera 6. Nalaka Thiyambarawatta 6A. A.M. Puviharan 6B. Upali Suraweera 7. R.M Jayathilaka 7A. Navaratne Bandara Alahakoon 8. A.K Seneviratne 8A. Raja Pieris 9. T.H.O Chandrawansha 9A. Nevi Bandara Wegodapola 10. Dr. Nevi Gunawardena 10A. N. Godakanda Board of Directors National Gem and Jewellery Authority No. 25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 3. 11. Hon Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. 12B. B.G Indika Kumudu S View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-12-13	SC/APPEAL/243/2014	Ranawaka Arachchige Brigette Alwis No.31/2, Kuruniyawatta Road, 2nd Lane, Avissawella Road, Wellampitiya. Plaintiff -Vs_ Allen Margret Wijethunga, No.81/9, Allen Mawatha, Dehiwala Defendant (deceased) Hettiarachchige Kusumalatha, No.81/9, Allen Mawatha, Dehiwala Substituted Defendant AND/BETWEEN Hettiarachchige Kusumalatha, No.81/9, Allen Mawatha, Dehiwala Substituted Defendant-Appellant Ranawaka Arachchige Brigette Alwis No.31/2, Kuruniyawatta Road, 2nd Lane, Avissawella Road, Wellampitiya. Plaintiff-Respondent NOW AND/BETWEEN Hettiarachchige Kusumalatha, No.81/9, Allen Mawatha, Dehiwala Substituted Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner -VS- Ranawaka Arachchige Brigette Alwis No.31/2, Kuruniyawatta Road, 2nd Lane, Avissawella Road, Wellampitiya. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC, J,			Download
2017-12-13	SC/APPEAL/34/2015	The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka COMPLAINANT Vs. Kattadige Amarasena ACCUSED AND BETWEEN Kattadige Amarasena ACCUSED-APPELLANT Vs. The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Kattadige Amarasena ACCUSED-APPELLANT-APPELLANT Vs. The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-12-12	SC/FR/55/2016	Disapala Medagedara, No. 124/25, Veediya Bandara Mawatha, Nattandiya. And also at, National Livestock Development Board, Official Quarters, Welisara Farm, Welisara. Petitioner Vs, 1. National Livestock Development Board, No. 40, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 2. Prof. H.W. Cyril, Chairman, National Livestock Development Board, No. 40, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 3. D.U. Jayawardena, General Manager, National Livestock Development Board, No. 40, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 4. Mrs. T.D.S. Wasantha, Audit Superintendent, Auditor General’s Department, Polduwa Road, Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte, Battaramulla. 5. W.C. Ranjan, No. 348/9 Maligathenna, Gurudeniya, Kelaniya. 6. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2017-12-08	SC/FR/599/2011	Kanahipadi Kankanamge Nalin and 01 Others Petitioners Vs. Kamalsiri, Sergeant of Police 59558, Dodangoda Police Station and 07 Others Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J de Abrew, J			Download
2017-12-08	SC/FR/880/2009	Chief Inspector C.V. Weerasena No. 8A, 87, Jayawadana Gama Battaramulla. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Officer-In-Charge/Personnel 2nd Floor New Secretariat Building Colombo 1. 2. Deputy Inspector General/Personnel Range Police Headquarters, Colombo 1. 3. The Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters, Colombo 1. 4. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Colombo 1. 5. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-12-08	SC/APPEAL/103/2005	Madampiti Hettiarachchige Cyril Norbet Tissera PLAINTIFF-JUDGMENT-CREDITOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs. Filicia Mary Magdaline Of No. 131, Negombo Road, Rilaulla, Kandana. SUBSTITUTED-DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-12-08	SC/APPEAL/211/2014	Magedera Gamage Jinapala Dasanayaka, No.12, Harmars Lane, Wellawatta. V. Magedera Gamage Nimal Dasanayaka (Deceased) 5(A) Hemasinghe Mudiyanselage Swarnalatha (After marriage) Dasanayaka. No.90, Koswatta Road, Nawala. AND Hemainghe Mudiyanselage Swarnalatha (After marriage) Dasanayaka, No.90, Koswatta Road, Nawala. 5A DEFENDANT-PETITIONER V. Nagan Sinnaiah No.142 1/1, Galle Road, Colombo 6. RESPONDENT AND Hemasinghe Mudiyanselage Swarnalatha (After marriage) Dasanayaka, No.90, Koswatta Road, Nawala. 5(A)DEFENDANT-PETITIONER-PETITIONER V. Nagan Sinnaiyah No.142 1/1, Galle Road, Colombo 6. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Hemasinghe Mudiyanselage Swarnalatha(After marriage) Dasanayaka, No.90, Koswatta Road, Nawala. 5(A) DEFENDANT-PETITIONER-PETITIONER-APPELLANT V. Nagan Sinnaiyah No.142 1/1, Galle Road, Colombo 6. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	HON. H.N.J.PERERA,J.			Download
2017-12-07	SC/APPEAL/43/2012	M.H.Harison Officer in Charge Police Station Kuttigala, Kuttigala Complainant 1. Baranaduge Asanka No.635, Kachchigala Thunkama 2. Baranaduge Samantha Gunasiri 705, Kachchigala, Thunkama Accused G.Susantha No.19/A, Siyambalape South Siyambalape Claimant Registered Owner In the matter of a Revision application in terms of Article 138 of the constitution read with High Court (Special Provisions) Act No.19 of 1990 Ceylinco Leasing Corporation Limited Of No.97, Hyde Park Corner, Colombo 02 Now Head office at No.283, R.A.De Mel Mawatha Colombo 03. Claimant Absolute Owner Ceylinco Leasing Corporation Limited Of No.97, Hyde Park Corner, Colombo 02 Now Head office at No.283, R.A.De Mel Mawatha Colombo 03. Claimant Absolute Owner Petitioner Vs 1. M.H.Harison Officer in Charge Police Station Kuttigala, Kuttigala Complainant Respondent 2. Baranaduge Asanka No.635, Kachchigala Thunkama 3. Baranaduge Samantha Gunasiri 705, Kachchigala, Thunkama Accused Respondents 4. G.Susantha No.19/A, Siyambalape South Siyambalape Claim View More	Hon. Buwaneka.Aluwihare, PC J.			Download
2017-12-07	SC/APPEAL/70/2016	1. Gnanawathie Abeysinghe 2. Ruvini Sandamali Abeysinghe Both of 47, Depanama, Pannipitiya. PLAINTIFF Vs. 1. D. A. Yahampath 170, “Ranasiri” Horana Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. DECEASED – 1ST DEFENDANT 1A. Padukkage Dona Premalatha Gunawardena 2B. Yahampath Arachchige Don Kavinda Kanchuka 1C. Yahampath Arachchige Dona Nishani Namalika All of 170, “Ranasiri” Horana Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. SUBSTITUTED 1ST DEFENDANT 2. D. Mahinda Ranasinghe 45, Kottawa, Pannipitiya DEFENDANTS AND BETWEEN 1A. Padukkage Dona Premalatha Gunawardena 2B. Yahampath Arachchige Don Kavinda Kanchuka 1C. Yahampath Arachchige Dona Nishani Namalika All of “Ranasiri” No. 170, Horana Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. SUBSTITUTED 1ST DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS Vs. 1. Gnanawathie Abeysinghe 47, Depanama, Pannipitiya. 2. Ruvini Sandamali Abeysinghe Appearing by her Power of Attorney Holder Rathnamali Sirikanthi Abeysinghe Dissanayake. Both of 47, Depanama, Pannipitiya. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTS 2 D. Mahinda Ranasinghe 45, Kottawa, Pannipitiya 2ND DEFENDANT-R View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-12-06	SC/FR/629/2010	C. A. Piyadasa Mithurugama Road, Malaboda, Dodangoda PETITIONER Vs. 1. Mahinda Balasooriya Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 2. Udayakumara Headquarters Inspector of Police Matugama 3. Hon. Attorney General Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC, J,			Download
2017-12-05	SC/APPEAL/101/2016	Kotagedera Liyanage George Patrick Perera, “Shanthi”, Ihala Katuneriya, Katuneriya. Plaintiff Vs Meththasinge Arachchige Mary Linette Fernando, Ihala Katuneriya, Katuneriya. Defendant AND BETWEEN Meththasinge Arachchige Mary Linette Fernando, Ihala Katuneriya, Katuneriya. Defendant Appellant Vs Kotagedera Liyanage George Patrick Perera, “Shanthi”, Ihala Katuneriya, Katuneriya. Plaintiff Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Kotagedera Liyanage George Patrick Perera, “Shanthi”, Ihala Katuneriya, Katuneriya. Plaintiff Respondent Appellant 1A Warnakulasooriya Weerakuttige Mary Therese Fernando 1B Kotagedara Liyanage Disna Mariyam Geethani Perera 1C Kotagedara Liyanage Shanthi Kumar Perera All of, “Shanthi”, Ihala Katuneriya, Katuneriya. Substituted 1A, 1B and 1C Plaintiff Respondent Appellants Vs Meththasinge Arachchige Mary Linette Fernando, Ihala Katuneriya, Katuneriya. Defendant Appellant Respondent View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PCJ.			Download
2017-12-05	SC/SPL LA/66/2017	1. Billingahawattegedara Karunaratne alias Raja Presently at Welikada Prisons 1ST ACCUSED-APPELLANT–PETITIONER -Vs- Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J.			Download
2017-12-05	SC/FR/43/2017	1. Paniyanduwage Saman, No. 110/2, Maha Ambalangoda, Ambalangoda. 2. Paniyanduwage Gigum Shavindra, No. 110/2, Maha Ambalangoda, Ambalangoda. (Appearing by his next friend and father, the above-mentioned 1st Petitioner - Paniyanduwage Saman, No. 110/2, Maha Ambalangoda, Ambalangoda) Petitioners Vs, 1. Hasitha Kesara Weththimuni, Principal, Dharmashoka Vidyalaya, Ambalangoda. 2. K.P. Dayaratne, Vice Principal, Dharmashoka Vidyalaya, Ambalangoda. 3. Dasan Nainduwawadu, 4. K.K. Kema Chandani, 5. Sujani Senaratne, 6. G.D. Nalaka De Silva, 7. Tharaka Maduwage, (All members of the Admissions Interview Board to Grade 1 of Dharmashoka Vidyalaya, Ambalangoda, and c/o. Dharmashoka Vidyalaya, Ambalangoda) 8. Francis Welage, Chairman, Admissions Appeal Board, Dharmashoka Vidyalaya, Ambalangoda 9. Shantha Ariyaratne, Chairman, Admissions Appeal Board, Dharmashoka Vidyalaya, Ambalangoda. 10. P.M. Vikum Priyalal, 11. K.A. Nishanthi, 12. Lushman Waduthanthri, 13. Ujith Indikaratne, 14. B. Anthony, (All of whom were members o View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2017-12-04	SC/APPEAL/185/2015	Watagodagedara Mallika Chandralatha 88A, Ihagama, Madawala Harispattuwa Plaintiff Vs. 1. Hearath Mudiyanselage Punchi Banda Doranegama Road, Medawela Harispattuwa 2. Watagode Gedara Dhammika Ranjith Watagodage 26, Ihagama Medawela, Harispattuwa Defendants And Watagodagedara Mallika Chandralatha 88A, Ihagama, Medawela Harispattuwa Plaintiff-Appellant Vs 1. Hearath Mudiyanselage Punchi Banda Doranegama Road, Medawela Harispattuwa 2. Watagodgedara Dhammika Ranjith Watagodage 26, Ihagama Medawela, Defendants-Respondents And now between Watagodagedara Mallika Chandralatha 88A, Ihagama, Madawala Harispattuwa Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. 1. Hearath Mudiyanselage Punchi Banda Doranegama Road, Medawela, Harispattuwa 2. Watagode Gedara Dhammika Ranjith Watagodage 26, Ihagama Medawela, Harispattuwa Defendants-Respondents-Respondents View More	HON. B.P.ALUWIHARE, PC. J,			Download
2017-11-30	SC/FR/6/2017	1. Anjali Thivaak Pushparajah Rohan 2. Rohan Rahul Ayushman Both of No 161/11, Galle Road, Bambalapitiya, Colombo 04. Petitioners Vs, 1. Akila Viraj Kariyawasam (M.P) Hon. Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya” Battaramulla. 2. Sunil Hettiarachchi, Secretary- Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya” Battaramulla. 3. B.A. Abeyrathna, Principal- Royal Collage, Colombo 07. 4. L.W.K. Silva 5. R.M.I.P. Karunaratna 6. L.K. Jayathilaka 7. A.G.P.A. Gunawansa 8. T. Tennakoon 4th to 08th above all Members of the Interview Board (Admissions to Year 01) Royal Collage, Colombo 07. 9. A.G.N. Jayaweera 10. G.V. Jayasooriya 11. M. Ratnayake 12. M.H. Sunny 13. U.Malalasekara 14. Inoka Gunn 09th to 14th above all Members of the Appeal Board (Admissions to Year 01) Royal Collage, Colombo 07. 15. P.N. Illepperuma Director- National Schools, “Isurupaya” Battaramulla. 16. Hon. the Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2017-11-29	SC/APPEAL/53/2011	Al Hareen Bin Ahamed No. 700, Galle Road, Colombo. 3 PLAINTIFF Vs. Mohamed Rafi Ismail Bin Hassan No. 44/1, Wajira Lane, Off Vajira Road, Colombo 4. DEFENDANT AND Mohamed Rafi Ismail Bin Hassan No. 44/1, Wajira Lane, Off Vajira Road, Colombo 4. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Vs. Al Hareen Bin Ahamed No. 700, Galle Road, Colombo. 3 PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND NOW AND BETWEEN Al Hareen Bin Ahamed No. 700, Galle Road, Colombo. 3 PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs. Mohamed Rafi Ismail Bin Hassan No. 44/1, Wajira Lane, Off Vajira Road, Colombo 4. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-11-28	SC/APPEAL/53/2017	Sumudu Sanjeevanee Nanayakkara No.95, Cemetery Road, Mirihana Nugegoda. Plaintiff Vs 1. Hatton National Bank PLC, No.479, TB Jayah Mawatha Colombo10 Having a branch Office at No.63, Moratuwa Road, Piliyandala. 2. Don Ashok Ranjan Vitharana No.326/2 Pitakotte, Kotte Defendant AND Sumudu Sanjeevanee Nanayakkara No.95, Cemetery Road, Mirihana Nugegoda. Plaintiff-Petitioner Vs 1. Hatton National Bank PLC, No.479, TB Jayah Mawatha Colombo10 Having a branch Office at No.63, Moratuwa Road, Piliyandala. 2. Don Ashok Ranjan Vitharana No.326/2 Pitakotte, Kotte (DECEASED) 2a. Dona Sriyani Malkanthi Vitharana 2b. Dona Chandani Kamal Vitharana 2c. Dona Roshani Kumari Vitharana 2d. Don Sudantha Niroshan Vitharana All of No.326/2, Pitakotte, Kotte Defendant-Respondents AND NOW BEWEEN Sumudu Sanjeevanee Nanayakkara No.95, Cemetery Road, Mirihana Nugegoda. Plaintiff-Petitioner-Appellant Vs 1. Hatton National Bank PLC, No.479, TB Jayah Mawatha Colombo10 Having a branch Office at No.63, Moratuwa Road, Piliyandala. 2a. Dona Sriy View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J			Download
2017-11-28	SC/APPEAL/206/2016	1. ILLEKUTTIGE HELEN STELLA PHILOMINA FEENANDO Menikkurunduwatta, Devalamulla, Govinna 2.THUDUWAGE DONA KARUNAWATHIE PERERA Govinna Junction, Govinna PLAINTIFFS Vs. GOVINI THANTHRIGE PREMASIRI Wanawitiya, Devamulla, Govinna DEFENDANT IN THE HIGH COURT OF CIVIL APPEAL KALUTARA ILLEKUTTIGE HELEN STELLA PHILOMINA FEENANDO Menikkurunduwatta, Devalamulla, Govinna FIRST PLAINTIFF -APPELLANT Vs GOVINI THANTHRIGE PREMASIRI Wanawitiya, Devamulla, Govinna DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT THUDUWAGE DONA KARUNAWATHIE PERERA Govinna Junction, Govinna SECOND PLAINTIFF-RES NOW IN THE SUPREME COURT ILLEKUTTIGE HELEN STELLA PHILOMINA FEENANDO Menikkurunduwatta, Devalamulla, Govinna First Plaintiff-Appellant-Ptitioner-Appellant VS GOVINI THANTHRIGE PREMASIRI of Wanawitiya, Devamulla, Govinna Defendant-Respondent- Respondent- Respondent THUDUWAGE DONA KARUNAWATHI PERERA Govinna Junction Govinna KARUNAWATHIE PERERA of Govinna Junction, Govinna Second Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2017-11-27	SC/APPEAL/66/2016	Hewa Devage Raymond Karunathilake, No. 167, Jaya Mawatha, Oruwalpitiya, Athurugiriya. Plaintiff Vs 1. Suduwa Devage Nimal Somasiri 2. Suduwa Devage Sunil Pathmasiri 3. Suduwa Devage Nihal Jayasiri 4. SuduwaDevage Charlette Somalatha(deceased) All of Jaya Mawatha, Oruwalpitiya, Athurugiriya. 4A. Hewa Devage Lilani Fernando, Jaya Mawatha, Oruwalpitiya, Athurugiriya. 5. Suduwa Devage Lal Deepananda, No. 165, Jaya Mawatha, Oruwalpitiya, Athurugiriya. 6. Pathmulla Kankanamalage Gunathilake, No. 299/4, Godagama Road, Athurugiriya. 7. Hakmana Vithanage Kamalawathie, No. 299/1, Godagama Road, Athurugiriya. 8. Singakkuti Arachchige Wimalasena, No. 836/1, Athurugiriya Road, Homagama. 9. Dehipitiya Mirissage Ariyawansa, No. 27, Nandana Udyanaya, Yahampath Mawatha, Maharagama. 10. Dehipitiya Mirissage Sedin, No. 27, Nandana Udyanaya, Yahampath Mawatha, Maharagama. 11. Hewa Devage Dhammika Chandrasiri, No. 165, Jaya Mawatha, Athurugiriya. 12. Hewa Devage Sriyani Chandrika, No. 156/5, Abayasinghe Mawatha, Athurugiriya. 13. View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PCJ.			Download
2017-11-27	SC/FR/175/2014	Mr. S.A. Janapr iya Karunathilake 166/18, Kelaniyawatta, Hakurukumbura, Mirigama. Petitioner Vs 1. Hon. Maithripala Sirisena, Minister of Health, Suwasiripaya, Ministry of Health, No. 385, Rev. Baddegama Wimalasena Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 1A. Hon. Rajitha Senarathna, Minister of Health, Suwasiripaya, Ministry of Health, No. 385, Rev. Baddegama Wimalasena Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. Sudharma Karunara tne, Secretary Ministry of Health, Suwasiripaya Ministry of Health, No. 385, Rev. Baddegama Wimalasena Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2A. Anura Jayawickrama, Secretary Ministry of Health, Suwasiripaya Ministry of Health, No. 385, Rev. Baddegama Wimalasena Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2B. Janaka Sugathadasa Secretary Ministry of Health, Suwasiripaya Ministry of Health, No. 385, Rev. Baddegama Wimalasena Thero Ma watha, Colombo 10. 3. Mr. J.M.I.K. Jayathilake, The Deputy Director General of Biomedical Engineering Services, Division of Biomedical Engineering Services, No.27, De Saram Place, Colombo 10. 4. Dr. Y.D .N. Former Secretary to the Ministry of Health, No.385, Rev. Baddegama Wimalasena Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. Member of the Interview Panel 5. Dr. Siyabalagoda, Deputy Director General ( PHS II) Suwasiripaya Ministry of Health, No. 385, Rev. Baddegama Wimalasena Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. Member of the Interview Panel 6. Mr. R.D.A. Jayanthi Director, Engineering Service Board, Ministry of Public Ad ministration 7. Mr. S.S.L.Herath, Director of Biomedical Engineering Services, Division of Biomedical Engineering Services, No.27, De Saram Place, Colombo 10. AND OTHERS View More	Hon. Sisira J de Abrew, J			Download
2017-11-24	SC/APPEAL/147/2016	Menikdiwela Senevirathnage Chandrasiri Sisira Kumara, No. 35/5, Rosmead Place, Colombo 07. Plaintiff Vs 1. Hapuarachchige Jayaratne Perera, No. 279/1, Hospital Road, Kiribathgoda, Kelaniya. 2. Seylan Securities and Finance (Pvt.) Ltd., Galle Road, Colombo 03. 3. Registrar, Land Registry, Colombo 07. Defendants THEN BETWEEN Hapuarachchige Jayaratne Perera, No. 279/1, Hospital Road, Kiribathgoda, Kelaniya. 1st Defendant Appellant. Vs Menikdiwela Senevirathnage Chandrasiri Sisira Kumara, No. 35/5, Rosmead Place, Colombo 07. Plaintiff Respondent 2. . Seylan Securities and Finance (Pvt.) Ltd., Galle Road, Colombo 03. 3. Registrar, Land Registry, Colombo 07 2nd and 3rd Defendants Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Menikdiwela Senevirathnage Chandrasiri Sisira Kumara, No. 35/5, Rosmead Place, Colombo 07. Plaintiff Respondent Appellant Vs Hapuarachchige Jayaratne Perera, No. 279/1, Hospital Road, Kiribathgoda, Kelaniya. 1ST Defendant Appellant Respondent 2. Seylan Securities and Finance (Pvt.) Ltd., Galle Road, Colombo 03. 3. View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PCJ.			Download
2017-11-24	SC/APPEAL/107/2010	1.Ranminipura Dewage Hemathunga 2.Ranminipura Dewage Darmasena 3.Ranminipura Dewage Gunathilaka 4.Ranminipura Hewage Somarathna 5.Raminipura Dewage Malani Premasiri 6.Ranminipura Dewage Sunil Dayarathna All of Kamuradeniya Danowita. PLAINTIFFS Vs 1.Ranminipura Dewage Agoris 1a.Ranminipura Dewage Karunawathi 2.Ranminipura Dewage Thegis 2a.Ranminipura Dewage Thegis 3.Ranminipura Dewage Maiya 4.Ranminipura Dewage Jayasinghe 5.Ranminipura Dewage Gunasinghe 6.Ranminipura Dewage Nimal Ranasingha 7.Ranminipura Dewage Peries 8a.Raminipura Dewage Senewirathna 8a.Ranminipura Dewage Anoma Chadralatha Senewirathna 9.Ranminipura Dewage Martin 10.Ranminipura Dewage Alpenis 10a.Ranminipura Dewage Jayalath Premathilaka All of Kamburadeniya, Danowita. 11.Corporative Society, Kamburadeniya, Danowita. 12.Ranminipura Dewage Karunathi 13.Ranminipura Dewage Bebinona 14.Ranminipura Dewage Jen 15.Ranminipura Dewage Premalatha 16.Ranminipura Dewage Albert 17.Ranminipura Dewage Smaradasa 18.Ranminipura Dewage Somapala 19.Ranminipura D View More	HON. H.N.J.PERERA, J.			Download
2017-11-24	SC/CHC APPEAL/36/2006	Telecommunication Consultants India Limited. (A Government of India Enterprise), 43, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019, India. Plaintiff Vs Pan Asia Bank Limited, 450, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Defendant AND Pan Asia Bank Limited, 450, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Defendant Appellant Vs Telecommunication Consultants India Limited. (A Government of India Enterprise), 43, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019, India. Plaintiff Respondent View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PCJ.			Download
2017-11-22	SC/APPEAL/110/2014	1. Abdul Hameed Marikkar Mohamed Ismail 2. Mohamed Ismail Ummul Kadeeja Both of No.185, Old Road, Beruwela. PLAINTIFFS Vs. Mohamed Sainadeen Mohamed Saleem Of No. 181/1, Old Road, Beruwela. DEFENDANT AND Mohamed Sainadeen Mohamed Saleem Of No. 181/1, Old Road, Beruwela. (DECEASED) DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Mohamed Saleem Misriya No. 181/1, Old Road, Beruwela. SUBSTITUED-DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Abdul Hameed Marikar Mohamed Ismail (DECEASED) 1ST PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT 2. Mohamed Ismail Ummul Kadeeja (DECEASED) Both of No. 185, Old Road, Beruweala. SUBSTITUTED-1ST PLAINTIFF AND 2ND PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT 1. Mohamed Ismail Mohamed 2. Mohamed Ismail Ahamed Maood 3. Mohamed Ismail Abdul Rahuman 4. Mohamed Ismail Sulaiha Umma 5. Mohamed Ismail Ahamed Bari 6. Mohamed Ismail Abdul Cader All of No. 185, Sheik Jamaldeen Road, Beruwala. 7. Abdul Raheema Umma Nafeema 8. Abdul Raheema Umma Aasiya 9. Abdul Raheema Umma Ameena All of No. 181/1, Sheik Jamaldeen Road, Beruwala. SUBSTITUTED-PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Moh View More	HON. ANIL GOONERATNE J.			Download
2017-11-22	SC/APPEAL/227/2014	Ceylon Bank Employees Union, No. 20, Temple Road, Maradana, Colombo 10. ( on behalf of S.M.Ranbanda ) Applicant Vs Peoples’ Bank, Head Office, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Respondent AND Peoples’ Bank, Head Office, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Respondent Appellant Vs Ceylon Bank Employees Union, No. 20, Temple Road, Maradana, Colombo 10. ( on behalf of S.M.Ranbanda ) Applicant Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Ceylon Bank Employees Union, No. 20, Temple Road, Maradana, Colombo 10. ( on behalf of S.M.Ranbanda ) Applicant Respondent Appellant. Vs Peoples’ Bank, Head Office, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Respondent Appellant Respondent View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PCJ.			Download
2017-11-22	SC/APPEAL/43/2017	1. Beauty Ramani Ratnaweera 2. Olokku Patabendige Amarasena Both of “Amara”, Morakatiara, Nakulugamuwa. PLAINTIFFS Vs. 1. Amarakoon Kankanamge Sugunawathie 2. Dhammika Munasinghe Both of opposite O.P. Rice Mills, Kiralawalkatuwa. Embilipitiya. DEFENDANTS AND 1. Beauty Ramani Ratnaweera 2. Olokku Patabendige Amarasena (DECEASED) 2A. Olokku Patabendige Yenika Gayani Both of “Amara”, Morakatiara, Nakulugamuwa. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS Vs. 1. Amarakoon Kankanamge Sugunawathie 2. Dhammika Munasinghe Both of opposite O.P. Rice Mills, Kiralawalkatuwa. Embilipitiya. DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Amarakoon Kankanamge Sugunawathie 2. Dhammika Munasinghe Both of opposite O.P. Rice Mills, Kiralawalkatuwa. Embilipitiya. DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-PETITIONERS Vs. 3. Beauty Ramani Ratnaweera 4. Olokku Patabendige Amarasena 2A. Olokku Patabendige Yenika Gayani Both of “Amara”, Morakatiara, Nakulugamuwa. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-11-17	SC/FR/372/2015	1. M.W. Leelawathie Hariot Perera, 2. W.W. Raj Lakmal Fernando 3. W.W. Roshini Shivanthi Fernando All of No 12, Kithalandaluwa Road, Willorawatte, Moratuwa. Petitioners Vs, 1. N.K. Illangakoon, Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 1A. P. Jayasundera, Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 2. Officer-in- Charge, Police Station, Moratuwa. 3. Officer-in- Charge, Police Station, Moratumulla. 4. Widanalage Amesh Asantha de Mel, No. 04/03, 1st lane, Kithalandaluwa Road, Willorawatte, Moratuwa. 5. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12 Respondents View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2017-11-15	SC/FR/136/2014	Naomi Michelle Cokeman, 8, Waveley Road, Coventry England CV 13 AH, United Kingdom. PETITIONER Vs. 1. The Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 2. Police Sergeant Upasena (22143) 3. Police Inspector Suraweera, Acting Officer-In-Charge THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS OF POLICE STATION, KATUNAYAKE 4. Officer-In-Charge Negombo Prison, Negombo. 5. N.K. Illangakoon Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 1. 6. Chulananda De Silva Controller General of Immigration and Emigration, Ananda Rajakaruna Mawatha, Colombo 10. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-11-10	SC/APPEAL/154/2015	Mohiden Kasim Bibi Golu Maradankulama, Nachchiduwa, Anuradapura Plaintiff Vs S M Ratnawathi Manike Athuruwella, Nachchiduwa, Anuradapura Defendant AND Mohiden Kasim Bibi Golu Maradankulama, Nacchaduwa, Anuradapura Plaintiff-Appellant Vs S M Ratnawathi Manike Athuruwella, Nachchiduwa, Anuradapura Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BEWEEN S M Ratnawathi Manike Athuruwella, Nachchiduwa, Anuradapura Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs Mohiden Kasim Bibi Golu Maradankulama, Nachchiduwa, Anuradapura Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent (Now Deceased) 1. Moonafiya New Town, Nachchiduwa, Anuradapura 2. Poisa Umma New Town, Nachchiduwa, Anuradapura 3. Badurunisa No.107, Kandara, Katukaliyawa, Ihalagama, Mihimnthalaya, 4. Noorthaira Umma New Town, Nachchiduwa, Anuradapura 5. SooraThumma No.41 New, Golumaradan Kulama Nachchiduwa, Anuradapura 6. Muhamath Kamsadeen New Town, Nachchiduwa, Anuradapura 7. Saripdeen ge Pausul Janapdeen New Town, Nachchiduwa, Anuradapura 8. Mohamad Asmeer Khan New Town, Nachchiduwa, Anuradapura Su View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J			Download
2017-11-08	SC/FR/138/2015	D.P.L. Sunil Shantha Gunasekara “Ariya Niwasa”, Widya Chandra Mawatha, Digaradda, Ahangama. PETITIONER Vs. 1. S.S. Hettiarachchi Director General of Pensions, Department of Pensions, Maligawatte, Colombo 10. 2. Justice Sathya Hettige P.C., Chairman 2A. Dharmasena Dissanayake, Chairman. 3. S.C. Mannapperuma, Member 3A. A. Salam Abdul Waid, Member. 4. Ananda Seneviratne, Member 4A. D. Shirantha Wijayatillake, Member 5. N.H. Pathirana, Member 5A Prathap Ramanujam, Member 6. Kanthi Wijetunge, Member 6A V. Jegarasasingam, Member 7. Sunil S. Sirisena, Member 7A. Santi Nihal Seneviratne, Member 8. S. Thillanadarajah, Member 8A. S. Ranugge, Member 9. A. Mohamed Nahiya, Member 9A. D.L. Mendis, Member 10. I.M. Zoysa Gunasekara, Member 10A. A Sarath Jayathilaka, Member 1st to 10th – All of Public Service Commission No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 11. T.M.L.C. Senaratne Secretary, Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 11A. H.M.G. Senevirathne Secretary, Public Service Co View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-11-02	SC/APPEAL/99/2017	1. N.W.E.Buwaneka Lalitha Keembiela, Beddegama, Galle. 2. J.K.Amarawardhana 8, Bovitiyamaulla, Yatalamatta. 3. A.C.Gunasekera “Lakshmi”, Unawatuna, Galle. 4. J.K.Wijesinghe. 48-10A, Main Street, Ambalangoda 5. H.L.Prasanna Deepthilal 601/1, Visakam Road, Galle. Petitioners -Vs- 1. Geetha Samanmali Kumarasinghe No.2, Temple Road, Nawala, Rajagiriya. 2. M.N.Ranasinghe Controlller General of Immigration and Emigration Department of Immigration and Emigration 41, Ananda Rajakaruna Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3. Mahinda Amaraweera Secretary. United People‟s Freedom Alliance, 301, T.B.Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. 4. Dhammika Dassanayake. Secretary General of Parliament. Parliament of Sri Lanka, Sri Jayawardenapura, Kotte. Respondents AND NOW Geetha Samanmali Kumarasinghe No.2, Temple Road, Nawala, Rajagiriya. 1st Respondent Petitioner-Appellant 1. N.W.E.Buwaneka Lalitha Keembiela, Beddegama, Galle. 2. J.K.Amarawardhana 8, Bovitiyamaulla, Yatalamatta. 3. A.C.Gunasekera “Lakshmi”, Unawatuna, Galle. 4. J.K.Wijesinghe. 48-10A, View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2017-10-31	SC/FR/444/2009	Major K.D.S. Weerasinghe, No. 100/2, Wewatenna Road, Ampitiya, Kandy Petitioner Vs, 1. Colonel G.K.B. Dissanayake, Colonel Coordinator (Volunteer) Volunteer Force Headquarters, Shalawa, Kosgama. 2. Major General Sumith Balasooriya, Commander of the Sri Lanka Army, Volunteer Force Headquarters, Akuregoda, Pelawatte, 2A. Major General H.C.P. Gunathilake, Commander of the Sri Lanka Army, Volunteer Force Headquarters, Akuregoda, Pelawatte, 3. Brigadier Padumadasa, Military Secretary, Army Headquarters, Colombo 02. 3A. Major General M.U.M.M.W. Senanayake, Military Secretary, Army Headquarters, Colombo 02. 4. General Sarath Fonseka, Commander of the Ari Lanka Army, Army Headquarters, Colombo 02. 4A. Lt. General Jagath Jayasuriya, Commander of the Ari Lanka Army, Army Headquarters, Colombo 02. 4B. Lt. General A.W.J.C. de Silva, Commander of the Ari Lanka Army, Army Headquarters, Colombo 02. 5. Gotabhaya Rajapaksha, Secretary of the Ministry of Defence, Colombo 03. 5A. B.M.U.D Basnayake, Secretary of the Ministry of D View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2017-10-31	SC/FR/5/2017	1. Mallawa Weerage Chaminda Sri Lal Wijesekara, No. 17, Noel Senevirathna Mawatha, Kurunegala. 2. Mallawa Weerage Tharushi Chathurya Wijesekara, No. 17, Noel Senevirathna Mawatha, Kurunegala. Petitioners Vs, 1. Mrs. Soma Rathnayake, Principal, Maliyadeva Balika Vidyalaya, Kurunegala. 2. Director of National Schools, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Baththaramulla. 3. Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Baththaramulla. 4. K. Narasinghe, Member, (Interview Board to admit students to Grade 01) Maliyadeva Balika Vidyalaya, Kurunegala. 5. B.H.C.M. Abeysinghe, Member, (Interview Board to admit students to Grade 01) Maliyadeva Balika Vidyalaya, Kurunegala. 6. P.H.N. Karunasiri, Member, (Interview Board to admit students to Grade 01) Maliyadeva Balika Vidyalaya, Kurunegala. 7. S.M.P.B. Siriwardhana, Member, (Interview Board to admit students to Grade 01) Maliyadeva Balika Vidyalaya, Kurunegala. 8. D.M.B. Dissanayake, Chairman, (Appeal Board to Admit Students to Grade 01) Maliyadeva Balika Vidyalaya, Kuruneg View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2017-10-30	SC/FR/335/2016	1. B.M.Asiri Tharanga 21-5/1, Araluwagoda Road, Madawala Bazaar, Madawala. 2. Thiyagarajah Mahendran, 143/124, Vihara Mawatha, Mulgampola, Kandy. Petitioners Vs 1. The Principal, Kingswood College, Kandy. 2. The Director, National Schools, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Battaramulla. 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Battaramulla. 4. The Honourable Attorney General, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PCJ			Download
2017-10-27	SC/APPEAL/175/2015	Bank of Ceylon York Street, Colombo 1. PLAINTIFF Vs. Aswedduma Tea Manufactures (Pvt) Ltd., No. 28, Park Road, Jayanthipura, Battaramulla. DEFENDANT AND BETWEEN Bank of Ceylon York Street, Colombo 1. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs. Aswedduma Tea Manufactures (Pvt) Ltd., No. 28, Park Road, Jayanthipura, Battaramulla. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Bank of Ceylon York Street, Colombo 1. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-PETITIONER Vs. Aswedduma Tea Manufactures (Pvt) Ltd., No. 28, Park Road, Jayanthipura, Battaramulla. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-10-26	SC/APPEAL/140/2012, SC/APPEAL/139/2012	1. M.R.Sanjeewani Seneviratne, No. 22/4, Mawilmada, Kandy. 2. M.D.Chandrasiri Seneviratne, No. 22/4. Mawilmada, Kandy. Plaintiffs Vs M. Priyankara Samarajeewa, No. 253/1/8, Stanley Thillakeratne Mawatha, Nugegoda. Defendant AND BETWEEN M. Priyankara Samarajeewa, No. 253/1/8, Stanley Thillakeratne Mawatha, Nugegoda Defendant Appellant Vs 1. M.R.Sanjeewani Seneviratne, No. 22/4, Mawilmada, Kandy. 2. M.D.Chandrasiri Seneviratne, No. 22/4. Mawilmada, Kandy. Plaintiff Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN M. Priyankara Samarajeewa, No. 253/1/8, Stanley Thillakeratne Mawatha, Nugegoda. Defendant Appellant Appellant Vs 1. M.R.Sanjeewani Seneviratne, No. 22/4, Mawilmada, Kandy. 2. M.D.Chandrasiri Seneviratne, No. 22/4. Mawilmada, Kandy. Plaintiff Respondent Respondents In the matter of an Appeal from the Civil Appellate High Court 1 M.R.Sanjeewani Seneviratne, No. 22/4, Mawilmada, Kandy. 2.M.D.Chandrasiri Seneviratne, No. 22/4. Mawilmada, Kandy. Plaintiffs Vs M. Priyankara Samarajeewa, No. 253/1/8, Stanley Thillakeratne Mawath View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PCJ.			Download
2017-10-23	SC/APPEAL/30/2015	Talagalage Punchi Singho No. 251, Seelammala Mawatha, Oruwala South, Athurugiriya. PLAINTIFF Vs. Ratnayake Mudiyanselage Bandara Menike No. 64/C, Vidyala Mawatha, Oruwala. DEFENDANT AND Ratnayake Mudiyanselage Bandara Menike No. 64/C, Vidyala Mawatha, Oruwala. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Vs. Talagalage Punchi Singho No. 251, Seelammala Mawatha, Oruwala South, Athurugiriya. (Deceased) PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT Thalagalage Wijeratna No. 251, Seelammala Mawatha, Oruwala South, Athurugiriya. SUBSTITUTED-PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Thalagalage Wijeratna No. 251, Seelammala Mawatha, Oruwala South, Athurugiriya. SUBSTITUTED-PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. Ratnayake Mudiyanselage Bandara Menike No. 64/C, Vidyala Mawatha, Oruwala. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-10-20	SC/APPEAL/144/2015	Wickremagedera Ranhamy N0-25, Megammana Road, Wattegama. (Deceased) PLAINTIFF Wickremagedera Ukkumenika No.25, Meegammana Road, Wattegama. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF Wickremagedera Karunaratne Wickremage, No.25, Meegammana Road, Wattegama. 1st DEFENDANT-SUBSTITUTED-PLAINTIFF V. 2.Wickremagedera Abeysinghe 3.Wickremagedera Wickremaratne 4.Wickremagedera Indra Wickremaratne, 5.Wickremagedera Pragnarathna 6.Gunarathna Manike, All of Temple Road, Meegammana, Wattegama. 7.M.G.NettiKumara, No 51, Meegammana, Wattegama. DEFENDANTS AND M.G.Netti Kumara, No 51. Meegammana, Wattegama. 7th DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 7A.Kuragoda Gamlathge Gnanawathie 7B.N.M.G.Menaka Ranjan Netikaumara 7C.N.M.G.Kushan Chandana Nettikumara 7D.D.N.M.G.Venulin Sandya Nettikumara All of No.51, Meegammana, Wattegama. SUBSTITUTED 7TH DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS V. Wickremagedera Karunarathne Wickremage No-25, Meegammana Road, Wattegama. 1st DEFENDANT-SUBSTITUTED-PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT 2.Wickremagedera Abeysinghe 3.Wickremagedera Wickremaratne 4.Wickremagedera Indra View More	HON. H.N.J.PERERA, J.			Download
2017-10-16	SC/APPEAL/89/2013	Neil Jayasundera No. 283, Morris Road, Maitipe, Galle PLAINTIFF Vs. Agostinu Saranapala No. 16A, Aluthgedarawatta 3rd Lane, Maitipe, Galle. DEFENDANT AND Neil Jayasundera No. 283, Morris Road, Maitipe, Galle PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs. Agostinu Saranapala No. 16A, Aluthgedarawatta 3rd Lane, Maitipe, Galle. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Agostinu Saranapala No. 16A, Aluthgedarawatta 3rd Lane, Maitipe, Galle. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs. Neil Jayasundera No. 283, Morris Road, Maitipe, Galle PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-10-09	SC/APPEAL/8/2016	Nadaraja Rajendra No. 40, Dr. E.A. Cooray Mawatha, Colombo 6. PLAINTIFF Vs. Thevathasan Sritharan No. 8/4, Vivekananda Avenue, Colombo 6. DEFENDANT AND BETWEEN Nadaraja Rajendra No. 40, Dr. E.A. Cooray Mawatha, Colombo 6. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER Vs. Thevathasan Sritharan No. 8/4, Vivekananda Avenue, Colombo 6. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN Thevathasan Sritharan No. 8/4, Vivekananda Avenue, Colombo 6. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs. Nadaraja Rajendra No. 40, Dr. E.A. Cooray Mawatha, Colombo 6. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Thevathasan Sritharan No. 8/4, Vivekananda Avenue, Colombo 6. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs. Nadaraja Rajendra No. 40, Dr. E.A. Cooray Mawatha, Colombo 6. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-10-06	SC/FR/556/2010	Ekanayake Udaya Kumara Ekanayake, “Sriyani”, Diyambalapitiya, Kotugoda. Petitioner Vs, 1. Mahinda Balasooriya, Inspector General of Police, Inspector General’s Office, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 2. Officer in Charge, Personal Administration, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 3. Deputy Inspector General, Discipline and Conduct Division, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 4. Director Legal, Police Legal Division, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 5. The Secretary, Police Commission, National Police Commission, 3rd Floor, Rotunda Towers, No.109, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 6. The Secretary, Public Service Commission. Carlwill Place, Colombo 03. 7. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Law and Order, 15/5, Baladaksha Mw, Colombo 03. 8. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 9. N.K. Illangakoon, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 10. Nanda Mallawarachchi, The Secretary, Ministry of Law and Order, Janadhipathi Mw, Colombo 01. 11. Sathya Hettige, Chairman, Public Ser View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2017-10-02	SC/APPEAL/22/2016	K.L.S. Mendis, No. 28, St. Peters Lane, Moratuwella, Moratuwa. Applicant Appellant Petitioner Vs Hatton National Bank, PLC, Head Office, Colombo 10. Respondent Respondent Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2017-09-27	SC/FR/431/2005	Kandage Gamini de Silva 264, Bandaranayake Mawatha, Katubedda, Moratuwa. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Nishan de Silva Officer in Charge Police Station Piliyandala. 2. Manjula Police Constable (38356) Police Station, Kohuwela. 3. P. S. Rajakaruna 4. K. M. Smarakoon Banda 3rd & 4th Respondents both of Special Investigations Branch Ceylon Electricity Board 540, Colombo. 5. U. M. C. Alahakoon Regional Engineer, CEB Depot, 76/1, Attidiya Road, Rathmalana. 6. P. Nishantha Priyankara Assistant Superintendent CEB Depot Kesbewa. 7. Ceylon Electricity Board No. 50, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. 8. Nalaka Udayanga Senanayaka “Dimuth”, Iddagoda, Mathugama. 9. Ruhunu Wickramarachchi Manager Investigations, Ceylon Electricity Board No. 50, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. 10. Hon. Attorney General Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-09-21	SC/APPEAL/82/2016	1) Manohar Aranraj, No.49, Sri Bhodhiraja Road, Amor Street, Colombo 12. 2) Mahalingam Gopinath, No.59/36, 5 th Lane, St.Benedicts Road, Kotahena, Colombo 13. Sureties Appellants Petitioners Vs 1) Officer in Charge, (Unit Colombo Fraud Investigation Bureau, Colombo 06. Complaint Respondent Respondent 1. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s D epartment, Colombo 12. Respondent Respondent 3) Pushparaja Gokulam, 1 st Floor, Super market, Kotahena. Accused Respondent Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J.de Abrew, J			Download
2017-09-19	SC/APPEAL/130/2010	K.L.A. Kulathunga, 624/8, Godage Mawatha, Anuradhapura. Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs, Karthigesu Nagaligam, Depot Road, Kanagapuram, Killinochchi. (The Deceased Plaintiff) (Appeared through his Power of Attorney holder Vairamuttu Thanapakyam) Nagalingam Rasalingam, 10, Ananda Nagar, KIllinochchi. Substituted Plaintiff- Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda PC J			Download
2017-09-19	SC/APPEAL/152/2014	R.H.S.C. Soyza, Kimbulamaladeniya, Berathuduwa, Gonapeenuwala. Applicant Vs Asiri Central Hospitals PLC, No. 37, Horton Place, Colombo 07. Respondent A N D Asiri Central Hospitals PLC, No.37, Horton Place, Colombo 07. Respondent Appellant Vs R.H.S.C. Soyza, Kimbulamaladeniya, Berathuduwa, Gonapeenuwala. Applicant Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Asiri Central Hospitals PLC, No. 37, Horton Place, Colombo 07. Respondent Appellant Appellant Vs R.H.S.C. Soyza Kimbulamaladeniya, Berathuduwa, Gonapeenuwala. Applicant Respondent Respondent View More	S. EVA WANASUNDERA PCJ. – ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE			Download
2017-09-18	SC/APPEAL/179/2015	1. Galagedarage Don Chandrawathie, No. 12, Chandralekha Mawatha, Colombo 08. 2. Galagedarage Don Premaratne alias Pemaratne, No. 109, Dr. N.M.Perera Mawatha, Colombo 08. Now of, No. 12, Chandralekha Mawatha, Colombo 08. 3. Galagederage Don Manel, No. 20, Chandralekha Mawatha, Colombo 08. 4. Galagederage Don Dammika Priyantha, No. 105, Dr. N.M.Perera Mawatha, Colombo 08. Plaintiffs Vs 1. Carmen Angeline de Silva alias Angeline Naidu 2. Fathima Farzana Rafik alias Shafik Both of , No. 109, Dr. N.M.Perera Mawatha, Colombo 08. Defendants A N D 1. Galagedarage Don Chandrawathie, No. 12, Chandralekha Mawatha, Colombo 08. 2. Galagedarage Don Premaratne alias Pemaratne, No. 109, Dr. N.M.Perera Mawatha, Colombo 08. Now of, No. 12, Chandralekha Mawatha, Colombo 08. 3. Galagederage Don Manel, No. 20, Chandralekha Mawatha, Colombo 08. 4. Galagederage Don Dammika Priyantha, No. 105, Dr. N.M.Perera Mawatha, Colombo 08. Plaintiff Petitioners Vs 1. Carmen Angeline de Silva alias Angeline Naidu 2. Fathima Farzana Rafik alias View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PCJ. - ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE			Download
2017-09-14	SC/APPEAL/103/2015	Samara Archchige Chandra Sagara Sri Palabaddala, Ratnapura Accused-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant vs 1. Officer-in-Charge Police Station, Kiribathgoda. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent 2. Honourable Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12 Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J			Download
2017-09-14	SC/APPEAL/50/2014	J B Dissanayake No. 44/13, Dodandeniya Matale Plaintiff Vs Seemasahitha Keells Tours (Pudgalika) Samagama Correct Name Keells Tours (Private) Limited No.429 Ferguson Road Colombo 15 Defendant AND BETWEEN Seemasahitha Keells Tours (Pudgalika) Samagama Correct Name Keells Tours (Private) Limited No.429 Ferguson Road Colombo 15 Defendant-Appellant Vs J B Dissanayake No. 44/13, Dodandeniya Matale Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Seemasahitha Keells Tours (Pudgalika) Samagama Correct Name Keells Tours (Private) Limited No.429 Ferguson Road Colombo 15 Defendant-Appellant- Appellant Vs J B Dissanayake No. 44/13, Dodandeniya Matale Plaintiff-Respondent_ Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2017-09-14	SC/APPEAL/61/2012	G. M. M. Majeed No. 94/1, School Lane, Galhinna. 1ST DEFENDANT-PETITIONER Vs. G.R.W.M. Weerakoone No. 09, Colombo Street, Kandy. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT Jayantha Fernando 29/9. Sri Pushpananda Mawatha, Kandy. 2ND DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN G. M. M. Majeed No. 94/1, School Lane, Galhinna. 1ST DEFENDANT-PETITIONER-PETITIONER Vs. G.R.W.M. Weerakoone No. 09, Colombo Street, Kandy. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT Jayantha Fernando 29/9. Sri Pushpananda Mawatha, Kandy. 2ND DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	HON. ANIL GOONERATNE J.			Download
2017-09-14	SC/CHC APPEAL/18/2008	Muruthawalage Chandrarathne No. 74/10, Thalgassa Road, Thibbotuwawa, Akuressa. PLAINTIFF Vs. Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation Limited ‘Rakshana Mandiraya’ No. 21, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 2. DEFENDANT AND NOW (BY AND BETWEEN) Muruthawalage Chandrarathne No. 74/10, Thalgassa Road, Thibbotuwawa, Akuressa. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs. Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation Limited ‘Rakshana Mandiraya’ No. 21, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 2. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-09-13	SC/APPEAL/157/2013	1. Malavi Pathirannahelage Vindya Ruwangi Perera 2. Malavi Pathirannahelage Rukshala Santhsini Perera 3. Malavi Pathirannahelage Tarindu Perera All of No.86/9 Lesly Ranagala Mawatha Colombo 8 7th to 9th Defendant-Appellant- Petitioner-Appellants Vs 1. Walpola Mudalige Podihamine No.87, Walpola Watta, Kalanimulla, Angoda. Plaintiff-1st Respondent-Respondent 2. MPRT Perera 3. MPS Perera 4. MPI Perera 5. MPP Perera All of No.87/1, Walpola Watta, Kalanimulla Angoda 6. MPWD Perera No. 145, Siridamma Mawatha Colombo 8 2nd to 6th Defendant- Respondent-Respondents Vs View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2017-09-13	SC/APPEAL/87A/2006	D D Gnanawathi Ranasinghe, 165/5, Park Road, Colombo 5 Petitioner-Appellant(Deceased) PHK Dharmasiri Ranasinghe 165/5, Park Road, Colombo 5 Substituted Petitioner-Appellant Vs 1. Hon. Minister of Lands, Ministry of Lands, 80/5, Govijana Mandiraya, Battaramulla. & five others Respondent _Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2017-09-04	SC/APPEAL/118/2012	Gamathige Dona Premawathie Perera ‘Sinhalena’, Hirana, Panadura. PLAINTIFF 1. Kongaha Pathiranage Don Sarath Gunarathne Perera Hirana, Panadura. 2. Tantrige Neulin Peiris (Near Dispensary) Hirana Panadura. DEFENDANTS AND BETWEEN Tantrige Neulin Peiris (Near Dispensary) Hirana Panadura. 2nd DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Vs. Gamathige Dona Premawathie Perera ‘Sinhalena’, Hirana, Panadura. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT Kongaha Pathiranage Don Sarath Gunarathne Perera Hirana, Panadura. 1ST DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Tantrige Neulin Peiris (Near Dispensary) Hirana Panadura. 2nd DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs. Gamathige Dona Premawathie Perera ‘Sinhalena’, Hirana, Panadura. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT Kongaha Pathiranage Don Sarath Gunarathne Perera Hirana, Panadura. 1ST DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-08-31	SC/FR/222/2014	Herath Mudiyanselage Jayantha Aberathna, No.102, Dehiketiya Watta, Wegala, Medamahanuwara. Petitioner Vs 1. Chief Inspector B.W.C. Dharmaratn a, Head Quarter\'s Inspector, Officer in Charge, Police Station, Teldeniya. 2. Sub Inspector Wijerathna, Officer in Charge, Miscellaneous Complain Division, Police Station, Teldeniya. 3. Deputy Inspe ctor General of Police, Office of the Deputy Inspector, General of Police, Central Province, Kandy. 4. Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 5. The Director General, Civil Security Div ision, Ministry of Defense, No.23, Station Road, Bambalapitiya. 6. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2017-08-04	SC/FR/112/2010	Ishantha Kalansooriya “Jayanthi” Narawala, Poddala And also at No. 267, School Lane Borrelesgamuwa Petitioner Vs. 1. Karunaratne Inspector of Police Officer In charge of Police Station Poddala. 2. Indika Sub Inspector of Police Police Station, Poddala. 3. Saminda Police Constable Poddala Police Station Poddala. 4. Mahinda Balasuriya (Now retired) Pujith Jayasundera Inspector General of Police of Sri Lanka Police Headquarters. 5. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep, PC. CJ			Download
2017-08-04	SC/FR/12/2012	N.H.Palitha Nandasiri, Rathumalpitiya, Harangalagama, Nalapitiya. Petitioner 1. N. A. T. Jayasinghe, Assistant Superintendent, Special Investigation Unit, Police Head Quarters Colombo 01. 2 Vidyajothi Dr. Dayasiri Fernando (Chairman) 3 Mr.Palitha Kumarasinghe P.C. (Member) 4 Mrs. Sirimavo A. Wijeratne (Member) 5. Mr. S. C. Mannapperuma ( Member) 6. Mr. Ananda Seneviratne (Member) 7. Mr. N. H. Pathirana (Member) 8. Mr.S. Thillanadarajah (Member) 9. Mr. M. D. W. Ariyawansa (Member) 10. Mr.A. Mohamed Nahiya (Member) The 2nd to 10th Respondents of The Public Service Commission177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 11. Inspector General of Police, Sri Lanka Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 12. R. A. Karunasoma, Inquiring Officer, Disciplinary Inquiry, 176A, Kadawathgama, Hulangama, Matale. 13. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. B. P. Aluwihare, PC, J			Download
2017-08-04	SC/SPL/4/2014	Ms. P. Thavarajanie, Nursing Tutor – Grade 1, No.154, Thambimuthu Road, Thambiluvil – 2, Thirukkovil. Petitioner Vs. 1. Kanaganayagam Acting Principal College of Nursing Ampara. 2. Sriwardena (Mrs.) Director, Nursing Education, Ministry of Health, “Suwasiripaya” Colombo 10. 3. Indranee (Mrs.) Acting Warden, College of Nursing, Ampara. 4. Anil. (Mr.) Management Assistant College of Nursing, Ampara. 5. Anjan (Mr.) College of Nursing, Ampara 6. Honourable Attorney General, Attorney General’s Chambers, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	HON. B.P.ALUWIHARE, PC, J,			Download
2017-08-04	SC/APPEAL/151/2013	Thambachchi Ramiah Mallikanu Letchchumi, No. 51, Kotahena Weediya, Colombo 13. Plaintiff Vs. Bambarendage Jimoris Jinadasa, No. 255, Vihara Mavatha, (Assessment No 17) Hunupitiya Road, Wattala. AND BETWEEN Bambarendage Jimoris Jinadasa, No. 255, Vihara Mavatha, (Assessment No 17) Hunupitiya Road, Wattala. Defendant Appellant Vs. Thambachchi Ramiah Mallikanu Letchchumi, No. 51, Kotahena Weediya, Colombo 13. Plaintiff Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Thambachchi Ramiah Mallikanu Letchchumi, No. 51, Kotahena Weediya, Colombo 13. Plaintiff Respondent Appellant Vs. Bambarendage Jimoris Jinadasa, No. 255, Vihara Mavatha, (Assessment No 17) Hunupitiya Road, Wattala. Defendant Appellant Respondent View More	HON. UPALY ABEYRATHNE, J.			Download
2017-08-04	SC/APPEAL/158/2014	1. Navaratnarasa Jayalingam 2. Navaratnarasa Jeevalingam, 3. Navaratnarasa Jothilingam, All of No.16 1/17, Mudalige Mawatha Presently of No. 415/2A, Galle Road, Mt. Lavinia. Plaintiffs Vs. Kuda Bandara Wettewa, No. 18/1, Eladaluwa Road, Badulla. Defendant AND BETWEEN 1. Navaratnarasa Jayalingam, 2. Navaratnarasa Jeevalingam, 3. Navaratnarasa Jothilingam, All of No.16 1/17, Mudalige Mawatha Presently of No. 415/2A, Galle Road, Mt. Lavinia. Plaintiff Appellants Vs. Kuda Bandara Wettewa, No. 18/1, Eladaluwa Road, Badulla. Defendant Respondnt AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Navaratnarasa Jayalingam, 2. Navaratnarasa Jeevalingam, 3. Navaratnarasa Jothilingam, All of No.16 1/17, Mudalige Mawatha Presently of No. 415/2A, Galle Road, Mt. Lavinia. Plaintiff Appellant-Appellants Vs. Kuda Bandara Wettewa, No. 18/1, Eladaluwa Road, Badulla. Defendant Respondent-Respondent View More	HON. UPALY ABEYRATHNE, J.			Download
2017-08-04	SC/SPL/3/2014	Hikkadu Koralalage Don Chandrasoma G -16, National Housing Scheme, Polhena, Kelaniya. Petitioner Vs. 1. Mawai S. Senathirajah Secretary, Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi, 30, Martin Road, Jaffna. 1(a) K. Thurairasasingham Secretary, Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi, 30, Martin Road, Jaffna. (Substituted 1st Respondent) 1. Mahinda Deshapriya Commissioner of Elections, Elections Secretariat, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya. 2. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. Respondent View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep, PC, CJ.			Download
2017-08-04	SC/APPEAL/193/2012	W.D.M.Ganga Prasath Tikiri Banda Dissanayake, Pethum Uyana, Pallekelle, Kundasale PLAINTIFF V. R.G.R.M Hemali Priyantha Menike Ratnayake, 50, Keerapane, Gampola. DEFENDANT AND BETWEEN W.D.M.Ganga Prasath Tikiri Banda Dissanayake. Pethum Uyana, Pallekelle, Kundasale. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT V. R.G.R.M. Hemali Priyantha Menike Ratnayake. 50, Keerapane, Gampola. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN W.D.M.Ganga Prasath Tikiri Banda Dissanayake, Pethum Uyana, Pallekelle, Kundasale. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-APPELLANT V. R.G.R.M. Hemali Priyantha Menike Ratnayake. 50, Keerapane, Gampola. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	HON. H.N.J.PERERA, J.			Download
2017-08-04	SC/APPEAL/165/2014	M.J.Marikkar Plaintiff -vs- Jayatunga Defendant Between Jayatunga Defendant-Appellant Vs. Sithy Zarooha Zuhair Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent Now between Sithy Zarooha Zuhair No.98/1, Pieris Mawatha, Kalubowila, Dehiwala. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent- Petitioner B.H.R.Jayatunga, No.172/1/1, Madawala Road, Katugastota. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent. View More	Hon. B.P.Aluwihare, PC, J			Download
2017-08-04	SC/APPEAL/246,247,249 & 250/2014	Divisional Secretary Kalutara Petitioner Vs. Kalupahana Mestrige Jayatissa No.09/20, Mahajana Pola Kalutara South Respondent AND Kalupahana Mestrige Jayatissa No.09/20, Mahajana Pola Kalutara South Respondent-Petitioner Vs 1. Divisional Secretary Kalutara 2. The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo. Applicant-Respondents AND 1. Divisional Secretary Kalutara 2. The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo. Applicant-Respondent-Petitioners Vs Kalupahana Mestrige Jayatissa No.09/20, Mahajana Pola Kalutara South Respondent-Petitioner-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Divisional Secretary Kalutara 2. The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo. Applicant-Respondents-Petitioner- Petitioners Vs Kalupahana Mestrige Jayatissa No.09/20, Mahajana Pola Kalutara South Respondent-Petitioner-Respondent -Respondent View More	HON. UPALY ABEYRATHNE J			Download
2017-08-04	SC/FR/353/2016	A. B. T. Rasanga, No. 193/13, Uda Peradeniya, Peradeniya. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Principal, Kingswood College, Kandy. 2. The Director - National Schools, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya’ Battaramulla. 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya’ , Battaramulla. 4. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. Respondents View More	HON. UPALY ABEYRATHNE, J.			Download
2017-08-04	SC/APPEAL/41/2015, SC/CHC APPEAL/37/2008	SC/APPEAL/41/2015: Dona Padma Priyanthi Senanayake No. 48/3 Kottagewatta Road Battaramula Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. H.G. Chamika Jayantha No. 494/1, Udumulla Road Battaramulla 2. Leelawathi Siriwardena 2nd Floor, Cycle Bazaar Building Galle Road, Bambalapitiya 3. H.D. Susila Anuruddhika No. 494, Udumulla Road Battaramulla. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent SC/CHC APPEAL/37/2008: Mohamed Woleed Mohamed Zawahir No. 103, Sirikulam Watta Mallawapitiya. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. Amana Takaful Company Limited “Amana House” No. 550 , R.A. De Mel Mawatha Colombo 03 Head Office, Baddhaloka Mawatha Colombo 4. Defendant-Respondent View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep, PC, CJ.			Download
2017-08-03	SC/SPL LA/188/2015	L. S. Weerakone of No.178, Batadobatuduwa Road, Alubomulla. Applicant-Owner Vs. P.T.Weerakoon of No.308, “Florance” Batadobatuduwa Road, Alubomulla. Tenant-Respondent AND BETWEEN P. T. Weerakoon of No.308, “Florence” Batadobatuduwa Road, Alubomulla. Tenant-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. 1. L. S. Weerakoon No.178, Batadobatuduwa Road, Alubomulla Applicant-Owner-respondent 2.Mrs.G.Lekha Geethanjali Perera of No.89, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. Former Western Province Housing Commissioner-Respondent 3.Mrs. P. H. Colombage Of dNo.89, Kaduwela Road Battaramulla. Substituted Former Western Province Housing Comissioner-Respondent- Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN P. T. Weerakoon of No.308, “Florance” Batadombaguduwa Road, Alubomulla. Tenant-Respondent-Petitioner- Petitioner Vs. 1 .L. S. Weerakoon of No.178 Batadobatuduwa Road, Alubomulla. Applicant-Owner-Respondent- Respondent 2. Mrs.G.Lekha Geethanjali Perera of No.89, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. Former Western Province Housing Commissioner-Respondent 3.Mrs. P. H. Colombage View More	HON. B.P.ALUWIHARE, PC., J			Download
2017-08-03	SC/FR/167/2013	NadarajahGunasekeram of Arasady Veethy, ThayiddyEastKKSandpresently of 105, Arasady Road, Kandarmadam. PETITIONER Vs 1. a) Gotabaya Rajapaksa Secretary (Since left the services) And now b) M.D.U.Basnayake – present holder Ministry of Defence and Urban Development 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 3. 2. a) Lieutenant General Jagath Jayasuriya, (Former Commander of the Army) b) Lieutenant General R.M.D.Ratnayake Present Army Commander Sri Lanka Army Army Headquarters Colombo 3. c) Lieutenant Gen. A.W.J.C. De Silva RWP USP Former Commander – Sri Lanka Army Army Headquarters, Colombo 3. d) Major General Jagath Rambukpotha Former Commander, Army Headquarters – Colombo 3. e) Major General A.W.J. Chrisantha de Silva Present Army Commander Army Headquarters – Colombo 3. 3. a) Major General Mahinda Hathurusinghe, Commander, Security Forces (Jaffna) Since transferred b) Major General Udaya Perera Commander Security Forces (Jaffna) Since transferred c) Major General Jagath Alwis Security Forces Head Quarters, Jaffna Prese View More	HON. B. P ALUWIHARE, PC, J.			Download
2017-08-03	SC/APPEAL/97/2013	Samarakoon Mudiyanselage Saheli Sajeera Samarakoon No. 80, Library Mawatha, Maharagama PLAINTIFF Vs. Karunadasa Abeywickrema No. 72, “Samram Groceries” High Level Road, Maharagama DEFENDANT AND BETWEEN Karunadasa Abeywickrema No. 72, “Samram Groceries” High Level Road, Maharagama DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Vs. Samarakoon Mudiyanselage Saheli Sajeera Samarakoon No. 80, Library Mawatha, Maharagama PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND NOW Karunadasa Abeywickrema No. 72, “Samram Groceries” High Level Road, Maharagama DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs. Samarakoon Mudiyanselage Saheli Sajeera Samarakoon No. 80, Library Mawatha, Maharagama PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-08-03	SC/APPEAL/200/2015	1. Barbara Iranganie De Silva, No. 125/A, Weliamuna Road, Hekitta, Wattala. 2. Malagalage Dona Chanithrie Kanchana Perera, No. 125/A, Weliamuna Road, Hekitta , Wattala. Plaintiffs Vs Hewa Waduge Indralatha, No. 22, Peiris Mawatha, Colombo 15. Defendant AND THEN BETWEEN Hewa Waduge Indralatha, No. 22, Peiris Mawatha, Colombo 15. Defendant Petitioner Vs 1.Barbara Iranganie De Silva, No. 125/A, Weliamuna Road, Hekitta, Wattala. 2.Malagalage Dona Chanithrie Kanchana Perera, No. 125/A, Weliamuna Road, Hekitta , Wattala. Plaintiffs Respondents AND THEREAFTER BETWEEN Hewa Waduge Indralatha, No. 22, Peiris Mawatha, Colombo 15. DEFENDANT PETITIONER APPELLANT Vs 1. Barbara Iranganie De Silva, No. 125/A, Weliamuna Road, Hekitta, Wattala 2. Malagalage Dona Chanithrie Kanchana Perera, No. 125/A, Weliamuna Road, Hekitta, Wattala. PLAINTIFFS RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN 1.Barbara Iranganie De Silva, No. 125/A, Weliamuna Road, Hekitta, Wattala 2. Malagalage Dona Chanithrie Kanchana Perera, No. 125/A, Weliamuna Roa View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PCJ. AND HON. K.T. CHITRASIRI J.			Download
2017-08-02	SC/FR/337/2012	V.M.P Buddhika Karunadasa of No 86/1, Keselwatte, Spring Valley, Badulla. Petitioner Vs. 1. D.K.M.K Dasanayake, Chairman 2. Rajaratnam Gnanasekaran, Member 3. Mohan Ratwatte, Member 4. A.A Salam, Member 5. D.C Dahanayake, Member 6. R.M.T.B Hathiyaldeniya, Secretary The 1st – 5th Respondents are the Chairman and the members and the 6th Respondent is the Secretary of the Uva Provincial Public Service Commission, 14/4, Peelipothagama Road, Pinarawa, Badulla. 7. The Governor, Uva Province, The Governor’s Office, Rajaweediya, Badulla. 8. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Priyantha Jayawardena PC, J			Download
2017-08-02	SC/FR/60/2015	1. Seekkuge Rashantha, No.22, Saman Madura Watta Road, Heppumulla Ambalangoda 2. Seekkuge Iduwara Umanjana (minor, No.22, Saman Madura Watta Road, Heppumulla Ambalangoda Petitioners Vs. 1. Akila Viraj Kariyawawsam (M.P.) Hon. Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Battaramulla. 2. Upali Marasinghe, Secretary – Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Bataramulla. 2 (A) W. M. Bandusena Secretary – Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 3. Sumith Parakramawansha, Former Principal – Dharmashoka Vidyalaya Galle Road, Ambalangoda. 3A. W. T. Ravindra Pushpakumara, Principal – Dharmashoka Vidyalaye, Galle Road, Ambalangoda. 4. R. N. Mallawarachchi 5. Diyagubaduge Dayarathne 6. M. Shirley Chandrasiri 7. N.S.T.de Silva 4th to 7th Above All: Members of the Interview Board, (Admissions to Year 1) C/o Dharmashoka /Vidyalaya, Galle Road, Ambalangoda. 8. W. T. B. Sarath 9. P. D. Pathirathne 10. K. P. Ranjith 11. Jagath Wellage 4th and 8th to 11th above All: Members of the Appeal Board, (Admission to View More	HON. B.P. ALUWIHARE, PC, J			Download
2017-08-02	SC/FR/50/2015	Petitioners Vs. 1. Sumith Parakramawansha Principal & Chairman - Interview Board Dharmashoka Vidyalaya Ambalangoda. 2. Rekha Nayani Mallawarachchi Secretary – Interview Board 3. Mr. Diyagubaduge Dayaratne Member – Interview Board 4. Malliyawadu Sheryl Chandrasiri Member – Interview Board 5. Nilenthi Santhaka Thaksala De Silva Member – Interview Board 6. W.T.B. Sarath Chairman – Appeals and Objections Board 7. Rekha Nayani Mallawarachchi Secretary – Appeals and Objections Board 8. P.D. Pathirana Member – Appeals and Objections Board 9. K.P. Ranjith Member – Appeals and Objections Board 10. Jagath Wellage Member – Appeals and Objections Board All c/o Dharmashoka Vidyalaya, Ambalangoda 11. Director National Schools, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 12. Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 13. Honourable Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Priyantha Jayawardena PC, J			Download
2017-08-02	SC/SPL LA/133/2015	1. A.A. Gunawardane B 1/1, Jathika Mahal Niwasa Pamankada Road, Kirulapone, Colombo 06 2. M.P. Perera B 2/2 Jathika Mahal Niwasa, Pamankada Road, Kirulapone, Colombo 06 3. R.E.D Amarasena B 1/2 Jathika Mahal Niwasa, Pamankada Road, Kirulapone, Colombo 06 4. P.H. Wimalasiri B 3/1 Jathika Mahal Niwasa, Pamankada Road, Kirulapone, Colombo 06 5. N.A. Illukpitiya B 2/1 Jathika Mahal Niwasa, Pamankada Road, Kirulapone, Colombo 06 Complainants Vs. S.J. Sirisena BG 1 Jathika Mahal Niwasa, Pamankada Road, Kirulapone, Colombo 06 Respondent AND THEN In the matter of an application for a mandate or a writ in the nature of a writ of Certiorari in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka S.J. Sirisena BG 1 Jathika Mahal Niwasa, Pamankada Road, Kirulapone, Colombo 06 Respondent-Petitioner Vs. 1. A.A. Gunawardane B 1/1, Jathika Mahal Niwasa Pamankada Road, Kirulapone, Colombo 06 1st Complainant-Respondent 2. Mrs. Dombagahawattage Nandwathie Perera B 2/2 Jathika Mahal Niwasa, View More	Hon. Priyantha Jayawardena PC, J			Download
2017-08-02	SC/APPEAL/113/2013	Don Padmasiri Abeysingha, Anguruwatota Road, Horana. Plaintiff Vs 1. Abdul S. Mohamed Anver, No. 43, Anguruwatota Road, Horana. (Deceased) 2. Gamage Don Sisiliyawathi, Anguruwatota Road, Horana. (Deceased) 2A. Gamage Don W. Gunawardena, No. 110, Sri Somananda Mawath, Horana. 3.Y.W.Costa, Anguruwatota Road, Horana. 4. Induruwage P. Thisera, No. 69, Anguruwatota Road, Horana. 5. Gamage Don W. Gunawardena, Anguruwatota Road, Horana. 6. Thalagalage David Gunatilake, Anguruwatota Road, Horana. 6A. Karunarathna Banda Wijesekera Mediwaka, No. 47, Anguruwatota Road, Horana. 6B. Weerasekera Wasala Mudiyanselage Mediwaka Walawwe Buddika Apsara Mediwaka, No. 47, Anguruwatota Road, Horana. 7. Induruwage Rosalin Thisera, Anguruwatota Road, Horana. Defendants AND Abdul Salam Mohamed Anver, No. 43, Anguruwatota Road, Horana. 1st Defendant Appellant Vs Don Padmasiri Abeysingha’ Anguruwatota Road, Horana. Plaintiff Respondent Don Muditha Abeysingha, No. 30, Ariyawilasa Road, Horana. Substituted Plaintiff Respondent 2A. Gamage View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PCJ.			Download
2017-08-02	SC/APPEAL/187/2015, SC/APPEAL/188/2015	Naomi Leela Elizabeth Perera No.17, Mendis Mawatha Moratuwa. Plaintiff VS 1. J. W. P. E. Vernon Botejue of No.183, Nawala Road, Nugegoda 2. J.W.Thelma Maude Phylis Vitanage nee Botejue of No.31, Kotuwegoda, Rajagiriya. (deceased) 3. R. A. Edwin Sincho of No.49, 5th Lane, Nawala 4. J. W. Aruna V. P. Botejue, Agarapatana Now of No.183 Nawala Road, Nugegoda. 5. B. S. C. Cooray of No.39, Kotuwegoda, Rajagiriya, Defendants IN THE HIGH COURT 4. J. W. Aruna V. P. Botejue, Agarapatana Now of No.183 Nawala Road, Nugegoda 4th Defendant-Appellant Vs. Naomi Leela Elizabeth Perera No.17, Mendis Mawatha Moratuwa. Plaintiff-Respondent 3. J. W. P. E. Vernon Botejue of No.183, Nawala Road, Nugegoda. 4. J.W.Thelma Maude Phylis Vitanage nee Botejue of No.31, Kotuwegoda, Rajagiriya. (deceased) 3. R. A. Edwin Singho of No.49, 5th Lane, Nawala 5. B. S. C. Cooray of No.39, Kotuwegoda, Rajagiriya, Defendants-Respondents NOW IN THE SUPREME COURT 4. J. W. Aruna V. P. Botejue, Agarapatana Now of No.183 Nawala Road, Nugegoda 4th Defenda View More	HON. B.P.ALUWIHARE, PC, J			Download
2017-08-01	SC/CHC APPEAL/39/2006	SEYLAN BANK LIMITED No. 69, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 1. Presently at “Ceylinco- Seylan Towers”, No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. PLAINTIFF VS. 1. CLEMENT CHARLES EPASINGHE No.301/B, Kanjukkuliya, Mugunuwatawana. 2. WEERAKKODY ARATCHIGE NIMALA EPASINGHE No.301/B, Kanjukkuliya, Mugunuwatawana. 3. BRAHMANA MUDALIGE BASIL PETER Suduwella Farm, Suduwella, Madampe. 4. BODAWALA MARASINGHALAGE SARATH KARUNATHILAKE MARASINGHE Rest House, Chilaw. DEFENDANTS AND NOW SEYLAN BANK LIMITED No. 69, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 1. Presently at “Ceylinco- Seylan Towers”, No.90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT VS. 1. CLEMENT CHARLES EPASINGHE No.301/B, Kanjukkuliya, Mugunuwatawana. 2. WEERAKKODY ARATCHIGE NIMALA EPASINGHE No.301/B, Kanjukkuliya, Mugunuwatawana. 1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS- RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena, PC, J.			Download
2017-08-01	SC/APPEAL/69/2007	Uralaliyanage Caroline Perera, Dewala Road, Pamunuwa, Maharagama. Plaintiff Vs. People’s Bank, Sir Chittampalam Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Defendant AND Uralaliyanage Caroline Perera, Dewala Road, Pamunuwa, Maharagama. Plaintiff petitioner Vs. People’s Bank, Sir Chittampalam Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Defendant Respondent AND Uralaliyanage Caroline Perera, Dewala Road, Pamunuwa, Maharagama. Plaintiff Petitioner-Petitioner Vs. People’s Bank, Sir Chittampalam Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Defendant Respondent-Respondent AND People’s Bank, Sir Chittampalam Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Defendant Respondent-Respondent Petitioner Vs. Uralaliyanage Caroline Perera (dead), K. M. C. Perera Dewala Road, Pamunuwa, Maharagama. Substituted Plaintiff Petitioner- Petitioner Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Uralaliyanage Caroline Perera (dead), K. M. C. Perera (dead) Kalubowilage Prema Kumara Perera, Dewala Road, Pamunuwa, Maharagama. 1A. Substituted Plaintiff Petitioner- Petitioner Respondent Appellant Vs People’s Bank, Sir Ch View More	HON. UPALY ABEYRATHNE, J.			Download
2017-08-01	SC/APPEAL/62/2013	BHADRA DE SILVA RAJAKARUNA Uduvaragoda, Kahawa. PLAINTIFF VS. 1. GENERAL MANAGER OF RAILWAYS Sri Lanka Railway Department, Colombo. 2. JAGAMUNI PIYASENA DE SILVA No.263, Duwa Road, Akurala, Kahawa. 3. HANDUNETTI LALITH WIJESUNDERA Duwa Road, Akurala, Kahawa. 4. HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. DEFENDANTS AND BETWEEN 1. GENERAL MANAGER OF RAILWAYS Sri Lanka Railways Department, Colombo. 4. HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 1st AND 4th DEFFENDANTS- APPELLANTS VS. BHADRA DE SILVA RAJAKARUNA Uduvaragoda, Kahawa. PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENT 2. JAGAMUNI PIYASENA DE SILVA No.263, Duwa Road, Akurala, Kahawa. 3. HANDUNETTI LALITH WIJESUNDERA Duwa Road, Akurala, Kahawa. DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS 2A. HENDADURA KANTHILATHA No. 263, Samurdhi Mawatha, Duwa Road, Akurala, Kahawa. 3A. KANAKKAHEWA JAYANTHI No.260, Duwa Road, Akurala, Kahawa. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANTS- RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN 1. GENERAL MANAGER OF RAILWAYS Sri Lanka Railways Department, Colombo. 4. HON. ATT View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena, PC, J.			Download
2017-08-01	SC/APPEAL/53/2013	Nuwarapaksa Pedige Gunawathie Polwattewedagedara, Meepitiya. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Nuwarapaksa Pedige Malani, Atabomulahena, Dampelgoda, Bossala. 2. Meragal Pedige Wimaladasa, Atabomulahena, Dampelgoda, Bossala. Defendants AND BETWEEN 1. Nuwarapaksa Pedige Malani, Atabomulahena, Dampelgoda, Bossala. 2. Meragal Pedige Wimaladasa, Atabomulahena, Dampelgoda, Bossala. Defendant Appellants Vs. Nuwarapaksa Pedige Gunawathie, Polwattewedagedara, Meepitiya. Plaintiff Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Nuwarapaksa Pedige Gunawathie, Polwattewedagedara, Meepitiya. Plaintiff Respondent Appellant Vs. 1. Nuwarapaksa Pedige Malani, Atabomulahena, Dampelgoda, Bossala. 2. Meragal Pedige Wimaladasa, Atabomulahena, Dampelgoda, Bossala. Defendant Appellant Respondents View More	HON. UPALY ABEYRATHNE, J.			Download
2017-08-01	SC/APPEAL/168/2014	Mahadura Chandradasa Thabrew alias Mahadura Chandradasa Weerawardena, ‘Allan Niwasa’, No. 47, Uposatharama Road, Panadura. Plaintiff Vs 1. Mahadura Padmini Hemalatha Thabrew, Uposatharama Road, Pinwatta, Panadura. 2. Seylan Bank PLC, Head Office, Sir Baron Jayathilaka Mawatha, Colombo 2. Defendants AND BETWEEN Mahadura Chandradasa Thabrew alias Mahadura Chandradasa Weerawardena, ‘Allan Niwasa’, No. 47, Uposatharama Road, Panadura. Plaintiff Appellant Vs 1. Mahadura Padmini Hemalatha Thabrew, Uposatharama Road, Pinwatta, Panadura. 2. Seylan Bank PLC, Head Office, Sir Baron Jayathilaka Mawatha, Colombo 2. Defendant Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Mahadura Padmini Hemalatha Thabrew, Uposatharama Road, Pinwatta, Panadura. 1ST Defendant Respondent Petitioner Vs Mahadura Chandradasa Thabrew alias Mahadura Chandradasa Weerawardena, ‘Allan Niwasa’, No. 47, Uposatharama Road, Panadura. Plaintiff Appellant Respondent Seylan Bank PLC, Head Office, Sir Baron Jayathilaka Mawatha, Colombo 02. 2nd Defendant Respondent Responden View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PCJ.			Download
2017-08-01	SC/APPEAL/120/2009	Don Andrayas Rajapaksa, No. 62, Hakmana Road, Gabadaveediya, Matara. Plaintiff Vs Gnanapala Weerakoon Rathnayake, Aluthkade alias Middeniyekade, Hettiyawala East, Puhulwella, Kirinda. Defendant AND BETWEEN Don Andrayas Rajapaksa, No. 62, Hakmana Road, Gabadaveediya, Matara. Plaintiff Appellant Vs Gnanapala Weerakoon Rathnayake, Aluthkade alias Middeniyekade, Hettiyawala East, Puhulwella, Kirinda. Defendant Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Gnanapala Weerakoon Rathnayake, Aluthkade alias Middeniyekade, Hettiyawala East, Puhulwella, Kirinda. Defendant Respondent Appellant Vs Don Andrayas Rajapaksa, No. 62, Hakmana Road, Gabadaveediya, Matara. Plaintiff Appellant Respondent Shirantha Pushpalal Rajapaksa, No. 62D, Gabadaveediya, Matara. Substituted Plaintiff Appellant Respondent. View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PCJ.			Download
2017-08-01	SC/APPEAL/50/2013	Mudugamuwa Hewage Gunasena, Both of No 60, Samdale Farm, Tepudeniya. 1st Accused Appellant-Appellant Vs. Officer in Charge Police Station, Akuressa. Complainant Respondent-Respondent Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent 2. Kankanamdurage Wimalawathie, No 60, Samdale Farm, Tepudeniya. 3. Hawage Chaminda Sandamal, 4. Mudugamuwa Hewage Pathma Rangika, Both of Ipitawatta Galdola, Kotapola. 5. Mudugamuwa Hewage Lasanthi Shashikala, No. 60, Semdale Farm, Tepudeniya. Accused Respondent-Respondents View More	HON. UPALY ABEYRATHNE, J.			Download
2017-07-28	SC/FR/59/2015	1. Naragal Nilantha de Silva, No.48, Kanda Road, Ambalangoda 2. Naragal Rasindu Harshana de Silva (minor) No.48, Kanda Road, Ambalangoda. Petitioners Vs. 1. Akila Viraj Kariyawawsam (M.P.) Hon. Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Battaramulla. 2. Upali Marasinghe, Secretary – Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Bataramulla. 2(A) W.M.Bandusena Secretary – Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 3. Sumith Parakramawansha, Former Principal – Dharmashoka Vidyalaya Galle Road, Ambalangoda. 3A. W.T.Ravindra Pushpakumara, Principal – Dharmashoka Vidyalaye, Galle Road, Ambalangoda. 4. R.N.mallawarachchi 5. Diyagubaduge Dayarathne 6. M.Shirley Chandrasiri 7. N.S.T.de Silva 4th to 7th Above All: Members of the Interview Board, (Admissions to Year 1) C/o Dharmashoka /Vidyalaya, Galle Road, Ambalangoda. 8. W.T.B.Sarath 9. P.D.Pathirathne 10. K.P.Ranjith 11. Jagath Wellage 4th and 8th to 11th above All: Members of the Appeal Board, (Admission to Year 1) C/o Dharmashoka/Vidyalaya, Galle Road, View More	HON. B.P. ALUWIHARE, PC, J			Download
2017-07-27	SC/APPEAL/125/2015	Hatton National Bank PLC No. 479, T.B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10. and previously at 481, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. And having and maintaining a branch office at 22, Kandy Road, Nittambuwa (previously known as Hatton National Bank Ltd) PLAINTIFF Vs. 1. Sakalasuriya Appuhamilage Upul Aruna Shantha Kukulnape, Pallewela. 2. Senanayake Amarasinghe Mohotti Appuhamilage Sudath Denzil No. 64, Kirindiwita. Gampaha. 3. Subasinghe Dissanayake Appuhamilage Upul Hemantha Subsasinshge, No. 74, Marapola, Veyangoda. DEFENDANTS AND BETWEEN Hatton National Bank PLC No. 479, T.B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10. and previously at 481, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. And having and maintaining a branch office at 22, Kandy Road, Nittambuwa (previously known as Hatton National Bank Ltd) PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Sakalasuriya Appuhamilage Upul Aruna Shantha Kukulnape, Pallewela. 2. Senanayake Amarasinghe Mohotti Appuhamilage Sudath Denzil No. 64, Kirindiwita. Gampaha. 3. Subasinghe Dissanayake Appuhamilage Upul Hemantha Subsasinshge View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-07-27	SC/APPEAL/74/2015	Sinnaiya Siwasamy 112, Ragala Bazar Halgranoya. PLAINTIFF Vs. M. Nadaraga Moorthi 8 ¼, Ragala Bazar Halgranoya. DEFENDANT NOW BETWEEN Sinnaiya Siwasamy 112, Ragala Bazar Halgranoya. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs. M. Nadaraga Moorthi 8 ¼, Ragala Bazar Halgranoya. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Sinnaiya Siwasamy 112, Ragala Bazar Halgranoya. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-APPELLANT Vs. M. Nadaraga Moorthi 8 ¼, Ragala Bazar Halgranoya. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-07-27	SC/FR/15/2010	1. Shanmugam Sivarajah 2. Sivarajah Sarojini Devi Presently residing in Sagetrastrasse 12, 3133 Belp, Switzerland. Petitioners Vs. 1. Officer in Charge, Terrorist Investigation Division, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01 2. Director, Terrorist Investigation Division, Police Headquarters, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Terrorist Investigation Division, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 4. Inspector Abdeen, Terrorist Investigation Division, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 5. Subair, Terrorist Investigation Division, Colombo 01. 6. Mr. Mahinda Balasuriya, Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 6A. Mr. N.K.Illangakoon, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 1. 7. Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, Public Security and Law and Order, Ministry of Defence, Colombo 02. 7A. Mr. B.M.U.D Basnayake Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, Public Security and Law and Order, Ministry of Defence, Colombo 2. 7B Eng. Karunasena Hettiarachchi, Secretary to the Ministry View More	Hon. B.P. Aluwihare, PC, J			Download
2017-07-26	SC/FR/63/2013	C. W. Jayasekera No.4, Stadium Cross Road Anuradhapura PETITIONER -Vs- 1. Municipal Council Anuradhapura 2. H. P. Somadasa Mayor Municipal Council Anuradhapura 3. S. R. Dharmadasa Municipal Commissioner Municipal Council Anuradhapura 4. The Honourable Attorney General The Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	HON. B.P. ALUWIHARE, PC., J			Download
2017-07-20	SC/APPEAL/133/2010	Saifi Ismail Patel carrying on business under the name and style of “Saifi Trading Company”, No. 39, New Moor Street, Colombo 01. Plaintiff Vs. Commercial Bank of Ceylon Limited, No. 57, Baron Jayathileka Mawatha, Colombo 1. Defendant AND BETWEEN Commercial Bank of Ceylon Limited, No. 57, Baron Jayathileka Mawatha, Colombo 1. Defendant Appellant Vs. Saifi Ismail Patel carrying on business under the name and style of “Saifi Trading Company”, No. 39, New Moor Street, Colombo 01. Plaintiff Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Commercial Bank of Ceylon Limited, No. 57, Baron Jayathileka Mawatha, Colombo 1. Defendant Appellant-Appellant Vs. Saifi Ismail Patel carrying on business under the name and style of “Saifi Trading Company”, No. 39, New Moor Street, Colombo 01. Plaintiff Respondent-Respondent View More	HON. UPALY ABEYRATHNE, J.			Download
2017-07-14	SC/FR/58/2015	1. Sawunda Marikkala Damith de Silva, No.1/129, Polwathttha Road, Kaluwadumulla, Ambalangoda 2. Sawunda Marikkala Thenuk Sanmitha de Silva (minor), No. 1/129, Polwathttha Road, Kaluwadumulla, Ambalangoda. Petitioners Vs. 1. Akila Viraj Kariyawawsam (M.P.) Hon. Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Battaramulla. 2. Upali Marasinghe, Secretary – Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Bataramulla. 3. Sumith Parakramawansha, Former Principal – Dharmashoka Vidyalaya Galle Road, Ambalangoda. 3A. Ravindra Pushpakumara, Principal – Dharmashoka Vidyalaye, Galle Road, Ambalangoda. 4. R. N. mallawarachchi 5. Diyagubaduge Dayarathne 6. Mr. Shirley Chandrasiri 7. NS.T.de Silva 4th to 7th Above All: Members of the Interview Board, (Admissions to Year 1) C/o Dharmashoka /Vidyalaya, Galle Road, Ambalangoda. 8. W. T. B. Sarath 9. P. D. Pathirathne 10. K. P. Ranjith 11. Jagath Wellage 4th and 8th to 11th above All: Members of the Appeal Board, (Admission to Year 1) C/o Dharmashoka /Vidyalaya, Galle Road, Ambalangoda View More	HON. B.P.ALUWIHARE, PC, J			Download
2017-07-13	SC/APPEAL/77/2015	1. People’s Bank, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. 2. Don Wimalasiri Dissanayake, No. 177 G, Maya Avenue, Colombo 5. Petitioners Vs Hetti Kankanamlage Gunasi- Ngha, Wanuwagalawatta, Haggala, Ellakala. Respondent AND BETWEEN Hetti Kankanamlage Gunasi- Ngha, Wanuwagalawatta, Haggala, Ellakala. Respondent Appellant 1. People’s Bank, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. 2. Don Wimalasiri Dissanayake, No. 177 G, Maya Avenue, Colombo 5. Petitioner Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Hetti Kankanamlage Gunasi- Ngha, Wanuwagalawatta, Haggala, Ellakala. Respondent Appellant Appellant Vs 1. People’s Bank, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. 2. Don Wimalasiri Dissanayake, No. 177 G, Maya Avenue, Colombo 5. Petitioner Respondent Respondents View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PCJ.			Download
2017-07-12	SC/APPEAL/170/2015	H.D. Lionel Weeraratne of No. 156, Walpola Road, Ragama. PLAINTIFF Vs. 1. Velu Kannappan 2. Sawarimuththu Rajendra 3. Hakmana Kaluthanthrige Don Anthony Bernard Perera All of Suraweera Mawatha, Walpola, Ragama. DEFENDANTS AND BETWEEN 1. Velu Kannappan More correctly Velu Kannappan Thevar (now deceased) 1a. Kannappan Ranjith 2. Sawarimuththu Rajendra 3. Hakmana Kaluthanthrige Don Anthony Bernard Perera All of Suraweera Mawatha, Walpola, Ragama. DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS Vs. H H.D. Lionel Weeraratne of No. 156, Walpola Road, Ragama. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN H H.D. Lionel Weeraratne of No. 156, Walpola Road, Ragama. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs. 1. Velu Kannappan More correctly Velu Kannappan Thevar (now deceased) 1a. Kannappan Ranjith 2. Sawarimuththu Rajendra 3. Hakmana Kaluthanthrige Don Anthony Bernard Perera All of Suraweera Mawatha, Walpola, Ragama. DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-07-11	SC/APPEAL/148/2013	1. Bulathsinghalage Gnanawathie, 2. Presanna Ramanayake, Both of No. 211 A, Nawala Road, Nugegoda. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Warnakula Patabendige Konrad Anthony Perera, No. 282, Badulla Road, Bandarawela. 2. Ivon Indrani Rupasinghe, No. 37/01, the Fonseka Road, Colombo 5. 3. Peoples Bank, Nugegoda Branch, Nugegoda. Defendants AND BETWEEN 1. Bulathsinghalage Gnanawathie, 2. Presanna Ramanayake, Both of No. 211 A, Nawala Road, Nugegoda. Plaintiff Appellant Vs. 1. Warnakula Patabendige Konrad Anthony Perera, No. 282, Badulla Road Bandarawela. 2. Ivon Indrani Rupasinghe, No. 37/01, the Fonseka Road, Colombo 5. 3. Peoples Bank, Nugegoda Branch, Nugegoda. Defendant Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Bulathsinghalage Gnanawathie, 2. Presanna Ramanayake, Both of No. 211 A, Nawala Road, Nugegoda. Plaintiff Appellant Appellants Vs. 1. Warnakula Patabendige Konrad Anthony Perera, No. 282, Badulla Road Bandarawela. 2. Ivon Indrani Rupasinghe, No. 37/01, the Fonseka Road, Colombo 5. 3. Peoples Bank, Nugegoda Branch, Nugegoda. Defendants View More	HON. UPALY ABEYRATHNE, J.			Download
2017-07-11	SC/APPEAL/232/2014	Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant Vs. Dissanayake Appuhamilage Amarasiri Dissanayake. Accused AND BETWEEN Dissanayake Appuhamilage Amarasiri Dissanayake. Accused Appellant Vs. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Dissanayake Appuhamilage Amarasiri Dissanayake. Accused Appellant-Appellant Vs. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant Respondent- Respondent View More	HON. UPALY ABEYRATHNE, J.			Download
2017-07-11	SC/FR/126/2008	1. Uspatabendige Buddhi Iwantha Gunasekera, Dommie Jayawardena Mawatha, Eranavila, Meetiyagoda. 2. Uspatabendige Jayantha Gunasekera, Dommie Jayawardena Mawatha, Eranavila, Meetiyagoda. Petitioners Vs. 1. Sub Inspector Athukorala Crime Division, Police Station, Meetiyagoda. 2. Inspector Nissanka, Officer in Charge, Police Station, Meetiyagoda. 3. Home Guard Soysa, Police Station, Meetiyagoda. 4. W. T. Siripala, Domanvila, Meetiyagoda. 5. The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 1. 6. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. Respondents View More	HON. UPALY ABEYRATHNE, J.			Download
2017-07-05	SC/APPEAL/92A/2008	Pandigamage Podinona No.44, Kandy Road, Medawachchiya Plaintiff -Vs- M. H. M. Suweyal, No.40, New Siyana Hotel, Jaffna Road, Medawachchiya Defendant And Between M. H. M. Suweyal No.40, New Siyana Hotel, Jaffna Road, Medawachchiya. Defendant/Appellant -Vs. Pandigamage Podinona No.44, Kandy Road, Medawachchiya Plaintiff/Respondent And Now Between M. H. M. Suweyal No.40, New Siyana Hotel, Jaffna Road, Medawachchiya. Presently at No.22/1, Bulugahatenna, Akurana Defendant/Appellant/ Appellant -Vs- Pandigamage Podinona (deceased) No.44, Kandy Road, Medawachchiya. Plaintiff/Respondent/ Respondent 1A. Hettiaarachchige Sriyani 1B. Hettiarachchiige Wasantha Kumara Hettiarachchi 1C. Hettiarachchige Chalton Jayaweera 1D. Hettiarachchige Nandaniemala All of No.44, Kandy Road, Medawachchiya. Substituted Plaintiff/ Respondent/Respondents View More	HON. B.P. ALUWIHARE, P.C, J			Download
2017-07-05	SC/FR/57/2012	1. Dewndara Wedasinghage Manusha Madhurangana 20/A, Pansalhena Road, Wellampitiya. And 87 others PETITIONERS Vs. 24. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. And 23 others RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-06-30	SC/APPEAL/159/2015	M.P.S. Wijesinghe, Dambulamure Walawwa, “Diyoguvilla”, Ella Road, Wellawaya. Plaintiff Vs T.K.J. Chandrasekera, Paragasmankada, Ella Road, Wellawaya. Defendant AND 1. M.S.M. Sijaudeen 2. M.H.M. Insaaf 3. H.M.F. Mohamed 4. M.U.M. Vufraan 5. M.U.M. Rilwaan 6. M.H.M. Initiyas 7. S.H.J. Aabdeen ( The present Board of Trustees of Wellawaya Mohideen Jumma Mosque ) All of Monaragala Road, Wellawaya. Intervenient Petitioners Vs M.P.S. Wijesinghe, Dambulamure Walawwa, “Diyoguvilla”, Ella Road, Wellawaya. Plaintiff Respondent T.K.J. Chandrasekera, Paragasmankada, Ella Road, Wellawaya. Defendant Respondent AND THEN M.P.S. Wijesinghe, Dambulamure Walawwa, Diyoguvilla, Ella Road, Wellawaya. Plaintiff Respondent Petitioner Vs 1. M.S.M. Sijaudeen 2. M.H.M. Insaaf 3. H.M.F. Mohamed 4. M.U.M. Vufraan 5. M.U.M. Rilwaan 6. M.H.M. Initiyas 7. S.H.J. Aabdeen ( The present Board of Trustees of Wellawaya Mohideen Jumma Mosque ) All of Monaragala Road, Wellawaya. Intervenient Petitioner Respondents T.K.J. Chandrasekera, Paragasmankada View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PCJ.			Download
2017-06-30	SC/APPEAL/71/2010	Officer-in-Charge Police Station Tissamaharama Complainant Vs. 1. Poddana Priyankarage Ajith Indika Nissnsala, Polgahawalan Debarawewa Tissamaharama 2. Hewa Thondilage Nissanka Akkara 80, Uduwila Tissamaharama 3. Palliyaguruge Premapala Molakaputana Tissamaharama 4. Landage Piyatissa 522/35 – Gangasiripura Tissamaharama 5. Lokuyaddehige Niroshan Seylan Bank Road Deberawewa Tissamaharama 6. Pelaketiyage Sunil Shantha Molakeuthana Polgahawalan Tissamaharama 7. Yaddehi Guruge Damayanthi 403/5 – Molakeputhana Road Debarawewa Tissamaharama 8. Weligath Sethuge Indralatha Lasanthi Molakeputhana Tissamaharama 9. Amarasinghe Kankanamge Aruna Sampath 582/2A – Gangasiripura Tissamaharama 10. Hewajuan Kankanamage Ariyatilake Wijerama Molakeputhana Road Polgahawalana Debarawewa 11. Liyana Arahchige Milton Mahindapura Pannagamuwa Tissamaharama 12. Balagodage Jinasena Molakeputhana Debarawewa Tissamaharama 13. Landage Sanath 553/9 Gangasiripura Tissamaharama 14. Visanthi Baduge Wimalaratne Molakeputhana Road Polgahawalane View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J			Download
2017-06-30	SC/APPEAL/129/2013	Nuwarapakshage Neelakanthi alias Baby Wanduradeniya, Damunupla Plaintiff Vs Nuwarapakshage Balasuriya Wanduradeniya, Damunupla Defendant AND Nuwarapakshage Balasuriya Wanduradeniya, Damunupla Defendant-Appellant Vs Nuwarapakshage Neelakanthi alias Baby Wanduradeniya, Damunupla Plaintiff-Respondent And Now Between Nuwarapakshage Balasuriya Wanduradeniya, Damunupla Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs Nuwarapakshage Neelakanthi alias Baby Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J			Download
2017-06-29	SC/APPEAL/103/2009	R. M. Punchi Manike, No. 130, Thennekumbura, Kandy. Plaintiff Vs. G. G. Jayarthne, No. 130, Thennekumbura, Kandy. Defendant AND BETWEEN G. G. Jayarthne, No. 130, Thennekumbura, Kandy. Defendant Appellant Vs. R. M. Punchi Manike (deceased) 1. G. G. Kiribanda, Pandiwatta, Sirimalwatta, Gunnepana. 2. G. G. Muthubanda, No. 213/7, Thalwatta, Kandy. 3. G. G. Senevirathna Banda, No. 46/21, Thennekumbura, Kandy. 4. G. G. Tikiri Banda, No. 96/112, Rajapihilla Mawatha, Kandy. 5. G. G. Nawarathna Banda, No. 37/26A, Pitiyegedara, Medawatta, Wattegama. 6. G. G. Thilakarathna Banda, No. 213/7, Pattiyakelewatta, Thalwatta, Kandy. 7. G. G. Anula Kumarihamy, No. 130/1, Thennekumbura, Kandy. 8. G. G. Seetha Kumarihamy. No. 213, Thalwatta, Kandy. 9. G. G. Wijerathna Banda, No. 130/1, Thennekumbura, Kandy. Substituted Plaintiff Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN G. G. Jayarthne, No. 130, Thennekumbura, Kandy. Defendant Appellant Petitioner Vs. R. M. Punchi Manike (deceased) 1. G. G. Kiribanda, Pandiwatta, Sirimalwatta, Gunnepana. 2. G. View More	HON. UPALY ABEYRATHNE, J.			Download
2017-06-29	SC/APPEAL/182/2016	N.L.D. Ariyaratne, No. 21/3, 2nd Lane, Galpotte Road, Nawala. Petitioner Vs 1. P.B.P.K. Weerasingha, The Commissioner of Labour, Labour Secretariat P.O.Box 575, Kirula Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 2. D.A.Wijewardena, Arbitrator, Labour Secretariat, P.O. Box 575, Kirula Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 3. Kahawatte Plantation Ltd., No. 52, Maligawatte Road, Colombo 10. Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Kahawatte Plantation Ltd., No. 52, Maligawatte Road, Colombo 10. 3rd Respondent Petitioner Vs N.L.D. Ariyaratne, No. 21/3, 2nd Lane, Galpotte Road, Nawala. Petitioner Respondent 1. P.B.P.K. Weerasingha, The Commissioner of Labour, Labour Secretariat P.O.Box 575, Kirula Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 2. D.A.Wijewardena, Arbitrator, Labour Secretariat, P.O. Box 575, Kirula Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. Respondent Respondents View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PCJ.			Download
2017-06-29	SC/APPEAL/150/2011	Seylan Bank Limited Presently known as Seylan Bank PLC No. 69 Janadhipathy Mawatha, Colombo 01. Presently at Ceylinco-Seylan Towers, No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Construction and Personal Servicers (Pvt) Ltd, No. 88, Horton Place, Colombo 07. 2. Madhavan Lanka (Pvt) Ltd. No. 65/19, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Defendant AND NOW BETWEEN Madhavan Lanka (Pvt) Ltd. No. 65/19, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 2nd Defendant Appellant Vs. Seylan Bank Limited Presently known as Seylan Bank PLC No. 69 Janadhipathy Mawatha, Colombo 01. Presently at Ceylinco-Seylan Towers, No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Plaintiff Respondent Construction and Personal Servicers (Pvt) Ltd, No. 88, Horton Place, Colombo 07. 1st Defendant Respondent View More	HON. UPALY ABEYRATHNE, J.			Download
2017-06-29	SC/APPEAL/162/2012	1A. Godallawattage Somawathie 1B. Suduwadewage Wasntha Ramyalatha 1C. Suduwadewage Dekma Ramyalatha All of Remuna Anguruwatota. Substituted Plaintiffs Vs. 1A. Hewahakuruge Evgin, Thuththiripitiya, Halthota. 2A. Mahadurage Opisa, Remuna, Anguruwathota. 3A. Mahadurage Ariyarathna, Mahahena, Horana. 4. Mahadurage Opisa, Remuna, Anguruwathota. 5. Mahadurage Saraneris, Anguruwathota. 6. P. Leelawathie, Remuna, Anguruwathota. 7. Godellawaththage Nandasena, 8. Godellawaththage Carolis, 9. Godellawaththage Darmasena, 10. Godellawaththage Caralain, 11. Godellawaththage Karunawathie, 12. Godellawaththage Seelawathie, 13. Godellawaththage Yasawathie, All of Mahagama. 14. Godellawaththage David, 14A. Godellawaththage Menso, 15A. Godellawaththage Upaneris alias Somasiri, 16. Panawannage Adwin, 17. Sarathchandra Hettiwatta, 17A. Hettipathira Kankanamlage Kusumawathie, 17B. Harsha Kumara Hettiwaththa, 17C. Yamuna Rani Hettiwaththa, 17D. Wimala Kumara Hettiwaththa, 17E. Padmanjali Hettiwaththa, 18. Bothalage Kirineris, 18A. View More	HON. UPALY ABEYRATHNE, J.			Download
2017-06-28	SC/FR/92/2016	1. M. J. M. Faril President of the Board of Trustees Wekada Jumma Mosque, Horana Road, Eluwila, Panadura. 2. Moulavi M.B.M. Haris Principal Anas Ibnu Malik Hiflul Quran Madrasa (Dhamma School) 147, Wella Road, Pinwala, Eluwila, Panadura. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Bandaragama Pradeshiya Sabha Panadura Road, Bandaragama. 2. N.D.I. Swarna K. Perera Secretary, Bandaragama Pradeshiya Sabha Panadura Road, Bandaragama. 3. Menaka Priyantha Abeyratne Divisional Secretary, Bandaragama. Divisional Secretariat, Bandaragama. 4. Urban Development Authority 6th & 7th Floor, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 5. The Director, Department of Muslim Religious and Cultural Affairs, No. 180, T. B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10. 6. Ven. Bolgoda Seelarathana Thero Patalirukkaramaya, Pinwala, Panadura. 7. The Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN Ven. Pinwala Chandarathana Thero Patalirukkaramaya Pinwala, Panadura. PARTY SEEKING SUBSTITUTION IN THE ROOM OF THE DECEASED 6TH RESPONDENT Vs. 3. M. J. M View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-06-28	SC/APPEAL/99/2010	A.C.R. Wijesurendra. No. 275, Wackwella Road, Galle. Applicant Vs Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation Ltd., “ Rakshana Mandiraya “, No. 21, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. Respondent AND BETWEEN Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation Ltd., “ Rakshana Mandiraya “, No. 21, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. Respondent Appellant Vs A.C.R. Wijesurendra. No. 275, Wackwella Road, Galle. Applicant Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation Ltd., “ Rakshana Mandiraya “, No. 21, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. Respondent Appellant Appellant Vs A.C.R. Wijesurendra. No. 275, Wackwella Road, Galle. Applicant Respondent Respondent View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PCJ.			Download
2017-06-23	SC/FR/654/2009	1. Everad Anthony Payoe, Member, Hatton Dick Oya Urban Council, and also at Sirinsaru, Dick Oya. 2. M.I.M. Muhajarin, Member, Hatton Dick Oya Urban Council, Hatton, Dick Oya. 3. G.L.Kithsiri, 32/25, Hatton House Road, Gaminipura, Hatton. 4. A. A. M. L. Lebbe, 28, Hatton House Road, Gaminipura, Hatton. 5. H. A. Neelarathna, 32/28, Hatton House Road, Hatton. 6. D. W. A. Buddadasa, 32/17, Hatton House Road, Gaminipura, Hatton. Petitioners Vs 1. Hatton Dickoya Urban Council, Hatton-Dickoya. 2. A.P.Anura de Silva, Member, Hatton Dickoya Urban Council, Hatton Dickoya. And also at No. 72, Hatton House Road, Hatton. 3. Gopal Nadesan, No.1, Gaminipura Road, Hatton. 4. A. Nandakumar, Chairman & Member, Hatton Dickoya Urban Council, Hatton Dickoya. 5. Upali Alahakoon, Commissioner of Local Government(Central Province), Department of Local Government (Central Province), Secretariat Office, Kandy. 6. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents 7. Ms. Singaram Priyadarshini, Acting Secretary View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PCJ.			Download
2017-06-22	SC/APPEAL/199/2014	K.R.SUMANAWATHIE, Ampitiya Road, Nuwarawela, Kandy. PLAINTIFF VS. S.SEELAWATHIE, No. 29/250B, Ampitiya Road, Nuwarawela, Kandy. DEFENDANT AND BETWEEN S.SEELAWATHIE, No. 29/250B, Ampitiya Road, Nuwarawela, Kandy. DEFENDANT- PETITIONER VS. K.R.SUMANAWATHIE, Ampitiya Road, Nuwarawela, Kandy. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT KULATUNGA RAMANI GUNASEKERAM No.29/250, Ampitiya Road, Nuwarawela, Kandy. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN S.SEELAWATHIE, No. 29/250B, Ampitiya Road, Nuwarawela, Kandy. DEFENDANT- PETITIONER- PETITIONER/APPELLANT VS. K.R.SUMANAWATHIE, Ampitiya Road, Nuwarawela, Kandy. (Deceased) PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT KULATUNGA RAMANI GUNASEKERAM No.29/250, Ampitiya Road, Nuwarawela, Kandy. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena PC, J			Download
2017-06-22	SC/CHC APPEAL/40/2010	1. K.R. ARIYAWATHIE SENADHEERA 516-195, Forum Drive, Mississauga, L423MS Canada. 2. MAHESHA DILANI SENADHEERA 516-195, Forum Drive, Mississauga, L423MS Canada. PLAINTIFFS VS. 1. SHANTHA SENADHEERA No. 21, Temple Road, Negombo. Presently residing at 206, Seven Sisters Road, Finsbury Park, London N43NX, England. 2. AMAL RANDENIYA, No. 281, Colombo Road, Weligampitiya, Ja-Ela. 3. SUNIL WIJESIRIWARDENA, Vibhavi Academy of Fine Arts, No. 38, New Jayaweera Mawatha, Ethul Kotte, Kotte. DEFENDANTS AND NOW BETWEEN 1. K.R. ARIYAWATHIE SENADHEERA 516-195, Forum Drive, Mississauga, L423MS Canada. 2. MAHESHA DILANI SENADHEERA 516-195, Forum Drive, Mississauga, L423MS Canada. PLAINTIFFS- APPELLANTS VS. 1. SHANTHA SENADHEERA No. 21, Temple Road, Negombo. Presently residing at 206, Seven Sisters Road, Finsbury Park, London N43NX, England. 2. AMAL RANDENIYA, No. 281, Colombo Road, Weligampitiya, Ja-Ela. DEFENDANTS- RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena PC. J			Download
2017-06-22	SC/APPEAL/103/2011	HEWAWASAM THUDUWAWATHTHAGE SARATH “Sri Wijaya Mawatha”, Maliyagoda, Ahangama. PLAINTIFF VS. 1. KAMALAWATHIE WIJEWEERA Maliyagoda, Ahangama. 2. D.W. SAMINONA, “Sri Wijaya Mawatha”, Maliyagoda, Ahangama. 3. LOKUBARANIGE PATHMINI KARAWITA, “Sri Wijaya Mawatha”, Maliyagoda, Ahangama. 4. L.D. WAIDYARATHNE, No.149A, Gabada Weediya, Matara. 5. W. ABEYGUNAWARDENA, Visaka Mawatha, Gampaha. 6. I.ABEYGUNAWARDENA, Visaka Mawatha, Gampaha. 7. LILIAN SILVA WIJERATHNE, No.155B, John Rodrigo Mawatha, Katubedda, Moratuwa. DEFENDANTS AND BETWEEN HEWAWASAM THUDUWAWATHTHAGE SARATH “Sri Wijaya Mawatha”, Maliyagoda, Ahangama. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT VS. 1. KAMALAWATHIE WIJEWEERA Maliyagoda, Ahangama. 2. D.W. SAMINONA, “Sri Wijaya Mawatha”, Maliyagoda, Ahangama. 3. LOKUBARANIGE PATHMINI KARAWITA, “Sri Wijaya Mawatha”, Maliyagoda, Ahangama. 4. L.D. WAIDYARATHNE, No.149A, Gabada Weediya, Matara. 5. W. ABEYGUNAWARDENA, Visaka Mawatha, Gampaha. 6. I.ABEYGUNAWARDENA, Visaka Mawatha, Gampaha. 7. LILIAN SILVA WIJERATHNE, No.155B, John Rodrigo View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena, PC, J.			Download
2017-06-22	SC/APPEAL/226/2014	GALLAGE DON SUNIL SHANTHA No. 12, Puttalam Road, Nikaweratiya. PLAINTIFF VS. DISSANAYAKE MUDIYANSELAGE KUSUMAN PATRICIA No. 10, Puttalam Road, Nikaweratiya. DEFENDANT AND DISSANAYAKE MUDIYANSELAGE KUSUMAN PATRICIA No. 10, Puttalam Road, Nikaweratiya. DEFENDANT- APPELLANT VS. GALLAGE DON SUNIL SHANTHA No. 12, Puttalam Road, Nikaweratiya. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN GALLAGE DON SUNIL SHANTHA No. 12, Puttalam Road, Nikaweratiya. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT -PETITIONER/APPELLANT VS. DISSANAYAKE MUDIYANSELAGE KUSUMAN PATRICIA No. 10, Puttalam Road, Nikaweratiya. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT- RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena, PC, J.			Download
2017-06-22	SC/APPEAL/57/2014	Saramge Upul Wijayasiri de Alwis No. 44/2, Old Kottawa Road, Pannipitiya. Plaintiff Appellant Petitioner Appellant Vs. 1. Rashdeen Casim 2. P.R. Boran 3. T.T.N. Casim 4. T.F. Boran All of No. 50, Old Kottawa Road, Pannipitiya. Defendant Respondent Respondent Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J			Download
2017-06-22	SC/APPEAL/103/2013	N.H.M.S.PERERA “Anula”, Polwatte, Kolonna. PLAINTIFF VS. MARGARET PERERA Kadapola, Kolonna. DEFENDANT 1A. G.D.LEELARATNE Kadapola, Kolonna. 2A. G.D.RUPANI Aluth Walauwwa, Kolonna. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANTS AND 1A. G.D.LEELARATNE Kadapola, Kolonna. 2A. G.D.RUPANI Aluth Walauwwa, Kolonna. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANTS- APPELLANTS VS. N.H.M.S.PERERA “Anula”, Polwatte, Kolonna. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND NOW 1A. G.D.LEELARATNE Kadapola, Kolonna. SUBSTITUTED 1A DEFENDANT- APPELLANT-PETITIONER/ APPELLANT VS. N.H.M.S.PERERA “Anula”, Polwatte, Kolonna. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT M.A. ANULA PERERA “Anula”, Polwatte, Kolonna. SUBSTITUED PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT G.D.RUPANI Aluth Walauwwa, Kolonna. SUBSTITUTED 1B DEFENDANT- APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena, PC, J.			Download
2017-06-22	SC/APPEAL/87/2011	1. Wijsmuller Salvage B.V. Sluisplein 34 1975 AG Ijmuiden The Netherlands 2. Sri Lanka Shipping Company Limited 46/5, NawamMawatha P.O. Box 1125 Robert Senanayaka Building Colombo 2 Plaintiffs-Petitioners-Petitioners Vs 1. The Bangladesh Motor Vessel „M.V. JAMMI currently lying in the Port of Colombo 2. Midlands Shipping lines Limited 1st Floor, HBFC Building Agrabad, Commercial Area Chittagong 4100 Bangladesh Defendants-Respondents-Respondents 1. Sri Lanka Ports Authority 19. Church Street, Colombo 1 2. Sea Consortium Lanka (Private ltd) 256, Srimath Ramanathan Mawatha Colombo 15. Intervenient-Defendants-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2017-06-20	SC/FR/345/2016 with 346/2016, 347/2016 & 348/2016	1. L.G.L. Sumithra Menike, No. 43, Viharagama Janapadaya, Pahala Owala, Kaikawala 2. R.P. Aruna Malini, No. 185/1, Neluwa Kanda, Alwatte, Matale. 3. Subadra Wijekanthi, Wijaya Sevana, Kambi Adiya, Kaikawala, Matale. 4. P. G. Dharmaratne, Maussagolla, Rattota. 5. I. G. Sumanasena, No. 132, Neluwa Kanda, Alwatte, Matale 6. D.G. Indrani Swarnalatha No. 5, Walathalawa, Rattota. 7. H.M. Kumudini Herath, No. 193/6, Palleweragama, Kaikawala. 8. W.P.M. Sandmal De Silva 103/6A, Kuruwawa, Rattota. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Commissioner of Local Government-Central Province, Office of the Commissioner of Local Government – Central Province. 2. Secretary, Rattota Pradeshiya Sabha, Rattota. 3. Director General of Establishments, Ministry of Public Administration, Local Government and Democratic Governance, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 4. Rattota Pradeshiya Sabha, Rattota. 5. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12 RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J			Download
2017-06-20	SC/APPEAL/161/2012	Ranjith Palipana, No. 121, Telangapatha Road, Wattala. Presently at 46, 6/2, Seagull Apartments, Collingwood Place, Wellawatte. Applicant Vs Celltel Lanka (Pvt.) Ltd., No. 25, Galle Face Centre Road, Colombo 03. Presently known as Etisalat Lanka (Pvt.) Ltd.. Mukthar Plaza, No. 78, Grand Pass Road, Colombo 14. Respondent AND BETWEEN Ranjith Palipana, No. 121, Telangapatha Road, Wattala. Presently at 46, 6/2, Seagull Apartments, Collingwood Place, Wellawatte. Applicant Appellant Vs Tigo (Pvt.) Ltd., No. 78, Mukthar Plaza Building, 3rd Floor, Grand Pass Road, Colombo 14. Presently known as Etisalat Lanka (Pvt.) Ltd., Mukthar Plaza, No. 78, Grand Pass Road, Colombo 14. Respondent Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Ranjith Palipana, No. 121, Telangapatha Road, Wattala. Presently at 46, 6/2, Seagull Apartments, Collingwood Place, Wellawatte. Applicant Appellant Appellant Vs Etisalat Lanka (Pvt.) Ltd., Mukthar Plaza, No. 78, Grand Pass Road, Colombo 14. Respondent Respondent Respondent View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PCJ.			Download
2017-06-16	SC/FR/32/2014	1. Palitha Victor Mendis Rajakaruna Wathuru Villa, Kahaduwa. 2. Hakmana Kodithuwakkuge Jayathissa 22/4, Guru Pura Rd., Mathugama. 3. Herath Mudiyanselage Panchananda Athula Bandara Herath Kuruvee Kotuwa Kengalla, Kandy. 4. Chaminda Pasquel Dilanka, 32, Meddegoda Rd., Mathugama. 5. Rathanayake Mudiyanselage Upananda Bandara Rathnayaka 22/8, Udaperadeniya, Peradeniya. 6. Sri Lanka Nidahas Ruber Inspectors’ Union, 96/6, Mollamure Avenue 2, Kegalle. Petitioners - Vs- 1. R. B. Premadasa Director-General, Rubber Development Department, No.55/75, Vauxhall Lane, Colombo 2. 2. Mrs. Sudharma Karunaratne Secretary, Ministry of Plantation Industry, 55/75, Vauxhall Lane, Colombo 02. 2A. Anura M. Jayawickrema Secretary, Ministry of Plantation Industry, 11th Floor, Sethsiripaya 2nd Stage, Battaramulla 2B. Mr. Upali Marasinghe Secretary, Ministry of Plantation Industry 11th Floor, Sethsiripaya 2nd Stage, Battaramulla. 3. Dr. Dayasiri Fernando (Former) Chairman, Public Service Commission. 4. Palitha M. Kumarasinghe, PC. 5. Mrs View More	Hon. Buwaneka Aluwihare PCJ			Download
2017-06-15	SC/APPEAL/135/2015	Firoza Mohamed Hamza, No. 15, Hill Castle Place, Colombo 12. Petitioner Vs. 1. Road Development Authority, Office of the Land and Land Acquisition Officer, 3rd Floor. ‘Sethsiripaya’, Battaramulla. Plaintiff Respondent 2. Ummu Waduda Meera Sahib, No. 22, Charles Place, Dehiwala. 3. Seyyad Oaman Meera Sahib, No. 22, Charles Place, Dehiwala. 4. Mohammed Fasulul Rahman Meera Sahib, No. 22, Gajaba Housing Complex, 2nd Lane, Kolonnawa. 5. Riyazur Rahman Meera Sahib, No. 24, Farm Road, Maatakkuliya, Colombo 15. 6. Siththy Navasiya Mohammed Rauf, No. 22, Charles Place, Dehiwala. AND BETWEEN Firoza Mohamed Hamza, No. 15, Hill Castle Place, Colombo 12. Petitioner-Petitioner Vs. 1. Road Development Authority, Office of the Land and Land Acquisition Officer, 3rd Floor. ‘Sethsiripaya’, Battaramulla. Plaintiff Respondent-Respondent 2. Ummu Waduda Meera Sahib, No. 22, Charles Place, Dehiwala. 3. Seyyad Oaman Meera Sahib, No. 22, Charles Place, Dehiwala. 4. Mohammed Fasulul Rahman Meera Sahib, No. 22, Gajaba Housing Complex, View More	HON. UPALY ABEYRATHNE, J.			Download
2017-06-06	SC/FR/121/2011	Jayanetti Koralalage Rajitha Prasanna Jayanetti Of No. 237, Thimbirigasyaya Road, Colombo 5. PETITIONER Vs. 1. H.H. Harischandra (PS 28312) Police Sergeant Police Station, Matugama. 2. Anura Samaraweera Sub Inspector of Police, Special Criminal Investigation Unit Police Station, Matugama 3. Neville Priyantha (PS 10967) Sub Inspector of Police Special Criminal Investigation Unit Police Station, Matugama. 4. K. Udaya Kumara Chief Inspector of Police Head Quarter Inspector Police Station, Matugama. 5. Dr. M. Balasooriya Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters, Colombo. 6. Pinnawalage Chandrasena Pahala Uragala Ingiriya. 7. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-06-05	SC/APPEAL/116/2014	1. Kuruwitage Don Preethi Anura No. 234, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha Rajagiriya 2. K.Don Suwinith Rohan Siriwardena No. 48, Ambathale, Mulleriyawa Town. 3. K. Vajira Gamini Gunasekara No. 31/1, De Fonseka Road Colombo 05. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellants Vs. 1. Makalandage William Silva No. 326/18 Udumulla, Mulleriyawa New Town 2. Makalandage Gnanathilake No. 437/2, Udumulla, Mulleriyawa New Town Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep, PC. CJ			Download
2017-06-02	SC/CHC APPEAL/28/2008	Papeteries De Maudit No. 07, Avenue Ingres, 76016, Paris, France. PLAINTIFF Vs. Tylos Tea (Private) Limited Serendib Park, Indolamulla Dompe. DEFENDANT AND NOW Tylos Tea (Private) Limited Serendib Park, Indolamulla Dompe. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Vs. Papeteries De Maudit No. 07, Avenue Ingres, 76016, Paris, France. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-06-02	SC/FR/430/2005	H.A. Manoj Talis, Lesley Iron Works, Udawela, Ibbagamuwa. Petitioner Vs 1) Inspector Hiriyadeniya, Officer in Charge, Crimes Branch, Police Station, Gokarella. 2) Sub Inspector Nayanananda, Police Station, Gokarella. 3) Sub Inspector Ellepola, Police Station, Gokarella. 4) Sergeant Hemachandra Police Station, Gokarella. 5) Police Constable Ratnasiri, Police Station, Gokarella. 6) Reserve Police Constable Ajith, Police Station, Gokarella. 7) Officer in Charge, Police Station, Gokarella. 8) Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 9) Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Sis ira J.de Abrew, J			Download
2017-06-01	SC/APPEAL/151/2011	Ambagahage Vithorianu Basil Fernando, C/O Canute Peiris, Milagahawatta, Mudukatuwa, Marawiwila. Plaintiff Vs. Ambagahage Leslie Malcom Fernando, Thalawila, Marawila. Defendant AND BETWEEN Ambagahage Leslie Malcom Fernando, Thalawila, Marawila. Defendant Appellant Vs. Ambagahage Vithorianu Basil Fernando, C/O Canute Peiris, Milagahawatta, Mudukatuwa, Marawiwila. Plaintiff Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN 1a. Poruthotage Mary Rose Hysinth Indrani Perera, 1b. Nirmalee Irosha Udayanganee Fernando, 1c. Werjin Ishanka Malshani Fernando, All of Thalawila, Marawila. Substituted Defendant Appellant-Appellants Vs. Ponnamperumage Charlot Mary Matilda Fernando, Milagahawatta, Mudukatuwa, Marawila. Substituted Plaintiff Respondent Respondent View More	HON. UPALY ABEYRATHNE, J.			Download
2017-06-01	SC/APPEAL/11/2016	Western Refrigeration (Private) Limited, 7/B, Panna Lal Silk Mills Compound, 78, LBS Marg, Bhandup (West), Mumbai-400076, Maharashtra, India. Plaintiff Vs. State Bank of India, 16, Sir Baron Jayathilake Mawatha, Post Box No. 93, Colombo 1, Sri Lanka. Defendant AND BETWEEN State Bank of India, 16, Sir Baron Jayathilake Mawatha, Post Box No. 93, Colombo 1, Sri Lanka. Defendant Appellant Vs. Western Refrigeration (Private) Limited, 7/B, Panna Lal Silk Mills Compound, 78, LBS Marg, Bhandup (West), Mumbai-400076, Maharashtra, India. Plaintiff Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Western Refrigeration (Private) Limited, 7/B, Panna Lal Silk Mills Compound, 78, LBS Marg, Bhandup (West), Mumbai-400076, Maharashtra, India. Plaintiff Respondent Appellant Vs. State Bank of India, 16, Sir Baron Jayathilake Mawatha, Post Box No. 93, Colombo 1, Sri Lanka. Defendant Petitioner Respondent View More	HON. UPALY ABEYRATHNE, J.			Download
2017-05-30	SC/FR/244/2010	Chaminda Sampath Kumara Wickremapathirana. Maithri Mawatha, Walgama, Welimilla Junction. Petitioner Vs 1. Sub Inspector Salwatura, Police Station, Bandaragama. 2. Sergeant Manoj, Police Station, Bandaragama. 3. Constable Ashoka, Police Station, Bandaragama. 4. Seargeant Kithsiri, Police Station, Bandaragama. 5. Security Assistant Dissanayake, Police Station, Bandaragama. 6. Charles Wickremasinghe, Officer in Charge, Police Station, Bandaragama. 7. Assistant Superintendent of Police, Prasad Ranasinghe, Panadura Division, ASP’s Office, Panadura. 8. The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 9. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUDERA PCJ.			Download
2017-05-30	SC/APPEAL/122/2013	1. Navarajakulam Muthukumaraswamy, No.18, Lilly Avenue, Colombo 06. 2. Vaithilingam Muthukumaraswamy, No. 18, Lilly Avenue, Colombo 06. Plaintiffs Vs 1. Suresh Thirugnanasampanthan, No. A/136, Maddumagewatte Housing Scheme, Maddumagewatte, Nugegoda. 2. Gowreshwary Suresh, No. A/136, Maddumagewatte Housing Scheme, Maddumagewatte, Nugegoda. Defendants AND 1. Navarajakulam Muthukumaraswamy, No.18, Lilly Avenue, Colombo 06. 2. Vaithilingam Muthukumaraswamy, No. 18, Lilly Avenue, Colombo 06. Plaintiffs Appellants Vs 1. Suresh Thirugnanasampanthan, No. A/136, Maddumagewatte Housing Scheme, Maddumagewatte, Nugegoda. 2. Gowreshwary Suresh, No. A/136, Maddumagewatte Housing Scheme, Maddumagewatte, Nugegoda. Defendants Respondents AND NOW 1. Navarajakulam Muthukumaraswamy, No.18, Lilly Avenue, Colombo 06. 2. Vaithilingam Muthukumaraswamy, No. 18, Lilly Avenue, Colombo 06. Plaintiffs Appellants Appellants Vs 1. Suresh Thirugnanasampanthan, No. A/136, Maddumagewatte Housing Scheme, Maddumagewatte, Nugegoda. 2. Gowreshwary Suresh View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PCJ.			Download
2017-05-30	SC/FR/131/132/133/135/157/2015	Nalin Sandaruwan, 242 / 5, Dambahena Road, Maharagama. Sampath Ranasinghe, “Ranagiri” Sri Darmarama Road, Malamulla, Panadura. W. H. A. Sanath Chandrakumar, “Sinhagiri”, Panamura Road, Middeniya. Wasantha Kumari Ambulugala, Mahahenawatte, Anangoda, Walahanduwa, Galle. Wanni Arachchi Nevil, No 15A, Summit Flats, Keppetipola Mawatha, Colombo 05. Petitioners Vs. 1. Hon. Ranjith Madduma Bandara, Minister of Internal Transport, No 01, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. Dr. Lalithasiri Gunaruwan, Secretary, Ministry of Internal Transport, No.1, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3. National Transport Commission, No 241, Park Road, Colombo 05. 4. Dr. D.S. Jayaweera, Chairman, National Transport Commission, No 241, Park Road, Colombo 05. 5. Hewawalimunige Wipulasena, Director Operations (Acting) National Transport Commission, No. 241, Park Road, Colombo 05. 6. Hon Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	HON. UPALY ABEYRATHNE, J.			Download
2017-05-29	SC/FR/4/2016	1. Environmental Foundation (Guarantee) Limited No. 146/34, Havelock Road, Colombo 5. 2. Wildlife and Nature Protection Society of Sri Lanka No. 86, Rajamalwatte Road, Battaramulla. 3. L. J. Mendis Wickramasinghe 31/5, Alwis Town, Hendala, Wattala. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. A. Sathurusinghe Conservator General of Forests Department of Forest, No. 82, Rajamalwatte, Battaramulla. 2. Central Environmental Authority “Parisara Piyasa” Rajamalwatte, Battaramulla. 3. K. P. Welikannage Director-Central Environmental Authority Sabaragamuwa Provincial Office, No. 27, Vidyala Mawatha, Kegalle. 4. G. D. L. Udaya Kumari Divisional Secretary Divisional Secretariat Kalawana. 5. Hon. Minister of Mahaweli Development and Environment Ministry of Mahaweli Development and Environment No. 55, T. B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10. 6. Ceylon Electricity Board Sir Chiththampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, P.O. Box 50, Colombo 02. 7. Director General Department of Irrigation P. O. Box 1138, 230, Baudhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7. 8. Commissioner General View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-05-26	SC/CHC APPEAL/6/2011	Commercial Leasing Company Ltd., No. 68, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 4. And formerly of Commercial House No. 21, Bristol Street, Colombo 1. PLAINTIFF Vs. 1. Naurunna Badalge Princy Sujatha Prince Radio & Electricals No. 67, Akuressa Road, Weligama. 2. Indrajith Bandula Dickson Jayasinghe 974/1, Sri Sumangala Mawatha, Ratmalana. 3. Liyana Gunawardhana Sunil Litiyamulla Pitidura, Weligama. DEFENDANTS AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Naurunna Badalge Princy Sujatha Prince Radio & Electricals No. 67, Akuressa Road, Weligama. 2. Indrajith Bandula Dickson Jayasinghe 974/1, Sri Sumangala Mawatha, Ratmalana. DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS Vs. Commercial Leasing Company Ltd., No. 68, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 4. And formerly of Commercial House No. 21, Bristol Street, Colombo 1. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT 2. Liyana Gunawardhana Sunil Litiyamulla Pitidura, Weligama. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-05-23	SC/APPEAL/195/2015	Sea Consortium Lanka (Pvt) Limited 174, George R de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 10. PLAINTIFF Vs. 1. The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Limited Lake House No. 35, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. E. Weerapperuma No. 21/22, Maradana Road, Hendala. Wattala. DEFENDANTS AND BETWEEN In the matter of an Appeal under Section 754(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, read together with Section 5A of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions Amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006 1 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Limited Lake House No. 35, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. E. Weerapperuma No. 21/22, Maradana Road, Hendala. Wattala. DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS Vs. Sea Consortium Lanka (Pvt) Limited 174, George R de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 10. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTS AND NOW In the matter of an Application Leave to Appeal under Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 54 of 2006 1. The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Limited Lake House No. 35, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. E. Weerapperuma View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-05-19	SC/APPEAL/198/2014	SEYLAN BANK PLC No. 69, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 03 and now of Ceylinco-Seylan Towers, No.90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. (New Company NO. P.Q.9) PLAINTIFF VS. 1. NEW LANKA MERCHANTS MARKETING (PVT) LIMITED No. 31/5, Horton Place, Colombo 07 and also of No.25, Abdul Jabbar Mawatha, Colombo 12. 2. KOSHY THOMES 3. PUWANESHWARY THOMES 4. NELSON THOMES 5. SALLY THOMES All of No.25, Abdul Jabbar Mawatha, Colombo 12. DEFENDANTS AND NOW BETWEEN 1. NEW LANKA MERCHANTS MARKETING (PVT) LIMITED No. 31/5, Horton Place, Colombo 07 and also of No.25, Abdul Jabbar Mawatha, Colombo 12. 2. KOSHY THOMES 3. PUWANESHWARY THOMES 4. NELSON THOMES 5. SALLY THOMES All of No.25, Abdul Jabbar Mawatha, Colombo 12. DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS VS. 1. SEYLAN BANK PLC No. 69, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 03 and now of Ceylinco-Seylan Towers, No.90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. (New Company NO. P.Q.9) PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND 2. THE GOLDEN KEY CREDIT CARD COMPANY LIMITED No. 2. R.A.De Mel Mawatha, Colombo 03. 3. DR. LALITH KOTELAWALA No. 2. View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena, PC, J.			Download
2017-05-16	SC/FR/180/2016	1. Wanigasundara Appuhamilage Don Dharmasiri Wanigasundara, 210/D/1, Medagama, Panirendawa, Madampe. 2. Megesuriya Mudiyanselage Palitha Priyankara Bandara Megesuriya, Aludeniya, Hemmathagama. 3. Udadeniya Viyannalage Nandapala, No. 341/1, Negambo Road, Katunayaka. 4. Miyanamaditte Gedara Ranjith Wijerathna Bandara Kaduwela, No. 60/3, Amarathunga Mawatha, Mirigama. 5. Kodippili Patabendige Priyantha Nilmini Kumari No. 367/3, Pasyala Road, Mirigama. 6. Munasingha Appuhamilage Janaka Ravindra Munasingha, No. 264/3. Gorge E De Silva Mawatha, Kandy. 7. Badana Mudiyanselage Mahindasena, 26, Puchibogahapitiya, Balagolla, Kengalla. 8. Adikari Mudiyanselage Lalith Parakrama Adikaram, No. 41/1 Heeressagala Road, Kandy. 9. Jayapathma Herath Mudiyanselage Amarathilaka Jayapathma, Dangahamulahenewatta, Galapitiyagama, Nikaweratiya. 10. Galabalana Dewage Karunasena, No. 85, Bogahawatta, Kirindiwela. PETITIONERS -Vs- 1. Kalyani Dahanayake Commissioner General of Inland Revenue The Inland Revenue Department, Sir Chittampalam View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J.			Download
2017-04-07	SC/CHC APPEAL/35/2009	Peoples Bank, No 75, Sir Chittamplam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Defendant Appellant Vs. W. A. H. Weerasinghe, “Dambuwa Walawwa”, Radawana Road, Yakkala. Plaintiff Respondent View More	HON. UPALY ABEYRATHNE, J.			Download
2017-04-06	SC/APPEAL/195/2012	Seyadu Mohamadu Mohamed Munas, No. 1/96, Dehigama, Muruthalawa. (Now deceased) Mohamed Muhuseen Inul Zulfika, No. 1/96, Dehianga, Muruthalawa. Substituted Plaintiff Respondent Appellant Vs Sitti Patu Umma, No. 19, Dehianga, Muruthalawa. Defendant Appellant Respondent View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PCJ.			Download
2017-04-06	SC/APPEAL/173/2011	SENADHEERAGE CHANDRIKA SUDARSHANI No.497/A/1,Ranmuthugala, Kadawatha. PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENT -PETITIONER/APPELLANT VS. MUTHUKUDA HERATH MUDIYANSELAGE GEDARA SOMAWATHI No.406/2/A, Welipillawa, Ganemulla. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT -RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena, PC J.			Download
2017-04-05	SC/APPEAL/94/2013	Nihal Ranjith Weerawarna No.91, Wijaya Road, Madaketiya, Tangalla Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Herbert Walter Techope No.91, Wijaya Road, Madaketiya, Tangalla Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	HON. K.T.CHITRASIRI, J.			Download
2017-04-05	SC/CHC APPEAL/26/2010	PAN ASIA BANKING CORPORATION PLC, at No.450, Galle Road, Colombo 03 and a branch office and/or a place of business called “Panchikawatte Branch” at No 221/221A, Sri Sangaraja Mawatha, Colombo 10. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER REPONDENT-PETITIONER/ APPELLANT VS. RANASINGHE ARACHCHIGE THILANGANI CHANDRASENA PERERA, No. 400/60/9, Longdon Avenue, Colombo 07. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- PETITIONER-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena, PC, J.			Download
2017-04-03	SC/CHC APPEAL/20/2003	Employees Trust Fund, 1st Floor, Labour Secretariat, Colombo 05. 1st Defendant Appellant Vs Somerville and Company Limited, No. 137, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. Plaintiff Respondent View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PCJ.			Download
2017-03-31	SC/APPEAL/59/2016	Ceylon Estates Staffs’ Union (Lanka Wathu Sewa Sangamaya) No. 6, Aloe Avenue, Colombo 3. (On behalf of N C Kodituwakku) APPLICANT Vs. 1. The Superintendent Belmont Tea Factory Hulandawa Estate, Akuressa. 2. Namunukula Plantations PLC No. 310, High Level Road, Navinna, Maharagama. RESPONDENTS AND BETWEEN Ceylon Estates Staffs’ Union (Lanka Wathu Sewa Sangamaya) No. 6, Aloe Avenue, Colombo 3. (On behalf of N C Kodituwakku) APPLICANT-APPELLANT Vs. 1. The Superintendent Belmont Tea Factory Hulandawa Estate, Akuressa. 2. Namunukula Plantations PLC No. 310, High Level Road, Navinna, Maharagama. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS AND BETWEEN 1. The Superintendent Belmont Tea Factory Hulandawa Estate, Akuressa. 2. Namunukula Plantations PLC No. 310, High Level Road, Navinna, Maharagama. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS Vs. Ceylon Estates Staffs’ Union (Lanka Wathu Sewa Sangamaya) No. 6, Aloe Avenue, Colombo 3. (On behalf of N C Kodituwakku) APPLICANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-03-31	SC/CHC APPEAL/12/2011	Peoples’ Bank, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Plaintiff Vs Rolax Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd., No. 97/8, Galle Road, Dehiwala. Defendant NOW BETWEEN Rolax Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd., No. 97/8, Galle Road, Dehiwala. Defendant Appellant Vs Peoples’ Bank, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo. Plaintiff Respondent View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J.			Download
2017-03-27	SC/HC CALA/306/2013	Walpola Mudalige Janenona No.87/1, Walpolawatta Kelanimulla, Angoda. PLAINTIFF Vs. Manamala Gamage Nandawathie 337, Kothlawala, Kaduwela DEFENDANT AND BETWEEN Manamala Gamage Nandawathie 337, Kothlawala, Kaduwela DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Vs. Walpola Mudalige Janenona (deceased) No.87/1, Walpolawatta Kelanimulla, Angoda PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT Malwi Pathirannehelage Walter Dickson Perera No.145, Siridamma Mawatha Colombo 10. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT AND Malwi Pathirannehelage Walter Dickson Perera No.145. Siridamma Mawatha Colombo 10. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT PETITIONER Vs. Manamala Gamage Nandawathie 337, Kothlawala, Kaduwela DEFENDANT APPELLANT RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2017-03-24	SC/APPEAL/83/2014	Jayanthi Chandrika Perera No.132/2, Kolonnawa Road, Dematagoda, Colombo Presently at No.161, Hospital Road, Kalubowila, Dehiwala Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. D. Don Chandrakumara No. 161, Hospital Road, Kalubowila, Dehiwela Presently at No.167/6 Hospital Road, Kalubowila, Dehiwala Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	HON. K.T.CHITRASIRI, J.			Download
2017-03-20	SC/APPEAL/10/2013	Jayasinghe Appuhamilage Anura Jayasinghe Ambawela of No. 58, Edwin Wijerathna Mawatha, Kegalle. PLAINTIFF Vs. Liyanage Shanthapriya Lalith Kumara Liyanage of No. 50, Edwin Wijerathna Mawatha, Kegalle. DEFENDANT AND Jayasinghe Appuhamilage Anura Jayasinghe Ambawela of No. 58, Edwin Wijerathna Mawatha, Kegalle. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs. Liyanage Shanthapriya Lalith Kumara Liyanage of No. 50, Edwin Wijerathna Mawatha, Kegalle. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Liyanage Shanthapriya Lalith Kumara Liyanage of No. 50, Edwin Wijerathna Mawatha, Kegalle. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs. Jayasinghe Appuhamilage Anura Jayasinghe Ambawela of No. 58, Edwin Wijerathna Mawatha, Kegalle. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-03-17	SC/CHC APPEAL/18/2009	People’s Bank, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Plaintiff Vs Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation Ltd., No. 21, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 2. Defendant AND NOW Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation Ltd., No. 21, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 2. Defendant Appellant Vs People’s Bank, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Plaintiff Respondent View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J.			Download
2017-03-17	SC/APPEAL/36/2012	Dinayadura Kanakaratne, Dolikanda, Boossa. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent-Appellant -VS- 1. Wasalage Gunawathie, Kendala, Boossa. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent 2. Dedimuni Kamani Sriyalatha De Silva, Rubberwatte, Kapumulla, Rathgama. Petitioner-Appellant-Respondent (Deceased) Loku Liyaage Shiromi De Zoysa, Rubberwatte, Kapumulla, Rathgama. Substituted Petitioner-Appellant-Respondent View More	HON. K.T. CHITRASIRI J.			Download
2017-03-16	SC/APPEAL/99/2013	Konara Mudiyanselage Bandara Menika Bogahawattegedara, Dambagalla, Monaragala Plaintiff Vs (deceased) Konara Mudiyanselage Kumara Mutuwella Defendant 1a. Konara Mudiyanselage Chula Indika Kumara 1b. Konara Mudiyanselage Wajira Saminda Kumara 1c. Konara Mudiyanselage Manoj Dilanka Kumara Podinilame All of „Kumara Niwasa’, Dambagalla Monaragala Substituted Defendants AND 1a. Konara Mudiyanselage Chula Indika Kumara 1b. Konara Mudiyanselage Wajira Saminda Kumara 1c. Konara Mudiyanselage Manoj Dilanka Kumara Podinilame All of „Kumara Niwasa’, Dambagalla Monaragala. Substituted Defendant-Appellants Vs Konara Mudiyanselage Bandara Menika Bogahawattegedara, Dambagalla, Monaragala Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Konara Mudiyanselage Bandara Menika Bogahawattegedara, Dambagalla, Monaragala Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Konara Mudiyanselage Heen Menika. Udumulla, Dambagalla, Monaragala Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs 1a. Konara Mudiyanselage Chula Indika Kumara 1b. Konara Mudiyanselage Wajira Saminda Kumara View More	Hon. Sisira J. De Abrew J.			Download
2017-03-15	SC/APPEAL/117/2011	Manamalage Michael Ranjith Fernando alias Mahipalage Michael Ranjith Perera of No. 44, Baseline Road, Seeduwa. Plaintiff Vs 1. Manamalage Marcus Fernando, 2. Prema Dayani Both of “Sadawarana Veda Medura” Seeduwa North, Seeduwa. Defendants AND BETWEEN 1. Manamalage Marcus Fernando 2. Prema Dayani Both of “Sadawarana Veda Medura”, Seeduwa North, Seeduwa. Defendants Appellants Vs Manamalage Michael Ranjith Fernando alias Mahipalage Michael Ranjith Perera, of No.44, Baseline Road, Seeduwa. Plaintiff Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Manamalage Michael Ranjith Fernando alias Mahipalage Michael Ranjith Perera, of No.44, Baseline Road, Seeduwa. Plaintiff Respondent Appellant Vs 1. Manamalage Marcus Fernando 2. Prema Dayani Both of “Sadawarana Veda Medura”, Seeduwa North, Seeduwa. Defendants Appellants Respondents View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC. J.			Download
2017-03-14	SC/APPEAL/15/2012	Rev. Bengamuwe Dhammadinna Thero Purana Rajamaha Viharaya Pelmadulla. PLAINTIFF Vs. 1. Pallage Karunaratna Perera No. 79, Ratnapura Road, Pelmadulla. 2. D. P. Kariyawasam No. 79, Ratnapura Road, Pelmadulla. DEFENDANTS AND BETWEEN 1. Pallage Karunaratna Perera No. 79, Ratnapura Road, Pelmadulla. 1st DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Vs. Rev. Bengamuwe Dhammadinna Thero Purana Rajamaha Viharaya Pelmadulla. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT 2. D. P. Kariyawasa No. 79, Ratnapura Road, Pelmadulla. 2nd DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Rev. Bengamuwe Dhammadinna Thero Purana Rajamaha Viharaya Pelmadulla. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT 1. Pallage Karunaratna Perera No. 79, Ratnapura Road, Pelmadulla. 1st DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT 2. D. P. Kariyawasa No. 79, Ratnapura Road, Pelmadulla. 2nd DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-03-14	SC/APPEAL/167/2010	Dankoluwa Hewa Bulath Kandage Dona Subashini Ruchira Manjari, Of No. 396/4/A, Kotikawatta, Angoda. Plaintiff Vs Dangolla Appuhamilage Wimalawathie, Of Walawwatta, Kahahena, Waga. Defendant AND BETWEEN Dangolla Appuhamilage Wimalawathie, Of Walawwatta, Kahahena, Waga. Defendant Appellant Vs Dankoluwa Hewa Bulath Kandage Dona Subashini Ruchira Manjari, Of No. 396/4/A, Kotikawatta, Angoda. Plaintiff Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Dangolla Appuhamilage Wimalawathie, Of Walawwatta, Kahahena, Waga. Defendant Appellant Appellant Vs Dankoluwa Hewa Bulath Kandage Dona Subashini Ruchira Manjari, Of No. 396/4/A, Kotikawatta, Angoda. Plaintiff Respondent Respondent View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC. J.			Download
2017-03-14	SC/CHC APPEAL/29/2011	Independent Television Network Limited, Wickremasinghepura, Battaramulla. Plaintiff Vs 1. Godakanda Herbals Private Ltd., 102, Kandy Road, Veveldiniya. 2. Lelwala G. Godakanda, 102, Kandy Road, Veveldeniya. Carrying on sole proprietyship under the name and style of “V.L.C. Advertising”. Defendants AND NOW BETWEEN Independent Television Network Limited, Wickremasinghepura, Battaramulla. Plaintiff Appellant Vs 1. Godakanda Herbals Private Ltd., 102, Kandy Road, Veveldiniya. 2. Lelwala G. Godakanda, 102, Kandy Road, Veveldeniya. Carrying on sole proprietyship under the name and style of “V.L.C. Advertising”. Defendant Respondents View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC., J.			Download
2017-03-08	SC/APPEAL/110/2010	T. Mohamed Razak, No. 43, Lake Crescent, Colombo 12. Plaintiff Vs 1. N. Ammal Thiyagarajah 2. K. Thiyagarajah Both of No. 21, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo. Defendants AND T. Mohamed Razak, No. 43, Lake Crescent, Colombo 12. Plaintiff Appellant Vs 1. N. Ammal Thiyagarajah 2. K. Thiyagarajah Both of No. 21, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo. Defendants Respondents AND NOW 1. N. Ammal Thiyagarajah 2. K. Thiyagarajah Both of No. 21, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo. Defendants Respondents Appellants Vs T. Mohamed Razak, No. 43, Lake Crescent, Colombo 12. Plaintiff Appellant Respondent View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC. J.			Download
2017-03-07	SC/APPEAL/139/2013	Mohamed Wahid ‘Rock View’, 9th Mile Post Alawatugoda. Probate holder of late Muhandiramge Aboobakkar Lebbe Mohamed Yusoof of 9th Mile Post, Alawatugoda. PLAINTIFF Vs. Rev. Wattegama Sumana Tissa Sri Wijayaramaya, Kuriwela, Ukuwela. (Deceased) DEFENDANT Rev. Wattegama Siri Sumana Elwela Temple, Elwela. (Deceased) SUBSTITUTED-DEFENDANT Rev. Kalundewe Chandrasiri Elwela Temple, Elwela. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT AND Rev. Kalundewe Chandrasiri Elwela Temple, Elwela. SUBSTITUTED-DEFENDANT-PETITIONER Vs. Mohamed Wahid ‘Rock View’, 9th Mile Post Alawatugoda. Probate holder of late Muhandiramge Aboobakkar Lebbe Mohamed Yusoof of 9th Mile Post, Alawatugoda. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND NOW Mohamed Wahid ‘Rock View’, 9th Mile Post Alawatugoda. Probate holder of late Muhandiramge Aboobakkar Lebbe Mohamed Yusoof of 9th Mile Post, Alawatugoda. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs. Rev. Kalundewe Chandrasiri Elwela Temple, Elwela. SUBSTITUTED-DEFENDANT-PETITIONER-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-03-03	SC/FR/9/2011	1. Suriyarachchige Lakshman de Silva 2. B.M. Ajantha Weerasinghe Both of 19/1 ‘Eksath” Mawatha, Kadawatha. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Officer-In-Charge, Edirisuriya Patabendige Chaminda Edirisuriya. Police Station Kiribathgoda, Also at residence:-No.94, Maya Mawatha Kiribathgoda. 2. Officer-In-Charge, Crime Division, M.A.D. Ruwan Viraj, Police Station, Kiribathgoda. Also at residence:-No.109, Galpothgoda Pugoda, New Town. 3. Sergeant P.L.R. Percey Dissanayake, Crime Division, Police Station, Kiribathgoda. Also at residence:-No.421/A/1, Ahugammana, Demalagama, Miragawatta 4. Police Constable R.M. Sanjwwea Suriya Ruwan, Police Station, Kiribathgoda. Also at residence:-No.8, Anumethigama, Bingiriya. 5. B. Carmer, (Proprietor) K.C.C. Engineering Co (PVT) Ltd, No.690, Kapuwaththa, Ja-Ela. Also at residence:- No.214/15, Fathima Mawatha, Kiribathgoda. 6. Deputy Inspector General of Police Police Station, Peliyagoda. 7. Pujitha Jayasundera, Sri Lanka Police Department, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 1. 8. The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department View More	HON. H.N.J. PERERA, J.			Download
2017-03-03	SC/FR/164/2015 & SC/FR/276/2015	S.C (FR) No.164/2015 1. P. H. Balasooriya of 52, Mile Post, Kannattiya, Mihinthale. And 31 others PETITIONERS Vs. People’s Bank People’s Bank Head Office No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. And 13 others RESPONDENTS S.C (FR) No. 276/2015 1. P.P.M. Wijewickrama “Pramuditha”, Thalahagamwaduwa Walasmulla. And 39 others PETITIONERS Vs. 1. People’s Bank No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. And 3 others RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-03-01	SC/APPEAL/215/2012	Sri Lanka Telecom Ltd., Head Office, Lotus Road, Colombo 01. PETITIONER-PETITIONER-APPELLANT -Vs- 1. Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, No. 36, Kynsey Road, Colombo 08. 2. Justice S. Anandacoomaraswamy, Former Chairman, 2A. Dr. Deepika Udagama, Chairperson, 3. Justice D. Jaywickrama, Former Member, 3A. Ghazali Hussain, Member, 4. M.T. Bafiq, Former Member, 4A. Saliya Peiris Member, 5. N.D. Abeywardena, Former Member, 5A. Ambika Sathkunanadan, Member, 6. Mahanama Thilakaratne, Former Member, 6A. Dr. Upananda Vidanapathirana, Member, 7. Nimal G. Punchihewa, Former Additional Secretary, 7A. S. Jayamanna, The Secretary, All of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, No. 36, Kynsey Road, Colombo 8. 8. M.M.M. Zaheed, 585/1/A, 2nd Division, Maradana, Colombo 10. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Sisira J. De Abrew, J.			Download
2017-03-01	SC/APPEAL/47/2014	TAD Hemasiri Gomis No.71, Vihara Mawatha. Singharamulla, Kelaniya Applicant Vs Kelaniya Co-operative Society Ltd., Biyagama Road, Kelaniya. Respondent AND TAD Hemasiri Gomis No.71, Vihara Mawatha. Singharamulla, Kelaniya Applicant-Appellant Vs Kelaniya Co-operative Society Ltd., Biyagama Road, Kelaniya. Respondent-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN TAD Hemasiri Gomis No.71, Vihara Mawatha. Singharamulla, Kelaniya Applicant-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs Kelaniya Co-operative Society Ltd., Biyagama Road, Kelaniya. Respondent-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J. De Abrew J.			Download
2017-03-01	SC/APPEAL/88/2010	NGA Wijenayake No. 4B, 57L Raddolugama. Applicant Vs International Construction Consortium Ltd Bernards Building, First Floor, No.106/4, Kohuwala, Dehiwala Presently at No.70, S. de.S Jayasingha Mawatha, Kohuwala, Dehiwala Respondent AND BETWEEN NGA Wijenayake No. 4B, 57L Raddolugama. Applicant-Appellant Vs International Construction Consortium Ltd Bernards Building, First Floor, No.106/4, Kohuwala, Dehiwala Presently at No.70, S. de.S Jayasingha Mawatha, Kohuwala, Dehiwala Respondent-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN NGA Wijenayake No. 4B, 57L Raddolugama. Applicant-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs International Construction Consortium Ltd Bernards Building, First Floor, No.106/4, Kohuwala, Dehiwala Presently at No.70, S. de.S Jayasingha Mawatha, Kohuwala, Dehiwala Respondent-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J. De Abrew J.			Download
2017-03-01	SC/APPEAL/117/2012	Walpita Gamage Dharmadasa alias Berty de Silva alias Berty Silva, Modara. Patuwatha, Dodanduwa. Defendant - Appellant - Petitioner - Appellant - Vs - Manawaduge Ebert, Agathuduwa, Dodandugoda, Dodanduwa. Plaintiff - Respondent - Respondent - Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J. De Abrew J.			Download
2017-02-28	SC/FR/383/2008	1. W.J. Fernando 77/1, Church Road Gampaha. 2. A.M.M. Aththanayake 199/1, Borella Road, Godagama. 3. J. Wijesinghe LG-3, Maligawatta Flats, Colombo 10. 4. E.A.D. Weerasekera Bhathiya Mawatha, Kiribathgoda. 5. K.N. Perera 65/1, Weli Amuna Road, Hendala, Wattala. 6. S. Hewavitharana 89, Temple Lane, Colombo 10. 7. B.D.D. Kularatne 89, Thelangapatha Road, Wattala. 8. W.C. Alwis 217, J.N.H.S. Gogithota Wattala. 9. G.D.K. Rathnasekera 51-4, Galudupita Road, Maththumagala, Ragama. 21. P.K. Dayananda Wikumpadma Hikkaduwa. 22. S.P. Guruge 37, Pallewela Road, Katetiya. 23. K.I. Premadasa 202, Thotupola Road, Bolgoda, Bandaragama. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Priyantha Perera Former Chairman. 2. Gunapala Wickramaratne Former Member. 3. M. J. Mookiah Former Member. 4. Srima Wijeratne Former Member. 5. W.P.S. Wijewardena Former Member. 6. Mendis Rohanadheera Former Member. 7. Bernard Soyza Former Member. 8. Palitha Kumarasinghe Former Member. 9. Dayasiri Fernando Former Member & former Chairman. All of the Public Service Commission View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-02-23	SC/FR/224/2012	1. M. G. Nishantha Rupasinghe No. 59, Vihara Mawatha, New Puttalam Road, Pothanegama. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Dharmakeerthi Wijesundera No. 280A, New Town, Anuradhapura. 2. Viraj Perera Commissioner of Local Government Office of the Commissioner of Local Government Office, Provincial Council Building of the North Central Province, Anuradhapura. 3. Dumindu Dayasena Retiyala (Member of the Municipal Council of Anuradhapura) “Hotel Thammenna”, Airport Road, Anuradhapura. 4. Headquarter Inspector of Anuradhapura Headquarter Inspector’s Office, Anuradhapura. 5. W.M.R. Wijesinghe Assistant Divisional Secretary Divisional Secretariat Office (Negenahira Nuwaragampalatha), Anuradhapura. 6. Divisional Secretary Divisional Secretariat’s Office (Negenahira Nuwaragampalatha), Anuradhapura. 7. Dayananda, Grama Niladari, No. 258, Thulana, Anuradhapura. 8. Dissanayake (Sub Inspector of Police), Police Station, Anuradhapura. 9. Rupasinghe (Police Sergeant – 24707), Police Station, Anuradhapura. 10. Nalaka (Police Constable – 9241) View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-02-22	SC/APPEAL/182/2014	1. Kahandage Colman Edward Silva 2. Paul Felix Silva 3. Raymond Joseph Silva 4. Anthony Silva All of Pallethennegedara Kurukudhegama, Pattiyegedera PLAINTIFFS Vs. 1. A.M. Punchibanda (Deceased) ORIGINAL DEFENDENT 2. A.M. Gunasekera 3. A.M. Appuhamy 4. A.M. Wijesekera 5. A.M. Rathnayake 6. A.M. Siriwardena 7. A.M. Dingiribanda 8. A.M. Kumarihamy 9. A.M. Sudubanda (Deceased) All of Hapukanuwa, Kurukudhegama, Pattiyegedera. SUBSTITUTED-DEFENDANTS AND 1. Kahandage Colman Edward Silva 2. Paul Felix Silva 3. Raymond Joseph Silva 4. Anthony Silva All of Pallethennegedara Kurukudhegama, Pattiyegedera PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS Vs. 1. A.M. Punchibnada (Deceased) ORIGINAL DEFENDENT 2. A.M. Gunasekera 3. A.M. Appuhamy 4. A.M. Wijesekera 5. A.M. Rathnayake 6. A.M. Siriwardena 7. A.M. Dingiribanda 8. A.M. Kumarihamy 9. A.M. Sudubanda All of Hapukanuwa, Kurukudhegama, Pattiyegedera. SUBSTITUTED-DEFENDENT-RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN 2. A.M. Gunasekera 4. A.M. Wijesekera Both of Hapukanuwa, Kurukudhegama, Pattiyegedera SUBSTITUTED View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-02-22	SC/FR/308/2015	Dr. Nalin de Silva 109/1, Railway Avenue, Maharagama. 1. Ranil Wickremasinghe, Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, Prime Minister’s Office No.58, Sir Earnest De Silva Mawatha, Colombo 07, Sri Lanka. 2. DEW Gunasekera, Former Minister of Rehabilitation and Prison Reforms. Communist Party of Sri Lanka, Headquarters, 91, Dr. N.M.Perera Mawatha, 3. Dhammika Dassanayake Secretary General of Parliament Parliament of Sri Lanka Sri Jayewardenepura Kotte, Sri Lanka. 4. P.B.Abeykoon Secretary to the President, Presidential Secretariat Galle Face Colombo 01. 5. Sujeeva Senasinghe Former Member of Parliament Deputy Minister of Justice, Ministry of Justice – Sri Lanka Superior Courts Complex Colombo 12. 6. Arjuna Mahendran, Governor Central Bank of Sri Lanka P.O.Box 590, Janadhipathi Mawatha Colombo 01. 7. Perpetual Treasuries Ltd., 10, Alfred House Gardens, Colombo 3. 8. Chamal Rajapaksa, (former) Speaker, Parliament of Sri Lanka, c/o Secretary General of Parliament of Sri Lanka Sri Jayewardenepura Kotte, Sri Lanka. 9. The Attorney General View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2017-02-20	SC/APPEAL/119/2009	Samathapala Jayawardena, No. 38, Maligawatta Road, Colombo 10. Plaintiff Vs People’s Bank, No.75, Sir Chittampalam A.Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Defendant AND People’s Bank, No.75, Sir Chittampalam A.Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Defendant Appellant Vs Samathapala Jayawardena, No. 38, Maligawatta Road, Colombo 10. Plaintiff Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN People’s Bank, No.75, Sir Chittampalam A.Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Defendant Appellant Appellant Vs Samathapala Jayawardena, No. 38, Maligawatta Road, Colombo 10. Plaintiff Respondent Respondent (Deceased) 1. Ariyawathie Jayawardena 2. Tyronne Deepal Jayawardena 3. Buddhika Upamalika Jayawardena 4. Ryan Jayawardena 5. Rienzie Nalin Jayawardena 6. Surath Nilantha Jayawardena All of No. 38, Maligawatta Road, Colombo 10. Substituted Plaintiff Respondent Respondents View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC, J			Download
2017-02-17	SC/HC CALA/127/2014 & SC/HC CALA/128/2014	N. Habeebu Mohamedge Masahima Umma Alias Siththi Raheema (Deceased) No. 145, Bulugohotenna Road Akurana Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 1. P.T.G. Mohamed Sifan Najimudeen 2. P.T.G. Fathima Shifani Najimudeen 3. F. Masani Janimudeen All of No. 145, Bulughatenna, Palleweliketiya, Akurana Substituted –Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Petitioners Vs. 9. Mahagamage Chandrasena alias Chandrasiri of Bamunugedera, Kurunegala Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner Respondent 1. Abdul Hasan Mohomed Iqbal 2. Abdul Hasan Mohomed Sarook 3. Abdul Hasan Mohomed Mursheed 4. Abdul Hasan Mohomed Muneer 5. Abdul Hasan Mohomed Jarjees All of 188, Dodamgolla, Akurana 6. Habeebu Mohomed Fauziya Umma (Deaceased) Of 99/1, Bulugohotenna, Akurana 6A. Enderu Tenne Gedera Seyed Mohomed Habeebu Mohomed of 99/1, Bulugohotenna, Akurana. 7. Abdul Kadar Fathima Mafas of No. 41, Bulugohotenna, Akurana 8. Nuwara Gedera Habeebu Mohomedge Sanufa Umma of No. 237, Bulugohotenna, Akurana 10. Nuware Gedera Habeebu Mohomed Misiriya Umma 11. Welimankada Gedera View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep, PC. J			Download
2017-02-15	SC/FR/458/2010	Kandegedara Priyawansa, No. 42/28-B, Katumana, Nuwara-Eliya, (currently, detained at the Welikada Remand Prison) PETITIONER Vs. 1. Gotabhaya Rajapakse Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Public Security and Law & Order, No. 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 3. 2. C.N. Wakishta Deputy Inspector General of Police, Director, Terrorist Investigation Division, 2nd Floor, Secretariat, Colombo 01. 3. Officer-in-Charge Welikada Remand Prison, Welikada, Colombo 8. 4. S. Hettiarachchi Additional Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Public Security and Law & Order, No. 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 3. 5. Bogamuwa Inspector of Police, Terrorist Investigation Division, 2nd Floor, Secretariat, Colombo 01. 6. Hon. Attorney-General Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Sisira J. De Abrew J.			Download
2017-02-15	SC/APPEAL/199/2012	Mahawattage Dona Chanika Diluni Abeyratne, No. 227/2, Stanley Thilakaratne Mawatha, Nugegoda. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Janaka R. Goonewardene, No.17, 1st Lane, Kirillapone, Colombo 05. 2. Jaykay Marketing Services(Pvt)Ltd, Registered office No. 130, Glennie Street, Colombo 02. Place of business Keels Super Supermarket, No.225, Stanley Thilakaratne Mawatha, Nugegoda. Defendants AND BETWEEN Jaykay Marketing Services (Pvt) Ltd, No. 130, Glennie Street, Colombo 02. Carrying on business at: Keels Supermarket, No. 225, Stanley Thilakaratne Mawatha, Nugegoda. 2nd Defendant-Petitioner Vs. 1. M.D.C.D. Abeyratne, No.227/2, Stanley Thilakaratne Mawatha, Nugegoda. Plaintiff-Respondent 2. J.R. Goonewardene, No.17, 1st Street, Colombo 05. 1st Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Mahawattage Dona Chanika Diluni Abeyratne, No. 227/2, Stanley Thilakaratne Mawatha, Nugegoda. Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Jaykay Marketing Services (Pvt) Ltd, No. 130, Glennie Street, Colombo 02. Carrying on business at: Keels Supermarket, No. 225 View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2017-02-15	SC/APPEAL/218/2014	Wicrama Pathiranage Mahesh Ruwan Pathirana “Sampath”, Udumulla, Nugathalawa, Welimada. PLAINTIFF Vs. Ginthota Sarukkale Vitharanage Hemalatha Piyathilake Alis Hemalatha Piyathilake Ginthota “Links View”, Kandy Road, Nuwara Eliya. DEFENDANT AND BETWEEN Wicrama Pathiranage Mahesh Ruwan Pathirana “Sampath”, Udumulla, Nugathalawa, Welimada. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs. Ginthota Sarukkale Vitharanage Hemalatha Piyathilake Alis Hemalatha Piyathilake Ginthota “Links View”, Kandy Road, Nuwara Eliya. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Ginthota Sarukkale Vitharanage Hemalatha Piyathilake Alis Hemalatha Piyathilake Ginthota “Links View”, Kandy Road, Nuwara Eliya. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT APPELLANT Vs. Wicrama Pathiranage Mahesh Ruwan Pathirana “Sampath”, Udumulla, Nugathalawa, Welimada. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2017-02-15	SC/APPEAL/3/2010	National Institute of Co-operative Development Polgolla Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant -Vs- Vimal Jayathilake Wijesekara Nikathenna, Puwakdheniya Kegalle Applicant-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J. De Abrew, J			Download
2017-02-15	SC/APPEAL/55/2015	Piscal Kankanamalage Don Alfred Victor Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 01 Nekath Gamlath Ralalage Disa Nona 02 Maalimage Don Jayantha Pushpakumara 03 Maalimage Don Nishantha Pushpakumara 04 Maalimage Achala Shiromi All of 277/A, Kusalawatta, Udakanampella, Pugoda. 05 Udage Arachchige Sarath Gamini of Pelpita, Pugoda Defendants-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J. De Abrew, J			Download
2017-02-15	SC/FR/394/2008	Oenone Saummiya Amalasontha Gunewardena No. 285/12, Hokandara South Hokandara PETITIONER Vs. 1. Sri Lankan Airlines Limited Level 22, East Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 1. 2. Dr. P. B. Jayasundera Chairman Sri Lanka Airlines Limited, Level 22, East Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square. Colombo 1. 2A. Ajith Dias Chairman Sri Lankan Airlines Limited Level 22, East Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 1. 3. Manoj Gunewardena Chief Executive Officer, Sri Lankan Airlines Limited, Level 22, East Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square. Colombo 1. 3A. Rakhitha Jayawardena Chief Executive Officer, Sri Lankan Airlines Limited Level 22, East Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 1. 4. Capt/ Milinda Ratnayake Sri Lankan Airlines Limited Level 22, East Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 1. 5. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 1. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-02-15	SC/FR/190/2016	No.278, Thalapathpitiya Road, Nugegoda. PETITIONER - Vs - 1. Land Reform Commission, No.C81, Hector Kobbakaduwa Mawatha, Colombo 07. 2. Mr. Sumanatissa Thambugala, Chairman. 3. Mr. R.P.R. Rajapaksa, Member. 4. Mr. M.A.S. Weerasingha, Member. 5. Dr. Rohan Wijekoon, Member. 6. Mrs. N.B. Hema Dharmawardhana, Member. 7. Mrs. K.D.R. Olga, Member. 8. Mrs. S.N. Atthanayake, Member. 9. Mrs. L.S.B. Alwis, Member. 10. Mrs. G.C.S. Thilakaratne, Member. 11. Mr. Senarath Wanigathunga, Secretary. The 2nd to 11th Respondents all of, Land Reform Commission, No. 81, Hector Kobbakaduwa Mawatha, Colombo 07. 12. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General's Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J			Download
2017-02-09	SC/APPEAL/92/2013 & SC/APPEAL/93/2013	1. Ariyasena Amarasingha 2. Mahinda Amarasingha, both of No. 82/3, Hokandara South Hokandara. 1st & 3rd Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. 1. Wedimbuli Arachchige Wijesiri Perera 2. Nalanee Amarasinghe Both of No. 82 Hokandara South Hokandara Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent SC APPEAL No. 92/2013 & SC APPEAL No. 93/2013 3. Sunil Amarasingh 4. Sarath Amarasinghe (deceased) 4.A Ariyasena Amarasinghe (substituted) 5. Ratnasiri Amarasingha All of No. 82/3, Hokandara South Hokandara. 6. Weragalage Don Weerasiri Dayananda, No. 78, Hokandara South, Hokandara 7. Makuburage Wimalasena Hokandara South, Hokandara 8. Egodahage Piyadasa Alwis Samarakoon, No.75/1, Hokandara South, Hokandara Defendants-Respondents-Respondents 1. Wedimbuli Arachchige Wijesiri Perera 2. Nalanee Amarasinghe Both of No. 82 Hokandara South Hokandara Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent Vs. 1. Ariyasena Amarasingha 2. Sunil Amarasingh 3. Mahinda Amarasingha, 4. Sarath Amarasinghe (deceased) 4.A Ariyasena Amarasinghe (substituted) 5. Ratnasiri Amarasingha View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep, PC J			Download
2017-02-09	SC/APPEAL/59/2014	Liyanage Indrani Manel Charlotte Watawala nee Perera Of No. 462/12, Main Street, Negombo. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs. Ratnayake Mudiyanselage Jayatilleke Bandara of No. 135, Thopawewa, Polonnaruwa. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT Liyanage Anoma Kanthi Juliyana Bamunuwatte nee Perera Of No. 42/17, Dias Place, Panadura. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-02-09	SC/APPEAL/161/2015	Epage Suwaris of Meddekanda, Rathmale, Polgampola. PLAINTIFF Vs. 1. Diyapaththugama Vidanelage Hendrick Samarasinghe (since Deceased) 1A Diyapaththugama Vidanelage Sirisena Samarasinghe 2. Seemon Suwandagoda of Kurupita, Polgampola. 3. Abraham Samarasinghe 4. Marynona Samarasinghe 5. Jayasinghe Siriwardanage Piyadasa All of Rathmale Polgampola. DEFENDANTS AND BETWEEN IN THE PROVINCIAL HIGH COURT 1A Diyapaththugama Vidanelage Sirisena Samarasinghe 3. Abraham Samarasinghe 5. Marynona Samarasinghe All of Rathmale Polgampola. DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS Vs. Epage Suwaris of Meddekanda, Rathmale, Polgampola. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTS 2. Seemon Suwandagoda of Kurupita, Polgampola. 5 Jayasinghe Siriwardanage Piyadasa Both of Rathmale, Polgampola. DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN IN AN APPLICATION TO THE SUPREME COURT 3. Abraham Samarasinghe 5. Marynona Samarasinghe All of Rathmale, Polgampola View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-02-03	SC/APPEAL/116/2010	Hapugastenne Plantation Limited, No.186, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. Plaintiff -Vs- Kitnan Karunanidi, Hapugasthenna Estate, Gallella. Defendant AND BETWEEN Kitnan Karunanidi Hapugastenna Estate, Gallella. Defendant-Petitioner -Vs- Hapugastenne Plantation Limited, No.186, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Hapugastenne Plantation PLC, No.186, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner -Vs- Kitnan Karunanidi Hapugastenna Estate, Gallella. Defendant-Petitioner-Respondent View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2017-02-02	SC/FR/424/2013 & SC/FR/427/2013	Mohamed Thalkeen Fathima Sahar 293/B Nagavillu Palavi Petitioner 1. University of Moratuwa, Moratuwa 2. Professor Ananda Jayawardena Vice Chancellor University of Moratuwa Katubedde, Moratuwa 3. Hon. Attorney-General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12 4. Professor R A Attalage Chairman and Deputy Vice Chancellor–Board of Residence and Discipline – University of Moratuwa – Moratuwa 5. Professor P K S Mahanama Co-Chairman– Board of Residence and Discipline –University of Moratuwa – Moratuwa 6. Major General M Peiris 7. Dr. T.A.G. Gunasekera 8. Professor U G A Puswewala 9. Mr. D K Vithanage 10. Mrs. R C Kodikara 11. Archt D P Chandrasena 12. Mr. L D I P Seneviratne 13. Archt U P P Liyanage 14. Dr J N Munasinghe 15. Dr P G Rathnasiri 16. Prof. S M A Nanayakkara 17. Dr C D Gamage 18. Dr A M K B Abeysinghe 19. Dr M P Dias 20. Dr A A Pasquel 21. Professor (Mrs) V M Wickremasinghe 22. Dr S U Adikari 23. Professor T S G Peiris 24. Dr V K Wimalsiri 25. Dr W D G Lanarolle 26. Dr T Sivakumar 27. Mrs K A D T Kulawansa View More	Hon. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC			Download
2017-02-01	SC/FR/45/2016	1. CENTRAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY BUREAU ENGINEERS’ ASSOCIATION No. 415, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 2. I.R.P. GUNATHILAKE President, Central Engineering Consultancy Bureau Engineers’ Association, No. 415, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 3. S.V. MUNASINGHE Secretary, Central Engineering Consultancy Bureau Engineers’ Association, No. 415, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 4. S. WIJESINGHE Deputy General Manager, Central Engineering Consultancy Bureau Engineers’ Association, No. 415, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 5. W.S.U. KUMARA Engineer, Central Engineering Consultancy Bureau Engineers’ Association, No. 415, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. PETITIONERS VS. 1. CENTRAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY BUREAU No. 415, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 2. G.D.A. PIYATHILAKE Chairman, Central Engineering Consultancy Bureau, No. 415, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 3. K.L.S. SAHABANDU General Manager, Central Engineering Consultancy Bureau, No. 415, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 4. T.D. WICKRAMARATNE Corporate Affairs View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena PC, J.			Download
2017-01-27	SC/APPEAL/172/2013	KAHANDAWA APPUHAMILAGE DON TILAKARATNE No.43, Negombo Road, Banduragoda. PLAINTIFF VS. 1. WIJESINGHE MUDIYANSELAGE CHANDRASIRI 2. CHANDRANI ADHIKARI Both of Makandura, Gonawila. DEFENDANTS AND 1. WIJESINGHE MUDIYANSELAGE CHANDRASIRI 2. CHANDRANI ADHIKARI Both of Makandura, Gonawila. DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS VS. KAHANDAWA APPUHAMILAGE DON TILAKARATNE No.43, Negombo Road, Banduragoda. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN KAHANDAWA APPUHAMILAGE DON TILAKARATNE No.43, Negombo Road, Banduragoda. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER/APPELLANT VS. 1. WIJESINGHE MUDIYANSELAGE CHANDRASIRI 2. CHANDRANI ADHIKARI Both of Makandura, Gonawila. DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena, PC, J.			Download
2017-01-26	SC/CHC APPEAL/5/2012	THE FINANCE COMPANY PLC No.97, Hyde Park Corner, Colombo 02 (formerly, The Finance Company Ltd of No.69, Ceylinco Tower 3rd floor Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01.) PLAINTIFF VS. 1. JAYAKODY ARACHCHIGE DON THUSHARA, No.199/A, Palan Oruwa, Gonapola. 2. HALLINNA LOKUGE JAYATH LAKSUMANA PERERA, No.261/10, Waragoda Road, Kelaniya. 3. ATULUWAGE NIROSH CHAMIKA JAYARATNE Wagawathugoda, Maha Uduwa, Kuda Uduwa, Horana. DEFENDANTS AND NOW BETWEEN THE FINANCE COMPANY PLC No.97, Hyde Park Corner, Colombo 02 (formerly, The Finance Company Ltd of No.69, Ceylinco Tower 3rd floor, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01.) PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT VS. 1. JAYAKODY ARACHCHIGE DON THUSHARA, No.199/A, Palan Oruwa, Gonapola. 2. HALLINNA LOKUGE JAYATH LAKSUMANA PERERA, No.261/10, Waragoda Road, Kelaniya. 3. ATULUWAGE NIROSH CHAMIKA JAYARATNE Wagawathugoda, Maha Uduwa, Kuda Uduwa, Horana. DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena, PC, J.			Download
2017-01-25	SC/CHC APPEAL/7/2009	Flexport (Private) Limited of 127, Jambugasmulla Mawatha, Nugegoda. PLAINTIFF Vs. Bank of Ceylon Bank of Ceylon Headquarters Colombo 1. DEFENDANT Flexport (Private) Limited of 127, Jambugasmulla Mawatha, Nugegoda. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Bank of Ceylon Bank of Ceylon Headquarters Colombo 1. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-01-25	SC/APPEAL/27/2014 PART II	Loku Yaddehige Ruwan Kulunuguna No.244/1, Jaya Mawatha, Makola Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs Scanwell Customs Brokers (Pvt) Ltd. No.3/2, No.15, Galle Face Terrace. Colombo.03 Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. K.T. Chitrasiri J			Download
2017-01-25	SC/APPEAL/27/2014 PART I	Loku Yaddehige Ruwan Kulunuguna, Of No. 244/1, Jaya Mawatha, Makola. Plaintiff Respondent Appellant Vs. Scanwell Customs Brokers (Pvt.) Ltd., Of No. 3/2, No. 15, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 03. Defendant Appella nt Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J			Download
2017-01-24	SC/APPEAL/8/2013	1. Subramaniam Jegatheeswaran and wife 2. Jegatheeswari both of Sellapillaiyar Kovilady, Polikandy. 1st and 2nd Defendants-Appellants-Petitioners. Vs 1. Vaithilingam Rameswara Iyer and Wife 2. Krishnavimarosa both of Manthigai Amman Kovilady, Puloly. Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respondents 3. Vaithilanga Kurukkal Sundareswara Kurukkal Manthigai Amman Kovilady, Puloly 3rd Defendant-Respondent-Respondents View More	HON. K. SRIPAVAN, C.J.			Download
2017-01-24	SC/APPEAL/172/2012	Kaluwalage Champika Kumari De Silva, No 204, Vam Ivuru Yaya, 03, Mahawillachchiya, Anuradhapura. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Kodithuwakku Arachchige Neville Kodithuwakku, No. 85, Nayapana Janapadaya, Gampola. 2. Commissioner General of Prisons, Department of Prisons, No. 50, Baseline Road, Colombo 09. 3. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Defendants AND Kaluwalage Champika Kumari De Silva, No 204, Vam Ivuru Yaya, 03, Mahawillachchiya, Anuradhapura. Plaintiff Appellant Vs. 1. Kodithuwakku Arachchige Neville Kodithuwakku, No. 85, Nayapana Janapadaya, Gampola. 2. Commissioner General of Prisons, Department of Prisons, No. 50, Baseline Road, Colombo 09. 3. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Defendant Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Kaluwalage Champika Kumari De Silva, No 204, Vam Ivuru Yaya, 03, Mahawillachchiya, Anuradhapura. Plaintiff Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Kodithuwakku Arachchige Neville Kodithuwakku, No. 85, Nayapana Janapadaya, Gampola. View More	HON. UPALY ABEYRATHNE, J.			Download
2017-01-20	SC/FR/57/2016	CAPTAIN CHANNA D.L. ABEYGUNEWARDENA No.322/55, Saraswathie Estate, Thalawathugoda. PETITIONER VS. 1. SRI LANKA PORTS AUTHORITY No.19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 2. DHAMMIKA RANATHUNGA Chairman, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No.19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 3. SARATH KUMARA PREMACHANDRA Managing Director, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No.19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 4. MAGAMPURA PORT MANAGEMENT COMPANY (PRIVATE) LIMITED, Ports Administration Complex, Mirijjawila, Hambantota. 5. DAMMIKA RANATHUNGA-CHAIRMAN 6. DR. LALITH PERERA 7. SANJEEWA WIJERATNE 8. THAMEERA MANJU 9. UDITHA GUNAWARDENA 10. SHIRANI WANNIARACHCHI 11. JAYANTHA PERERA Directors of Magampura Port Management Company (Pvt) Limited. 12. SARATH PERERA General Manager, Magampura Port Management Co. (Pvt.) Ltd, Port Administration Complex Mirijjawila, Hambantota. 13. HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena, PC, J.			Download
2017-01-19	SC/APPEAL/102/2012	T.G.Nandadasa No.128/1 Moragahalanda Road, Arawwala, Pannipitiya. Plaintiff - Respondent - Petitioner Vs. 1. V.S. Kudaligama Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 2. K.U. Artygalla Director of the Western Province, Education Department, Colombo. 3. Parakrama Randeniya Asst. Director Education, Education Office, Homagama. 4. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Defendant - Appellant - Respondents View More	HON. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J.			Download
2017-01-19	SC/FR/370/2011	1. Alawathupitiya Ratnayake Mudiyanselage Tikiribanda, No. 85, “Nishanthi”, Kobbekaduwa, Yahalatenna. 2. Ganiha Arachchilage Wijeratne Marakkalamulla, Dummalasooriya. PETITIONERS Vs. 1 (A) Abdul Majeed Secretary, Ministry of Muslim Religious Affairs & Posts, Postal Services Headquarters, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. 1. M.K.B. Dissanayake Postmaster General Postal Services Headquarters, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2 (a) D.L.P. Rohana Abeyratne Postmaster General Postal Services Headquarters, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3 (b) Dharmasena Dissanayake - Chairman 4 (b) A. Salam Abdul Waid - Member 5 (b) Ms. D. Shirantha Wijeyathilaka - Member 6(b) Dr. Pradeep Ramanugam - Member 7 (b) Mrs V. Jegarasasingham - Member 8(b) Santi Nihal Seneviratne - Member 9 (b) S. Ranugge - Member 10(b) D.C. Mendis - Member 11(b) Sarath Jayathilaka - Member All of Public Service Commission No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 12. Ashoka Mampitiya Arachchi Deputy Postmaster General Postal Headquarters View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-01-19	SC/FR/608/2008	Sarath Kumara Naidos 312/51, Moragodawatte Kesbewa, Piliyandala Presently at Remand Prison, Welikada. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Inspector Damith Police Station Moratuwa. 2. Police Constable Kavinda Police Station Moratuwa. 3. Officer In Charge Police Station Moratuwa. 4. Superintendent of Police Moratuwa Division Office of the Superintendent of Police, Moratuwa. 5. The Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters Colombo 1. 6. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2017-01-19	SC/SPL LA/231/2015	D.S.Aaron Senarath P.O.Box 02, Maskeliya Applicant-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. 1. The Manager Moray Estate, Maskeliya. 2. Maskeliya Plantations Limited, No. 310, High Level Road Nawinna, Maraharagama. Respondents-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep PC., J			Download
2017-01-17	SC/APPEAL/175/2010	Panambarage Jude Fernando No.154, Chilaw Road Manaweriya Kochchikade. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Hetti Thanthirige Anesta Malani Fernando 2. Jayakodige Jerrad Fernando Both of No.46 Owitiyawatte Kochchikade. Defendants And Between Panambarage Jude Fernando No.154, Chilaw Road Manaweriya Kochchikade. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Hetti Thanthirige Anesta Malani Fernando 2. Jayakodige Jerrad Fernando Both of No.46 Owitiyawatte Kochchikade. Defendants-Respondents And Now In the matter of an appeal in terms of Section 5(c) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provinces) (amendment) Act No.54 of 2006. Panambarage Jude Fernando No.154, Chilaw Road Manaweriya Kochchikade. Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. 1. Hetti Thanthirige Anesta Malani Fernando 2. Jayakodige Jerrad Fernando Both of No.46 Owitiyawatte Kochchikade. Defendants-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J. De Abrew, J.			Download
2017-01-17	SC/FR/319/2012	Gangodagama Perumarachchige Jayalath Perera, No. 500, Madampitiya Road, Colombo 14. PETITIONER - Vs - 1. Jagath Nishantha, Sub Inspector of Police, Divisional Crime Investigations Unit, Police Station, Negombo. 2. Saman Kumara, Sub Inspector of Police, Divisional Crime Investigations Unit, Police Station, Negombo. 3. Sudath Gunawardena, Police Seargent 5315, Divisional Crime Investigations Unit, Police Station, Negombo. 4. Police Seargent 32586 Dissanayake, Divisional Crime Investigations Unit, Police Station, Negombo. 5. Police Constable Buddika, Divisional Crime Investigations Unit, Police Station, Negombo. 6. Wimalakeerthi, Sub Inspector of Police, The Officer in Charge, Police Station, Kotadeniyaya. 7. Inspector General Of Police, Office of the Inspector General of Police, Colombo 01. 8. Hon. Attorney - General, Attorney - General\'s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J			Download
2017-01-17	SC/APPEAL/87/2016	Dilrukshi Dissanayake No. 20, Old Galwala (Quarry) Road, Mount Lavinia. Represented by her Power of Attorney Viraj Anthony Jayakody No. 20, Old Quarry Road, Mount Lavinia. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Beminihennadige Meulet Malini Fernando No. 307/1, Egoda Uyana Road, Moratuwa. 2. Nishantha Aponso No. 307/1, Egoda Uyana Road, Moratuwa. Defendants-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J. De Abrew J.			Download
2017-01-17	SC/APPEAL/58/2014	1.GalgamuwaKankanamlage Malani 2. GalgamuwaKankanamlage Sarath Dharmasiri both of No. 201, Pamunugama, Alubomulla. Defendants-Appellants-Appellants -Vs- Habaragamuwage Dickson PeirisThilakapala of No. 201, Pamunugama, Alubomulla. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J			Download
2017-01-16	SC/FR/484/2011	Jayaweerage Sumedha Jayaweera, Deputy Principal’s Residence, Royal College, Colombo 07 Petitioner Vs. 1. Prof. Dayasiri Fernando, Former Chairman. 1A. Dharmasena Disanayake Chairman 2. Sirima Wijeratne, Former Member. 2A. Salam Abdul Waid, Member. 3. Palitha Kumarasinghe, Former Member 3A. D. Shirantha Wijeyatilaka, Member. 4. S.C. Mannapperuma, Former Member 4A. Prathap Ramanujam Member 5. Ananda Seneviratne, Former Member. 5A. Mr. E. Jegarasasingam, Member 6. N.H., Pathirana, Former Member, 6A. Santi Nihal Seneviratne, 7. S. Thillanadarajh, Former Member, 7A. S. Ranugge, Member 8. M.D.W. Ariyawansa, Former Member, 8A. D.L. Mendis, Member 9. A. Mohamed Nahiya, Member. 9A. Sarath Jayathilaka, Member All of the Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 10. H.M.Gunasekara, The Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla 10A. Gotabaya Jayarathne, The Secretary, Isurupaya, Battaramulla 10B. Upali Marasinghe, The Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla View More	HON. K. SRIPAVAN, C.J.			Download
2017-01-09	SC/FR/330/2015	Ajith P. Dharmasuriya, No. 1, New Town, Aluthwatta Road, Rajawella. Petitioner Vs. 1. Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka, No. 500, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. Director General, Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka, No. 500, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3. Resident Project Director – Victoria Project, Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka, Victoria Resident Project Manager’s Office, Digana, Nilangama, Rajawella. 4. Secretary, Ministry of Mahaweli Development and Environment, No. 500, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. 5. Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat of Mede-Dumbara, Theldeniya. 6. Meda-Dumbara Pradeshiya Sabha, Theldeiya. 7. Kundasale Pradeshiya Sabha, Menikhinna. 8. Central Environment Authority, “Parisara Piyasa”, No. 104, Robert Gunawardene Mawatha, Battaramulla. 9. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 10. E.M.M.W.D. Bandaranayake, No. 77/2A, Kanda, Karalliyadda, Theldeniya. 11. E.M. Wijeratne, No. 250/06, Kandy Road, Karaliyadda, Theldeniya. 12. R.K. Abeykoon, No. 6, View More	HON. K. SRIPAVAN, C.J.			Download
2016-12-16	SC/FR/476/2012	Gamlakshage Sunil Seneviratne Dikhena, Pitigala. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Shelton Gunasekera Assistant Investigation Officer Ceylon Electricity Board Head Office Colombo 02 2. H.A.A. Perera Electrician, Ceylon Electricity Board Head Office Colombo 02 3. Divisional Electrical Engineer, Ceylon Electricity Board Ambalangoda 4. Electrical Engineer Ceylon Electricity Board Piliyandala 5. Ceylon Electricity Board Piliyandala Branch Piliyandala 6. Ceylon Electricity Board Head Office Colombo 02 7. Inspector of Police Udayakumara Police Station Pitigala 8. Police Constable 12911 Jayalath Police Station Pitigala 9. Police Constable 20616 Ananda Police Station Pitigala 10. Sergeant 24672 Lal Ananda Police Station Pitigala 11. Deputy Inspector General of Police Southern Province Galle 12. Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters Colombo 01 13. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General\'s Department Colombo 12 14. Director General, Public Utilities Commission 06th Floor, B.O.C. Merchant Tower St. Michael\'s Road Colombo 03 RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Aluwihare, PC,J			Download
2016-12-16	SC/APPEAL/7/2016	Perakum Dissanayakage Jayasuriya No.147, Kurunegala Road Rambukkana 1st Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. K. M. Tharanganee Mallika Kumari Kadawattiya, Walpola Watta, Kotawella Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent Dissanayake Mudiyanselage Gunathilaka No.147, Kurunegala Road, Rambukkana Presently at “Tilaka Stores”, Wahawa Junction, Rambukkana 2nd Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. K.T.CHITRASIRI, J			Download
2016-12-15	SC/147/2011	Annamalai Muthuappan Chettiar No.111, Sea Street, Colombo 11. Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner V. Subramaniam Sankaran No.109, Sea Street, Colombo 11. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	HON. H.N.J. PERERA J			Download
2016-12-14	SC/APPEAL/178/2013	Pathirennehelage Swarnasiri Nimal, Of Batuwatta, Helamada. (Deceased) Plaintiff Gangoda Mudiyanselage Wijewathi Podimenike of Mahawelegedara, Batuwatta, Helamada. Substituted Plaintiff Vs 1. Pathirennehelage Leelawathie, Of Mahawelegedara, Batuwatta, Helamada. 2. Vidanarallage Gunarath Menike, Of Mahawelegedara, Batuwatta, Helamada. Defendants AND BETWEEN Gangoda Mudiyanselage Wijewathi Podimenike of Mahawelegedara, Batuwatta, Helamada. Substituted Plaintiff Appellant Vs 1. Pathirennehelage Leelawathie, Of Mahawelegedara, Batuwatta, Helamada. 2. Vidanarallage Gunarath Menike, Of Mahawelegedara, Batuwatta, Helamada. Defendants Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Gangoda Mudiyanselage Wijewathi Podimenike of Mahawelegedara, Batuwatta, Helamada. Substituted Plaintiff Appellant Appellant Vs Pathirennehelage Leelawathie Of Mahawelegedara, Batuwatta, Helamada. Defendant Respondent Respondent View More	Hon. S. Eva Wanasundera PCJ			Download
2016-12-14	SC/APPEAL/207/2014	In the matter of the intestate property of the late J.M. Ukkubanda of Alawwa. J. M. Appuhamy, No. 89, Main Street, Alawwa. Petitioner Vs. 1. M. M. Bandaramenike, No. 89, Main Street, Alawwa. 2. J. M. Yasapala, ‘Yasasiri’, Indigaha Dowa, Lunuwatta, Bandarawela. 3. J. M. Sudu Menike, DIV Rampitiye Gedara, Idamegama, Bambarapana, Bandarawela. 4. J. M. Sudu Banda, Suduwatura Ara, Kumbukkana, Monaragala. 5. J. M. Jayasekera, No. 107, Sewwandi Textiles, Main Street, Alawwa. 6. J. M. Gunathilake, No. 89, Main Street, Alawwa. 7. J. M. Punchi Banda, Bandarawela Textiles, Main Street, Alawwa. Respondents AND BETWEEN J. M. Gunathilake, No. 89, Main Street, Alawwa. 6th Respondent Petitioner Vs. J. M. Appuhamy, No. 89, Main Street, Alawwa. Petitioner Respondent 1. M. M. Bandaramenike, No. 89, Main Street, Alawwa. 2. J. M. Yasapala, ‘Yasasiri’, Indigaha Dowa, Lunuwatta, Bandarawela. 3. J. M. Sudu Menike, DIV Rampitiye Gedara, Idamegama, Bambarapana, Bandarawela. 4. J. M. Sudu Banda, Suduwatura Ara, Kumbukkana, Monaragala. View More	Hon. Upaly Abeyrathne, J.			Download
2016-12-14	SC/APPEAL/27A/2009	Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation Limited No. 21, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 2. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Commissioner of Labour Labour Department, Colombo 05. 2. S.K.S. Rathnayake Asst. Commissioner of Labour Colombo South Office, Labour Department, Colombo 5. 3. C.H. Senevirathne No. 73, Pepiliyana, Boralesgamuwa. RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation Limited No. 21, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 2. PETITIONER-PETITIONER Vs. 1. Commissioner of Labour Labour Department, Colombo 05. 2. S.K.S. Rathnayake Asst. Commissioner of Labour Colombo South Office, Labour Department, Colombo 5. 3. C.H. Senevirathne No. 73, Pepiliyana, Boralesgamuwa. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J			Download
2016-12-09	SC/APPEAL/111/2010	DR. DARSHANA WICKRAMASINGHE “Lions Paradise” Wewala, Hikkaduwa. PETITIONER VS. 01. UNIVERSITY OF RUHUNA 02. PROF. SUSIRITH MENDIS Vice Chancellor 03. PROF. GAMINI SENANAYAKE Deputy Vice Chancellor 04. PROF. S.W. AMARASINGHE Dean-Humanities & Social Sciences 05. PROF.MRS. R.T. SERASINGHE Dean-Agriculture 06. PROF.P.L. ARIYANANDA Dean-Medicine 07. PROF.R.N. PATHIRANA Dean-Science 08. PROF.P.R.T. CUMARANATUNGE Dean-Fisheries and Marine Sciences and Technology 09. MRS.H.S.C. PERERA Dean-Management and Finance 10. DR. A.M.N. ALAGIYAWANNA Dean-Engineering 11. PROF.T.R. WEERASOORIYA 12. PROF.W.D.G. DHARMARATHNE 13. REV. WALIPITIYE RATNASIRI 14. MR. M.A. THASIM 15. MR. SUNIL JAYARATHNE 16. MR. RASIK SAROOK 17. MR.C. MALIYADDA 18. MR. KULATUNGE RAJAPAKSE 19. MR.CHULA DE SILVA 20. MR. RAJA HEWABOWALA 21. MR.H.G.S.JAYASEKERA 22. MR. D.W. PRATHAPASINGHE 23. MR.W.K.K. KUMARASIRI 24. MR. THILAK JAYARATHNE 25. MR.O.V.L.P. ANURA Assistant Internal Auditor All of the University of Ruhuna 26. MR.GODAHEWA Inquiry Officer, “Prasanna” View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena, PC, J			Download
2016-12-09	SC/FR/206/2008	1. DEMUNI SRIYANI DE SOYZA No.8, 6th Lane, Jambugasmulla Mawatha, Nugegoda. 2. S.M.SRIYALATHA No. 515, Kuruppu Junction, Polonnaruwa. 3. Y.H. SANATILAKE No. 309/1/A, BOP 316, Thalpothe, Polonnaruwa. 4. C.A.P. DE SILVA No.7, Ela Hingurakgoda, Minneriya. 5. K.K.U.J.N. PERERA Merlin Mawatha, Horagolla, Maravila. 6. P.A.J.S. SAMARAKOON No. 40, Dewala Mawatha, Nattandiya. 7. D.M. GUNATHILAKE Baddegama, Kosdeniya. 8. J.A.G.S. BANDARA No.554 3/4, 6th Lane, Bandaranayake Mawatha, Gonahena, Kadawatha. 9. P.G. DIAS No. 12, Sadananda Mawatha, Panadura. 10. H.D. WIMALASENA Kudirippuwa, Galmuruwa. 11. W.A. ARIYARATNE Kalawana, Metikumbura. 12. W.D. PERERA No. 125, Temple Road, Maharagama. 13. J.M. PEMADASA Ihalagama, Gampaha. 14. I.M.M. KUMARIHAMI Dela Walauwa, Pussella, Parakaduwa. 15. H.M.L.S.B. HERATH No. 46 E, Hendeniya, Peradeniya. 16.M.A.MANURATHNA No.11, Ganga Mawatha, Panadura. 17. M.K.G.MUDIYANSE No. 451, Zone 4, Nawanagaraya, Medirigiriya. 18. A.M.P.I.M.K. HERATH No.77/7, Ihalakaragahamuna, Kadawatha. 19. H.N. Chandrawathie View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena, PC, J			Download
2016-12-09	SC/APPEAL/92/2012	Punchihewamulle mudiyanselage Indrawathi, Thalangalla Opatha. 4Th DEFENDANT-PETITIONER-PETITIONER V. 1.Sumathipala Vidana Pathirana, No.202A, Richmond Hill Road, Galle. 1A.Sumudu Lakmal Abeywarden Vidana Pathirana, No. 202A, Richmond Hill Road, Galle. 2.Charles Vidana Pathirana, No.30/38, Longdon Place, Colombo 2. (deceased) 2A.Gamini Charles Vidana Pathirana, No.30/38, Longdon Place, Colombo 2. 3.Anulawathi Vidana Pathirana, No.59, Lighthouse Street, Galle. 4.Dayawathi Vidana Pathirana, Punchi Duuwa, Uluvitike, Galle. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS 1.Thawalama Gamage Anura, Thalangalla, Opatha. 2.Wickremanayake Karunarathna Wasantha, Thalangalla, Opatha. 3.Samarage Sunil, Thalangalla, Opatha. 5.Nilanka Sampath, Thalangalla, Opatha 6.Jayanthi Chandralatha,Thalangalla, Opatha. 7.Saumyadasa Koralage, Thalangalla, Opatha. 8.Padma Shanthini Weerasinghe, No.3/33, Udayapura, Robert Gunawardena Mawatha, Battaramulla DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS View More	HON. H.N.J. PERERA J			Download
2016-12-08	SC/APPEAL/1/2005	Victor Perera Of 45/2, Jubilee Road, Walana, Panadura. APPLICANT Ranliya Garment Industries Ltd., Of No. 116, Poorvarama Road, Colombo 6. RESPONDENT Ranliya Garment Industries Ltd., Of No. 116, Poorvarama Road, Colombo 6. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. Victor Perera Of 45/2, Jubilee Road, Walana, Panadura. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW Ranliya Garment Industries Ltd., Of No. 116, Poorvarama Road, Colombo 6. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-PETITIONER Vs. Victor Perera Of 45/2, Jubilee Road, Walana, Panadura. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J			Download
2016-12-08	SC/TAB/1/2015	1. Mazur Ivegen 2. Iana Bereznah No. 130, Tanganrogskay Divisu 5, Mariupol Ukrain (presently at Welikada Remand) Accused - Appellants Vs. The Hon. Attorney General Attorney General\'s Department Colombo 12. Respondent View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep, PC. J			Download
2016-12-02	SC/APPEAL/12/2012	Bridget Premalatha Perera, No. 520, Ranmuthugala, Kadawatha. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Balasooriyage Anton Nimal Perera, 2. Denipitiya Manikkuge Ramani Kumari, Both of No. 115/A, Ihalakaragahamuna, Kadawatha. Defendants AND BETWEEN 1. Balasooriyage Anton Nimal Perera, 2. Denipitiya Manikkuge Ramani Kumari, Both of No. 115/A, Ihalakaragahamuna, Kadawatha. Defendant Appellants Vs. Bridget Premalatha Perera, No. 520, Ranmuthugala, Kadawatha. Plaintiff Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Bridget Premalatha Perera, No. 520, Ranmuthugala, Kadawatha. Plaintiff Respondent Appellant Vs. 1. Balasooriyage Anton Nimal Perera, 2. Denipitiya Manikkuge Ramani Kumari, Both of No. 115/A, Ihalakaragahamuna, Kadawatha. Defendant Appellant Respondents View More	Hon. Upaly Abeyrathne, J.			Download
2016-12-02	SC/APPEAL/40/2004	1. Talawakelle Plantations Limited Mount Mary Road, Nuwara Eliya. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs. Ceylon Estates Staff Union 6, Aloye Mawatha, Colombo 3. On behalf of R. Rajendran Assistant Field Officers Quarters, Coombewood Division, Logie Estate Talawakelle. APPLICANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT 2. The Superintendent Logie Estate Talawakelle. 3. Hayleys Plantation Services Limited 400, Deans Road, Colombo 10. 4. Sri Lanka State Plantations Corporation Gregory's Road, Colombo 7. 5. The Land Reform Commission C82, Gregory's Road, Colombo 7. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J			Download
2016-11-30	SC/APPEAL/32/2011	Officer-in-Charge. Police Station, Maradana. Complainant. Vs. 01. Galabada Payagalage Sanath Wimalasiri, No.D/1/2, Police Quarters, Gonahena, Kadawatha. 02. R. Jeganathan, No.139, Ericwatte, Galaha Accused. AND BETWEEN Galabada Payagalage Sanath Wimalasiri, No.D/1/2, Police Quarters, Gonahena, Kadawatha. Accused-Appellant. Vs. Officer-in-Charge. Police Station, Maradana. Complainant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Galabada Payagalage Sanath Wimalasiri, No.D/1/2, Police Quarters, Gonahena, Kadawatha. Accused-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Officer-in-Charge. Police Station, Maradana. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent Honourable Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent. View More	Hon. Buwaneka Aluwihare P.C.J			Download
2016-11-30	SC/FR/396/2010	U.W. Seneriratne, No. 48/7, 2nd Lane, Sunshine Gardens, Karapitiya PETITIONER Vs. 1. Mahinda Balasooriya, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 1A. Pujith Jayasundera, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 2. Gotabhaya Rajapaksha, Secretary, Ministry of Defense, No. 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 03. 2A. Karunasena Hettiarachchi, Secretary, Ministry of Defense, No. 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 03. 3. K.C.Logeswaran, Secretary, National Police Commission, Rotunda Tower, Level 3, No. 109, Galle Road, Colombo 03 4.N. D. Daluwatta, Deputy Inspector General of Police Southern Province, (South), Tangalle DIG's Office, Tangalle. 5.Daya Samaraweera, Deputy Inspector General of Police Southern Province – Galle, DIG's Office, Galle. 6. A.D.J. Chandrakumara, Superintendent of Police, SP Office, Tangalle Division, Tangalle. 7. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General's Office, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS 8. Vidyajothi Dr. Dayasiri Fernando, Chairman 8A Justice Sathya Hettige P View More	Hon. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC.J.			Download
2016-11-30	SC/APPEAL/95/2010	Weligalle Wedarallage Devar Ashoka Gunawardena of Weligalla Road, Mawanella. Plaintiff Vs Pradeshiya Sabha of Mawanella Defendant AND Weligalle Wedarallage Devar Ashoka Gunawardena of Weligalla Road, Mawanella. Plaintiff Appellant Vs Pradeshiya Sabha of Mawanella Defendant Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Pradeshiya Sabha of Mawanella Defendant Respondent Appellant Vs Weligalle Wedarallage Devar Ashoka Gunawardena of Weligalla Road, Mawanella Plaintiff Appellant Respondent In the matter of an Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court of the Sabaragamuwa Province holden in Kegalle. Weligalle Wedarallage Madhawa Sisira Kumara, Of No. 527, Anwarama, Mawanella. Plaintiff Vs Pradeshiya Sabha, Mawanella Defendant AND Weligalle Wedarallage Madhawa Sisira Kumara, of No. 527, Anwarama, Mawanella. Plaintiff Appellant Vs Pradeshiya Sabha of Mawanella Defendant Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Pradeshiya Sabha of Mawanella Defendant Respondent Appellant Vs Weligalle Wedarallage Madhawa Sisira Kumara, of No. 527, Anwarama, Mawanella View More	Hon. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PCJ			Download
2016-11-30	SC/APPEAL/69/2015	Badanasinghe Nangallage Punyasiri, 221/2, Diggala Road,Keselwatta, Panadura. By his Attorney Badanasinghe Nangallage Jayatissa No. 5/3, Temple Road, Keselwatta, Panadura. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant V. K.R.W.Dalpadadu, No.237, Diggala Road, Keselwatta, Panadura. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	HON. H.N.J. PERERA J			Download
2016-11-29	SC/APPEAL/51/2015	Hettiarachchige Don Nicholas Heliyan No.243. Wilpatha Chilaw Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Peththaperuma Arachchi Somawathie “Siriniwasa”, Addipala Chilaw Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. K.T. CHITRASIRI J			Download
2016-11-28	SC/FR/573/2010	1. Asitha Nanayakkara Liyanage No. 1, Iriyavetiya Junction, Kandy Road, Kiribathgoda. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Prasanna Ranaweera, Chairman Pradeshiya Sabha, Kelaniya. 2. Hemapala Hettiarachchi Secretary, Pradeshiya Sabha Kelaniya. 3. Commissioner of Local Government Kachcheri Complex Gampaha. 4. Chief Inspector of Police Kiribathgoda Police Station Kiribathgoda. 5. Hapuarachchige Dilan Lakshitha No. 132/55, Nahena, Hunupitiya, Wattala. 6. Wickramasinghe Arachchige Don Palitha Wickramasinghe No. 554/D, Iriyawetiya Kelaniya. 7. Mervyn Silva Deputy Minister, Ministry of Highways and Road Development 9th Floor, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 8. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. S.E. Wanasundara P.C., J			Download
2016-11-28	SC/FR/211/2010	Arabegedera Sanjeewa Ravindra Rajapakse, No.130, Kotakadeniya Road, Weligalla PETITIONER Vs. 1. The University of Peradeniya Peradeniya. 2. Prof. S. B. S. Abayakoon, Vice Chancellor, 3. Prof. K. Premaratne, Deputy Vice Chancellor, 4. Dr. K. Samarasinghe, Dean/Agriculture, 5. Dr. A. S. P. Abayaratne, Dean/ Arts, 6. Prof. E. A. P. D. Amaratunga, Dean/ Dental Sciences, 7. Prof. W. M. S. B. Weerakoon, Dean/ Engineering, 8. Dr. A. G. Buthpitiya, Dean/ Medicine, 9. Prof. S. H. P. P. Karunaratne Dean/ Sciences, 10. Prof. P. Abeynayake, Dean/ Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, 11. Prof. N. V. I. Ranatunga, Senate Representative, 12. Prof. R.L. Wijeyeweera, Senate Representative, 13. Prof. B. Hewavitarane, 14. Prof. A. D. P. Kalansooriya, 15. Prof. K. N. O. Dharmadasa, 16. Dr. Kapila Gunawardena, 17. Dr. Dushantha Medagedara, 18. Mr. W. M. Jayawardena, 19. Dr. P. Ramanujam, 20. Dr. S. B. Ekanayake, 21. Mr. D. Mathi Yugarajah, 22. Prof. K. Tennakoon, 23. Mr. W. L. L. Perera, 24. Mr. Lionel Ekanayake, 25. Mr. L. B. View More	Hon. Buwaneka Aluwihare P.C.J			Download
2016-11-24	SC/APPEAL/71/2014	1. Hembanapura Sonali Nelunga de Silva, 2. Hembanapura Haresh Nilanka de Silva, both of, No. 491, High Level Road, Wijerama, Nugegoda. Plaintiffs vs. 1. Lalith Rohana Edirisingha, No. 743/8A, Muwanhela Watta Road, Talangama North, Malabe. (Deceased) 1A. Sunitha Nandani Chandrasekera, No. 743/8A, Muwanhela Watta Road, Talangama North, Malabe. 2. Waranukuwanna Waduge Don Malrani Iranganie Mala Perera, No. 46, School Lane, Station Road, Dehiwala. 3. Sajith Thumal Panduwawala, Kumara Oil Mills, Kandy Road, Miriswatta, Imbulgoda. Defendants AND Sajith Thumal Panduwawala, Kumara Oil Mills, Kandy Road, Miriswatta, Imbulgoda. 3rd Defendant Appellant Vs 1. Hembanapura Sonali Nelunga de Silva. 2. Hembanapura Haresh Nilanka de Silva. Both of No. 491, High Level Road, Wijerama, Nugegoda. Plaintiffs Respondents 1.Lalith Rohana Edirisinghe, No. 743/8A, Muwanhela Watta Road, Talangama North, Malabe (Deceased) 1A. Sunitha Nandani Chandrasekera, No. 743/8A, Muwanhela Watta Road, 4th Lane, Talangama North, Malabe. 2.Waranukuwanna Waduge Don Malrani Iranganie Mala Perera View More	Hon. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PC,J			Download
2016-11-23	SC/APPEAL/12/2015	Wasala Mudiyanselage Susitna Kumara Dayarathne No. 2, Thalgaswewa, Agbopura, Kanthale. Applicant Vs Onesh Trading (Pvt.) Ltd., No. 61/5, Kent Road, Colombo 09. Respondent AND BETWEEN Onesh Trading (Pvt.) Ltd., No. 61/5, Kent Road, Colombo 09. Respondent-Appellant Wasala Mudiyanselage Susitna Kumara Dayarathne No. 2, Thalgaswewa, Agbopura, Kanthale. Applicant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Wasala Mudiyanselage Susitna Kumara Dayarathne No. 2, Thalgaswewa, Agbopura, Kanthale. Applicant-Respondent-Petitioner Onesh Trading (Pvt.) Ltd., No. 61/5, Kent Road, Colombo 09. Respondent-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J. De Abrew, J			Download
2016-11-23	SC/APPEAL/129/2010	Thajudeen Apukar Phimbiya Ratmale Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs Viharadhipathy Jankurawela Siriniwasa Thero Bodhiyanganaramaya, Pihimbiya Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J			Download
2016-11-23	SC/APPEAL/173/2012	Mohedeen Pichche Peer Mohomed No.16, Mohomed Building, Holbrook Bazaar, Agarapathana. Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Hameed Mohomed Musamil No.16/08, Bandaranayake Square, Talawakelle. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J.			Download
2016-11-23	SC/APPEAL/177/2010	Yatawatte Dhammananda Thero Sri Maha Bodhi Maha Vihara Bahirawakanda, Kandy. Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Bahirawakande Dhammawansa Thero, Sri Maha Bodhi Vihara, Bahirawakanda, Kandy. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. SISIRA J. DE ABREW, J.			Download
2016-11-23	SC/APPEAL/189/2012	Hatton National Bank PLC. No. 479, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. PETITIONER Vs. Hikkaduwa Gamage Thejasiri Gunethilake No. 309/55, Gorge E. De Silva Mawatha, Kandy. RESPONDENT AND In the matter of an Appeal in terms of Section 753 of Civil Procedure Code read with Section 5 of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006. Hikkaduwa Gamage Thejasiri Gunethilake No. 309/55, Gorge E. De Silva Mawatha, Kandy. RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs. Hatton National Bank PLC. No. 479, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. PETITIONER-RESPONDENT AND NOW In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal under Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment Act) No. 54 of 2006 read together with Article 127 of the Constitution. Hatton National Bank PLC. No. 479, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. PETITIONER-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs. Hikkaduwa Gamage Thejasiri Gunethilake No. 309/55, Gorge E. De Silva Mawatha, Kandy. RESPONDENT-PETITIONER-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J			Download
2016-11-15	SC/CHC APPEAL/21/2010	Ispat Corporation (Private) Limited, No. 19/27, Millagahawatta, Siwaramulla Road, Nedungamuwa, Weliweriya, Gampaha. Plaintiff Vs 1. Ceylinco Insurance Company Limited “Ceylinco House”, No. 69, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01. 2. National Development Bank of Sri Lanka, No. 40, Nawam Mawatha, Colombo 02. 3. Sampath Bank Limited, No. 110, Sir James Peiris Mawatha, Colombo 02. Defendant Ceylinco Insurance PLC, “Ceylinco House”, No. 69, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01. 1st Defendant Appellant Vs Ispat Corporation (Private) Limited, No. 19/27, Millagahawatta, Siwaramulla Road, Nedungamuwa, Weliweriya, Gampaha. Now at, No. 101, Pahalawela Road, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. Plaintiff Respondent 2. National Development Bank of Sri Lanka, No. 40, Nawam Mawatha, Colombo 02. 3.Sampath Bank PLC., No. 110, Sir James Peiris Mawatha, Colombo 02. Defendants Respondents View More	Hon. S. EVA WANASUNDERA PCJ			Download
2016-11-15	SC/APPEAL/49/2011 AND SC/APPEAL/50/2011	Namal Aracchige Namal Thilakaratne No.134/A Matha Road, Manning Town, Elvitigala Mawatha Colombo 8 Plaintiff Vs. 1. W.V.R.Somaratne Walpola Junction Welagedara, Attanagalle 2. R.P.T.N.H.Ranasinghe Ranssinghe Construction No.15/8 Veediyaratne Road Gampaha Defendants AND 1. W.V.R.Somaratne Walpola Junction Welagedara, Attanagalle 2. R.P.T.N.H.Ranasinghe Ranssinghe Construction No.15/8 Veediyaratne Road Gampaha Defendants-Appellants Namal Aracchige Namal Thilakaratne No.134/A Matha Road, Manning Town, Elvitigala Mawatha Colombo 8 Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN In the matter of an application for Leave to appeal in terms of section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No.19 of 1990 as amended by Act no.54 of 2006. 1. W.V.R.Somaratne Walpola Junction Welagedara, Attanagalle 2. R.P.T.N.H.Ranasinghe Ranssinghe Construction No.15/8 Veediyaratne Road Gampaha Presently at No.12, Church Road, Gampaha. Defendants-Appellants-Petitioners Vs Namal Aracchige Namal Thilakaratne No.134/A Matha Road, Manning Town, Elvitigala Mawatha Colombo 8 Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Buwaneka Aluwihare P.C.J			Download
2016-11-11	SC/APPEAL/104/2012	Parameshwary Velupillai of No. 6, Pansala Road, Koddaimunai, Batticaloa, Presently of No. 6, Ediriweera Avenue, Dehiwala. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Savithiri Lokitharajah (nee Savithri Velupillai) Presently of 9A, Hydean Way, Stebanage, Harts, S.G.2, 9XH, United Kingdom. 2 Selvadurai Sivam Ganeshanandham Presently of No.10, Bryn Ogwer, Pearhes Garned Banger Gurnedd, LL-ST-2DX, United Kingdom. 3. Dr. Kandapper Murugupillai of No. 4, Pansala Road, Batticaloa. RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN Parameshwary Upali De Silva (nee Parameshwary Velupillai) of No. 6, Pansala Road, Koddaimunai, Batticaloa, Presently of No. 6, Ediriweera Avenue, Dehiwala. PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Savithiri Lokitharajah (nee Savithri Velupillai) Presently of 9A, Hydean Way, Stebanage, Harts, S.G.2, 9XH, United Kingdom. (DECEASED) SUBSTITUTED BY Kandappan Lokitharajah No. 33, Cheyney Avenue, Cannors Park, Edgware, Middlesex HA8 6SA, United Kingdom. SUBSTITUTED 1ST RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT 2. Selvadurai Sivam Ganeshanandham Presently of No. Bryn Ogwer, Pearhes Garned Banger Gurnedd, LL-ST-2DX, United Kingdom View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J			Download
2016-11-10	SC/APPEAL/176/2012	S.A. Amitha Ranjani Lakmini Agro Centre, Blackpool, Nuwara Eliya Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Sunil Ratnayake Labuthala No. 185, New Settlement Ruwan Eliya. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep, PC. J			Download
2016-11-10	SC/FR/136/2015	1. HIKKADUWA LIYANAGE VINUSH LAKNIDU, No 5/2, Heegalduwa Road, Wilegoda, Ambalangoda. 2. LAKSHIKA SAMIDDHI GODELLAGE, No 5/2, Heegalduwa Road, Wilegoda, Ambalangoda. PETITIONERS VS. 1. SUMITH PARAKRAMAWANSA, The Principal and a Member of the Interview Board to admit students to Grade -1, GA/Am/ Dharmashoka College, Ambalangoda. 1A. W.D. RAVINDRA PUSHPAKUMARA, The Principal, Dharmashoka College, Ambalangoda. 2. DIYAGUBANDUGE DAYARATHNE, Member of the Interview Board to admit students to Grade -1, GA/Am/ Dharmashoka College, Ambalangoda. 3. NILENTHI SANTHAKA THAKSALA DE SILVA, (Representative of the School Development Board) Member of the Interview Board to admit students to Grade -1, GA/Am/ Dharmashoka College, Ambalangoda. 4. MALLIYAWADU SHIRLY CHANDRASIRI, (Representative of the Past Pupils\' Association) Member of the Interview Board to admit students to Grade -1, GA/Am/ Dharmashoka College, Ambalangoda. 5. REKA NAYANI MALLAWARACHCHI, Secretary of the Interview and the Appeal and Objections Board to admit students View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena, PC. J			Download
2016-11-10	SC/APPEAL/102/2011	Lalani Nirmala Wakkumbura Radella, Karannagoda, Ratnapura. 3rd [4A] Defendant-Respondent- Petitioner-Appellant V. 1.Uyanwattalage Piyarathne, 2.Uyanwattalage Jayarathne Both of Hangamuwa, Ratnapura. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent-Respondents AND 1A. Karangoda Gamage Kusumawathie 1B. Ajith Mohan Rajapakse 1C. Gihani Sandhaya Rajapakse 1D. Thanuja Rajapakse 1E. Chaminda Rajapakse 1F. Udeshika Rajapakse All of Demalaporuwa, Karannagoda, Ratnapura. 1A -1F Substituted Defendant-Respondent-Respondent-Respondents 2.Malini Somalatha Wakkumbura Nee Weerasena. Bopitiya Road, Pelmadulla. 4.Habarakada Arachchige Hansawathie (deceased) 2nd & 4th Defendant-Respondent-Respondent-Respondents View More	HON. H.N.J. PERERA J			Download
2016-11-08	SC/APPEAL/145/2012	W.M. Raymond Peter Fernando, of Karanthippola Kuliyapitiya Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. K. Stanley Wilfred, of No. 94, Hettipola Road Kuliyapitiya Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep, PC.J			Download
2016-11-04	SC/APPEAL/195/2011	Galaudakanda Watukarage Siripala. Deheragoda, Ellawala. ACCUSED-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-PETITIONER v. Totapitiya Arachchige Abeypala. Deheragoda, Ellawala. PETITIONER-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	HON. H.N.J. PERERA J			Download
2016-11-03	SC/APPEAL/112/2011	Maddumage Chandralatha Perera No. 714/4, Medawala Road, Erawwala, Pannipitiya. PLAINTIFF Vs. Ratmalana Pedige Margaret Fernando No. 168, (Assessment No. 312) Dehiwala Road, Bellanwila, Boralesgamuwa. DEFENDANT AND BETWEEN Maddumage Chandralatha Perera No. 714/4, Medawala Road, Erawwala, Pannipitiya. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs. Ratmalana Pedige Margaret Fernando No. 168, (Assessment No. 312) Dehiwala Road, Bellanwila, Boralesgamuwa. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND Maddumage Chandralatha Perera No. 714/4, Medawala Road, Erawwala, Pannipitiya. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-PETITIONER Vs. Ratmalana Pedige Margaret Fernando No. 168, (Assessment No. 312) Dehiwala Road, Bellanwila, Boralesgamuwa. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2016-11-03	SC/APPEAL/138/2011	1. Mr. Mariyammah Sandiyapillai No.16/2, New Chemmani Road, Nallur North, Jaffna. 2. Mr. Karthigesu Sivanesan No.16/4, New Chemmani Road, Nallur North, Jaffna. Presently resident abroad (The 2nd Plaintiff appears by his Power of Attorney holder Karthigesu Pulendrarajah of the same address) Plaintiff-Appellants-Petitioners Vs. 1. Karunakaran Navartnasingham 2. Mrs. Guneluxumy Maheswaran (Widow) 3. Vinayagamoorthy Kumaraguru 4. Wife Thanaluxumy All of New Chemmani Road Nallur North, Jaffna. Defendant-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. SISIRA J.DE ABREW,J			Download
2016-11-02	SC/FR/170/2008	01. M.M.I. Wilgamuwa, 1038/72, Sri Sumangala Mawatha, Aluvihara, Matale. & 133 others PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Lionel Fernando – Co-Chairman 2. Saliya Mathew- Co-Chairman of National Salaries & Cadres Commission Room, No. 2G, 10, B.M.I.C.H. Bauddaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 3. K.L.L. Wijerathne, Secretary, of National Salaries & Cadres Commission Room, No. 2G, 10, B.M.I.C.H. Bauddaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 3(a). Don Herbert Neville Piyadigama- Co-Chairman 3(b). Jayalath Anasinghe Vimalasena Dissanayake, Co-Chairman 3(c). Gunesekara Liyanage Wimaladasa Samarasinghe 3(d). Vijeyalakshmy Jegarasasingam 3(e). Ginigaddarage Piyasena 3(f). R.A. Dona Rupa Malini Peiris 3(g). Dyananda Widanagamachchi 3(h). Sembakuttige Swarnajothi 3(i). Benedict Karunajeewa Ulluwishewa 3(k). Sujeeva Rajapaksha 3(l). Prof. Sampath Amaratunga 3(m). Dr. Ravi Liyanage 3(n). W.K.Hemachandra Wegapitiya 3(o). Keerthi Kotagama 3(p). Reyaz Mihular 3(q). Priyantha Fernando 3(r). Leslie Shelton Devendra 3(s). Wijesinghe Wellappili Don Sumith Wijesinghe View More	Hon. Sisira J. De Abrew J			Download
2016-11-02	SC/FR/41/2016	1. J.R. Hettiarachci, 2/91A (584) Thanne Kumbura, Kandy. 2.K.H.M.A. Kehelella, 10/8, Hewahata Road, Thenne Kumbura, Kandy. 3.I.B.S.R. Chandrarathne, 55 (46), Pahala Thenne Kumbura, Kandy. 4.N.G. Thillakarathne, 4/35A, Thenne Kumbura, Kandy. 5.D.N.S. Hettiarachchi, 2/91A (584), Thenne Kumbura, Kandy. 6.K.H.M.M.S.I. Kehelella, 10/8, Hewahata Road, Thenne Kumbura, Kandy. 7.I.B.S.S. Chandrarathne, 55 (46), Pahala Thenne Kumbura, Kandy. 8.N.G.L.D. Thillakarathne, 4/36A, Thenne Kumbura, Kandy. PETITIONERS Vs 1. I. Vithanachchi Principal, K/Mahamaya Balika Vidyalaya, Kandy. 2. Hon. Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, Hon. Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya” Battaramulla. 3. P.N. Ailapperuma, Director (National Schools), National Schools Branch Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya” Battaramulla. 4. W.M. Bandusena Secretary, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya” Battaramulla. 5. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. 6. H.S.P. Weerasekera Assistant Principal, K/Mahamaya Balika Vidyalaya, Kandy. 7. R.A.T. Chandrarathne View More	Hon. Sisira J. De Abrew J			Download
2016-10-28	SC/FR/232/2012	DON KARUNASENA ATHUKORALA Batuwatte Mawatha, Hapugala Wakwella. PETITIONER VS. 1. H.M.GUNASEKERA Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 1A. W.M.BANDUSENA, Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 2. RADHA NANAYAKKARA, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 3. P.B.ABEYKOON Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 3A. J. DADALLAGE, Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 4. DAYASIRI FERNANDO Chairman, 4A. DHARMASENA DISSANAYAKE Chairman, 5. PALITHA M. KUMARASINGHE Member, 5A. A.SALAM ABDUL WAID Member, 6. S.C.MANNAMPERUMA Member, 6A. MS. D.SHIRANTHA WIJEYATHILAKA Member, 7. ANANDA SENEVIRATNE Member, 7A. DR. PRADEEP RAMUNUGAM Member, 8. N.H.PATHIRANA Member, 8A. MRS. V. JEGARAJASINGHAM Member, 9. S. THILLAI NADARAJA Member, 9A. SANTI NIHAL SENEVIRATNE Member, 10. M.D.W.ARIYAWANSHA Member, 10A. S.RANNUGE Member, 11. A.MOHAMED NAHIYA Member View More	Hon. 232/2012			Download
2016-10-28	SC/APPEAL/2/2016	R.M.Pradeep Weerasinghe, No.47, Near School, Kandaudpanguwa,Siyabalanduwa. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT v. Dissanayaka Mudiyanselage Renuka Dissanayaka, No.164, Village No.4, Muthukandiya, Siyabalanduwa. APPLICANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	HON. H.N.J. PERERA J			Download
2016-10-27	SC/APPEAL/78/2013	1. Hettiarachchi Wellaburage Madurawathie Jayasundara 2. Alagiyawanna Mohotti Appuhamilage Pradeep Kumara appearing by his next Friend Alagiyawanna Mohotti Appuhamilage Chandradasa, Both of Walpolawatte, Narangaspitiya, Kirindiwela. PLAINTIFFS Vs. 1. Hettiarachchi Welliamburage Chandrawathhie Jayasundera 2. Hapuarachchige Rupasinghe (Deceased) 2a. Hettiarachchige Weliamburage Chandrawathie Jayasundara of Medawalawita, Meddagama, Kirindiwela. DEFENDANTS AND 1. Hettiarachchi Wellaburage Madurawathie Jayasundara 2. Alagiyawanna Mohotti Appuhamilage Pradeep Kumara appearing by his next Friend Alagiyawanna Mohotti Appuhamilage Chandradasa, Both of Walpolawatte, Narangaspitiya, Kirindiwela. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS Vs. 3. Hettiarachchi Welliamburage Chandrawathhie Jayasundera 4. Hapuarachchige Rupasinghe (Deceased) 2a. Hettiarachchige Weliamburage Chandrawathie Jayasundara of Medawalawita, Meddagama, Kirindiwela. DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Hettiarachchi Wellaburage Madurawathie Jayasundara 2. Alagiyawanna Mohotti Appuhamilage Pradeep Kumara appearing by his next Friend Alagiyawanna Mohotti Appuhamilage Chandradasa, Both of Walpolawatte, Narangaspitiya, Kirindiwela View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J			Download
2016-10-21	SC/APPEAL/80/2004	Don Lesley Kannangara, No. 9, Siddhamulla, Piliyandala. Plaintiff Vs. Thanaweera Arachchige Nihal Wijeratne, “Samudra”, Kesbewa, Piliyandala. Defendant AND Don Lesley Kannangara, No. 9, Siddhamulla, Piliyandala. Plaintiff Appellant Vs. Thanaweera Arachchige Nihal Wijeratne, “Samudra”, Kesbewa, Piliyandala. Defendant Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Thanaweera Arachchige Nihal Wijeratne, “Samudra”, Kesbewa, Piliyandala. Defendant Respondent Petitioner Vs. Don Lesley Kannangara, No. 9, Siddhamulla, Piliyandala. Plaintiff Appellant Respondent View More	Hon. UPALY ABEYRATHNE, J			Download
2016-10-21	SC/APPEAL/87/2002	Singanipurage Kusuma Rajapakse Muttetuwatta, Dompe. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Rajapakse Hunuge Evsa, Giridara, Dompe. 2. Rajapakse Hunuge Alice, Pahala Dompe, Dompe. 3. Rajapakse Hunuge Punyasena Fernando, 4. Singanipurage Dharmasiri, 5. Singanipurage Karunathilake, 6. Rajapakse Hunuge Sarath Rajapakse, 7. Rajapakse Hunuge Wasantha Ramani 8. Rajapakse Hunuge Jayantha Ranjan Rajapakse, 9. Rajapaksage Mahattaya, 10. Hikkaduwage Winsena Rajapakse, All of Muttettuwatta, Dompe. Defendants AND 3. Rajapakse Hunuge Punyasena Fernando, 7. Rajapakse Hunuge Wasantha Ramani Rajapakse, 8. Rajapakse Hunuge Jayantha Ranjan Rajapakse, 3rd 7th & 8th Defendant Petitioners Vs. Rajapakse Huniuge Sarath Rajapakse, Muttettuwatta, Dompe. 6th Defendant Respondent Singanipurage Kusuma Rajapakse, Muttettuwatta, Dompe. Plaintiff Respondent 1. Rajapakse Hunuge Evsa, Giridara, Dompe. 2. Rajapakse Hunuge Alice, Pahala Dompe, Dompe. 4. Singanipurage Dharmasiri, 5. Singanipurage Karunathilake, 9. Rajapaksage Mahattaya, 10. Hikkaduwage Winsena Rajapakse View More	Hon. UPALY ABEYRATHNE, J			Download
2016-10-19	SC/SPL LA/272/2013	The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka COMPLAINANT Vs. 1. Lokugalappaththige Cyril 2. Dehiyagoda Pushpalatha Mangalika 3. Karunawathi Weerawarna Wickramatunga All of Prasanna Tea Room Punchi Akurugoda, Tissamaharama. ACCUSED AND BETWEEN 1. Lokugalappaththige Cyril 2. Dehiyagoda Pushpalatha Mangalika 3. Karunawathi Weerawarna Wickramatunga All of Prasanna Tea Room Punchi Akurugoda, Tissamaharama. ACCUSED-APPELLANTS Vs. 1. The Hon. Attorney General Attorney General's Department Colombo 12. 2. The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Lokugalappaththige Cyril 2. Dehiyagoda Pushpalatha Mangalika 3. Karunawathi Weerawarna Wickramatunga All of Prasanna Tea Room Punchi Akurugoda, Tissamaharama. ACCUSED-APPELLANTS-PETITIONERS Vs. 1. The Hon. Attorney General Attorney General's Department Colombo 12. 2. The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J			Download
2016-10-14	SC/APPEAL/235/2014	Seylan Bank PLC Ceylinco Seylan Towers, No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Mullavidanalage Don Padman Hemachandra, No. 7D, South Lane, Badulla. 2. Mullavidanalage Don Amarasiri Hemachandra, No 35 / 2, Bandaranayake Mawatha, Badulla. Defendants AND BETWEEN Mullavidanalage Don Amarasiri Hemachandra, No 35 / 2, Bandaranayake Mawatha, Badulla. 2nd Defendant Appellant Vs. Seylan Bank PLC Ceylinco Seylan Towers, No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Plaintiff Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Seylan Bank PLC Ceylinco Seylan Towers, No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Plaintiff Respondent-Appellant Vs. Mullavidanalage Don Amarasiri Hemachandra, No 35 / 2, Bandaranayake Mawatha, Badulla. 2nd Defendant Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. UPALY ABEYRATHNE, J			Download
2016-10-13	SC/CHC APPEAL/25/2009	Ceylinco Development Bank Limited No. 69, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01. PLAINTIFF Vs. 1. Janaka Kumara Elvitigala No. 850, Rukmale Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. 2. Gunasinghe Arachchige Jayanthi Mala No. 850, Rukmale Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. DEFENDANTS AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Janaka Kumara Elvitigala No. 850, Rukmale Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. 2. Gunasinghe Arachchige Jayanthi Mala No. 850, Rukmale Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS Vs. 1. Ceylinco Development Bank Limited No. 69, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J			Download
2016-10-12	SC/APPEAL/158/2013	AMERASINGHE ARACHCHIGE DON DHARMARATNE No. 274, Makola North, Makola. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT VS. 1. DODANGODAGE PREMADASA 2A. DODANGODAGE PREMADASA 2B. DODANGODAGE PREMALATHA 2C. DODANGODAGE DAYAWATHI 2D. DODANGODAGE AMARASEELI MALLIKA 2E. DODANGODAGE HARINDRANATHA All of No. 274/4, Makola North, Makola. DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena, PC, J			Download
2016-10-07	SC/FR/194/2016	Sri Lanka Telecom PLC, Lotus Road, P.O. Box 503, Colombo 01. Petitioner Vs. 1. Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka, 276, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 08. 2. Dialog Broadband Network (Pvt.) Ltd., No. 475, Union Place, Colombo 02. 3. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General's Department Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. K. SRIPAVAN, C.J			Download
2016-10-06	SC/APPEAL/43/2014	Kumaradasa Karunanayake [Deceased] Horagoda, Telijjawela, Matara Original-Plaintiff Vs Suduweli Kondege Helenis Singho [Deceased] No.215, Pallimulla, Matara Original-Defendant Between S. K. Jinadasa Dharmawardene of Walpola, Matara Substituted-Defendant-Appellant Vs. Srinath Karunanayake No.32/1, Jason Flats, Sri Saranankara Road, Dehiwela Substituted-Plaintiff-Respondent Now Between S. K. Jinadasa Dharmawardene of Walpola, Matara Substituted-Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Kaushall Ravinath Kumara Karunayaka Telijjawilla, Matara Substituted-Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. K.T.CHITRASIRI J			Download
2016-10-05	SC/APPEAL/146/2014	Nations Trust Bank PLC No. 242, Union Place, Colombo 2. PLAINTIFF Vs. Pulukkuttige Don Dinesh Shammika Kumara Piyathilake No. 493, Old Kottawa Road, Udahamulla, Nugegoda. DEFENDANT Then In the matter of an application for revision under and in terms of Article 138 and 145 of the Constitution read with Section 5A of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Amendment Act No. 54 of 2006 of an order of the District Court of Colombo in case No. 1396/DR Nations Trust Bank PLC No. 242, Union Place, Colombo 2. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER Vs. Pulukkuttige Don Dinesh Shammika Kumara Piyathilake No. 493, Old Kottawa Road, Udahamulla, Nugegoda. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW Nations Trust Bank PLC No. 242, Union Place, Colombo 2. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER-PETITIONER Vs. Pulukkuttige Don Dinesh Shammika Kumara Piyathilake No. 493, Old Kottawa Road, Udahamulla, Nugegoda. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J			Download
2016-10-05	SC/FR/471/2011	1. Sevanagala Sugar Industries Limited, No.362, Colombo Road, Pepiliyana, Boralesgamuwa. 2. Alankarage Douglas Shanthanayaka, Wickremarathne, No.2/74, Jayapala, Udahamulla, Nugegoda. 3. Kumarasinghage Jayalath Samanthilaka, No.299, Mihindu Pura, Sevanagala. 4. Appuwahandi Gayan Dewapriya, G 02/55, Housing Scheme, Sevanagala. 5. Wasawita Gamage Sirisena, No.932, Mayuragama, Habaraluwewa, Sevanagala. 6. Abeywardena Jayasinhe Arachchilage Gunaratne Lal Kumara, No.68, Nawodagama, Sevanagala. 7. Kodikara Kankanamge Ranjith, No.206, Habaraluwewa, Sevanagala. 8. Ganthota Widanagamage Dilanka, No.11, Sevanagala-North, Sevanagala. 9. Pannila Mohottalalage Suranga, G/2-1, Housing Scheme, Division 01, Katupilagama, Sevanagala. 10.Kumarasinhage Vijitha, No.299, Mihindu Pura, Sevanagala. Petitioners Vs. 1. Inspector Abeysekara, Officer-in-Charge (Acting), Police Station, Sevanagala. 2. Police Sergeant 23882 Sepala, Police Station, Sevanagala. 3. Police Sergeant 23738 Edirisinghe, Police Station, Sevanagala. 4. Police Sergeant View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J.			Download
2016-10-03	SC/FR/1/2015	01. Jahangir Sheriffdeen. No. 50A, Edward Lane, Colombo 03. 02. Harshika Samadhi Ranasinghe Sheriffdeen, No. 50A, Edward Lane, Colombo 03. On behalf of their daughter Nauyaa Sheriffdeen (Minor) of No. 50A, Edward Lane, Colombo 03. PETITIONERS Vs 01. Sandamali Aviruppola, Principal, Visakha Vidyalaya, No. 133, Vajira Road, Colombo 04. 02. Kalani Suriyapperuma, Deputy Principal, Visakha Vidyalaya, No. 133, Vajira Road, Colombo 04. 03. Ranjith Chandrasekara, Director of Education for National Schools, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 04. Anura Dissanayake, Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 05. Attorney General, Attorney General's Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J			Download
2016-10-03	SC/FR/350/2013	Amuhenkande Kankanamlage Jayasena, Of No. 587, Lake Road, Borelesgamuwa Now at Colombo Remand Prison with Remand No. 4116 Petitioner Vs. 1. Kamal Perera Chief Inspector of Police, Officer in Charge Unit No 4 – Fraud Bureau Colombo, No. 5, Dharmarama Road, Wellawatta, Colombo 06. 2. Jayarathne, Police Constable 30602, Unit No 4 – Fraud Bureau Colombo, No. 5, Dharmarama Road, Wellawatta, Colombo 06. 3. K.V.P. Fernando, Senior Superintendent of Police Director, Fraud Bureau Colombo, No. 5, Dharmarama Road, Wellawatta, Colombo 06. 4. S.A.D.S. Gunasekara Deputy Inspector General of Police Colombo DIG's Office, Colombo 11. 5. Anura Senanayake Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police, Colombo Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 6. N. Illangakoon Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 7. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General's Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew			Download
2016-09-30	SC/HC CALA/449/2014	Munasinghe Leela Nanda Silva Welpansala Road, Kudawaskaduwa, Waskaduwa. 17th DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-PETITIONER VS. T.G. Chandrawathie Wijesekera Waskadu Methsevena, Waskaduwa. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT 1. Jayalathge Don Sarath Gunasekera No. 14, 23rd Lane, Colombo 03. 2. Wimalawathie De Silva No.51/1, Borupana Road, Ratmalana. 3. R.N. Zoysa C/O Munasinghe Leelawathie Silva, Kuleegoda, Ambalangoda 3A. Anil Gunaratna De Zoysa Welibadda, Kuleegoda, Ambalangoda. 4. Munasinghe Syril Piyaratna Silva No.51/1, Borupana Road, Ratmalana. 4A. Walimuni Dewage Leelawathie No. 75/20, Kanatta Road, Mirihanan, Nugegoda. 5. Munasinghe Anula De Silva Pririvana Rathna Sri Road, Pinwatta, Panadura. 6. Percy Kumara Silva Pririvana Road, Rathna Sri, Pinawatta, Panadura. 7. Munasinghe Sarathchandra, Rathna Sri, Pririvana Road, Pinwatta, Panadura. 8. M.D. Malalasekera No. 513/1, Nalluruwa, Panadura. 9. Munasinghe Boid Kulasena Wellawatta, Kuleegoda, Ambalangoda. 10. Sriyananda Munasinghe Madawela, Ulpotha, Matale, 11. Munasinghe Tickmen De View More	Hon. Prasanna Jayawardena, PC, J.			Download
2016-09-30	SC/APPEAL/89/2010	Seyyadu Mohommaduge Razik Gallenbindunuwewa Horowpotana. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-PETITIONER Vs. 1. Suleiman Adam Kandu Kivul kade, Horowpothana. 2. Abdul Hameed Mahamad Mihilar Fancy Textiles Mahaveediya, Horowpothana. DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J			Download
2016-09-28	SC/FR/194/2012	Arshan Rajinikanth Mirishena Watte,Bulathsinghala. Petitioner Vs (1)Officer in Charge Bulathsinhala Police Station Bulathsinhala. (2)Sub Inspector Kumaratne Bulathsinhala Police Station, Bulathsinhala. (3)ASP Matugama Office of the Assistant Superintendant (4)SI Pathmalal Office of the Assistant Superintendant Of police, Katukurunda, Kalutara. (5)N.K.Illangakoon Inspector General of police Police Headquaters, Colombo 1. (6)Dr. R.M.A.Rathnayake Judicial Medical Officer Teaching Hospital, Ragama. (7)Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	HON. H.N.J.PERERA, J.			Download
2016-09-28	SC/FR/76/2012	P.S Manohari Pelaketiya of No. 49 Maho Road, Nikaweratiya. PETITIONER Vs. 1. H. M. Gunasekera, Secretary, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Sri Jayawardhanapura, Kotte, Battaramulla. 1A. W. M. Bandusena Secretary, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Sri Jayawardhanapura, Kotte, Battaramulla. 2. Dr. Dayasiri Fernando, (Chairman) 2A. Dharmasena Dissanayake, Chairman 3. Palitha Kumarasinghe, Member 3A. A. Salam Abdul Waid, Member 4. Sirimavo A. Wijeratne, Member 4A. D. Shirantha Wijayatilaka, Member 5. S.C Mannapperuma, Member 5A. Prathap Ramanujam, Member 6. Ananda Seneviratne, Member 6A. V. Jegarasasingam, Member 7. N.H. Pathirana, Member 7A. Santi Nihal Seneviratne, Member 8. S. Thillanadarujah, Member 8A. S. Ranuhhe, Member 9. M.D.W. Ariyawansa, Member 9A. D.L. Mendis, Member 10. A. Mohamed Nahiya, Member 10A. Sarath Jayathilaka 2A – 10A Respondents All of the Public Services Commission No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 11. Premalal Kumarasiri, Principal, Mahanama College, Colombo 3. 12. T. View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2016-09-23	SC/FR/284/2013	1. W.K. Samarakoon, 316, Vidyala Mawatha, Kothalawala, Kaduwela. 2. K.S. Ranasinghe, 85, Ihalaaluthela Road, Tholabogaswatta, Badulla. 3. N.W.P. Deshabandu, 02, Kajugahawatta, Gotatuwa New Town. 4. K.A.P. Perera, No. 472/2, Bunt Road, Dutugemunu Mawatha, Thalangama North, Battaramulla. 6. P. Abeyshantha, 100/41, City Gate, Katana North, Katana. 7. R.M.C.N.K. Madawala, NWSDB Quarters, Water Supply Scheme, Ampitiya. Petitioners Vs. 1. National Water Supply and Drainage Board, Galle Road, Rathmalana. 2. General Manager, National Water Supply and Drainage Board, Galle Road, Rathmalana. 3. Additional General Manager, (Human Resources and Industrial Relations), National Water Supply and Drainage Board, Galle Road, Rathmalana. 4. Deputy General Manager, (Human Resources), National Water Supply and Drainage Board, Galle Road, Rathmalana. 5. K.L.L. Premanath, No. 21,/3, P.B. Alwis Perera Mawatha, Katubedda, Moratuwa. Formerly General Manager, National Water Supply and Drainage Board, Galle Road, Rathmalana. 6. H. Ar View More	Hon. K. Sripavan, C.J.			Download
2016-09-22	SC/FR/81/2011	Omaththa Mudalige Don Gamini 262, Panchawatta, Himbutana, Angoda. Petitioner Vs 1. Nishantha Silva Inspector of Police, Special Unit, Criminal Investigation Department, Colombo 01. 2. Police Sergeant Mendis 14209 Special Unit, Criminal Investigation Department, Colombo 01. 3. M.A.S. Ranjith Munasinghe Inspector of Police, Officer-in-Charge, Special Unit, Criminal Investigation Department, Colombo 01. 4. G.S. Abeysekara Assistant Superintendent of Police, Special Unit, Criminal Investigation Department, Colombo 01. 5. Inspector General of Police Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 6. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2016-09-22	SC/HC CALA/22/2014	V.V. Ramanathan & Company (Pvt) Ltd. Hospital Circular Road, Vavunia. PLAINTIFF Vs. 1. National Housing Development Authority No. 34, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. 2. The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. DEFENDANTS AND BETWEEN National Housing Development Authority No. 34, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. DEFENDANT-PETITIONER Vs. V.V. Ramanathan & Company (Pvt) Ltd. Hospital Circular Road, Vavunia. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND NOW National Housing Development Authority No. 34, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. DEFENDANT-PETITIONER-PETITIONER V.V. Ramanathan & Company (Pvt) Ltd. Hospital Circular Road, Vavunia. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2016-09-21	SC/FR/612/2009	W.N.L.K. Fernando No.6, Kankale Watte Pahala Mawila Naaththandiya Petitioner Vs. 1. Police Inspector Ranjith 2. Police Sergeant Dissanayake (23311) 3. Sub Inspector Chamara P. Wijesinghe 4. A.M. Weerakkodi, Officer-In-Charge All of Police Station, Wennappuwa 5. S. Peters Proprietor Tata Global Engineering Pvt Ltd. Wennappuwa 6. Sunil Appuhamy, Watcher Tata Global Engineering Pvt Ltd. Wennappuwa 7. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. K.T. Chitrasiri, J.			Download
2016-09-20	SC/FR/389/2015	Mohamed Niswer Ismail 102/114, Madara Uyana, 4th Lane, Mattegoda. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Engineer Y. Abdul Majeed Acting Director General of Irrigation Department of Irrigation, 230, P.O. Box 1138 Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7. 1A. Engineer Saman S.L. Weerasinghe Director General of Irrigation Department of Irrigation 230, P.O. Box 1138 Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7. 2. Engineer R.M.W. Rathnayake Secretary, Ministry of Irrigation and Water Resources Management, No. 11, Jawatte Road, Colombo 5. 3. J. Dadallage Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration & Management Independence Square, Colombo 7. 4. S. S. Hettiarachchi Director General of Pensions Department of Pensions Maligawatte Secretariat, Maligawatte, Colombo 10. 5. Justice Sathya Hettige P.C., 6. Ananda Seneviratne 7. N. H. Pathirana 8. S. Thillandarajah 9. A. Mohamed Nahiya 10. Kanthie Wijetunge 11. Sunil S. Sirisena 12. Dr. I. M. Zoysa Gunasekera (All members of the Public Service Commission) No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 5A. Dharmasena View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2016-09-19	SC/APPEAL/196/2015	Suppaiah Wijeratnam, No. 90, Kandy Road, Kengalle. Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner V. Sarath Perera, No.90, Kandy Road, Kengalle. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	HON. H.N.J.PERERA, J.			Download
2016-09-15	SC/CONT/4/2016	Mrs. Dilrukshi Dias Wickramasinghe, P.C., Director General, 36, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. Complainant Vs. Hon. Lakshman Namal Rajapaksha, M.P. “Carlton”, Tangalle. Respondent View More	Hon. K. Sripavan, C.J.			Download
2016-09-14	SC/APPEAL/64/2014	Nawala Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Chandra Ranasinghe, No. 41 and 41/1/1, Anagarika Dharmapala Mawatha, Kandy. Plaintiff Vs 1. Palitha Munasinghe 2. S.M. Munasinghe Both of Official Residence, Bank of Ceylon, Peradeniya. Presently at No. 43, Anagarika Dharmapala Mawatha, Kandy. Defendants AND 1. Palitha Munasinghe 2. S.M. Munasinghe Both of Official Residence, Bank of Ceylon, Peradeniya. Presently at No. 43, Anagarika Dharmapala Mawatha, Kandy. Defendants Appellants Vs Nawala Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Chandra Ranasinghe, No. 41 and 41/1/1, Anagarika Dharmapala Mawatha, Kandy. Plaintiff Respondent AND NOW Nawala Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Chandra Ranasinghe, No. 41 and 41/1/1, Anagarika Dharmapala Mawatha, Kandy. Plaintiff Respondent Appellant Vs 1. Palitha Munasinghe 2. S.M. Munasinghe Both of the Official Residence, Bank of Ceylon, Peradeniya. Presently at No. 43, Anagarika Dharmapala Mawatha, Kandy. Defendants Appellants Respondents View More	Hon. S. Eva Wanasundera PCJ.			Download
2016-09-09	SC/APPEAL/180/2010	T. Somaweera of Yatagama, Walgama, Rambukkana. Plaintiff Vs 1. G. Laisa 2. T. Jamis 3. K. P. Samarakoon All of Yatagama, Walgama, Rambukkana. Defendants AND T. Jamis of Yatagama, Walgama, Rambukkana. 2nd Defendant Appellant Vs 1. G. Laisa and 3. K.P. Samarakoon Both of Yatagama, Walgama, Rambukkana. Defendants Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN T. Jamis of Yatagama, Walgama, Rambukkana 2nd Defendant Appellant Petitioner Vs T. Somaweera of Yatagama, Walgama, Rambukkana. Plaintiff Respondent 1. G. Laisa and 3. K. P. Samarakoon Both of Yatagama, Walgama, Rambukkana 1st and 3rd Defendants Respondents Respondents View More	Hon. S. Eva Wanasundera PCJ.			Download
2016-09-08	SC/APPEAL/62/2011	Elvitigalage Don Lalith Chandrasiri No.193/136, Maththegoda Polgasowita Plaintiff Vs. 1. Kodithuwakku Kankanamge Dayani Vinitha No.116, Mabulgoda Pannipitiya Original Defendant 2. Kodithuwakku Kankanamge Sarath (Deceased) No.116, Mabulgoda Pannipitiya Added Second Defendant 2A. Kodithuwakku Kankanamge Lalitha Dayangani No.103, Maththegoda Road Polgasovita 2A Defendant AND BETWEEN Kodithuwakku Kankanamge Lalitha Dayangani No.103, Maththegoda Road Polgasovita 2A Defendant-Appellant Elvitigalage Don Lalith Chandrasiri No.193/136, Maththegoda Polgasowita Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Elvitigalage Don Lalith Chandrasiri No.193/136, Maththegoda Polgasowita Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Kodithuwakku Kankanamge Lalitha Dayangani No.103, Maththegoda Road Polgasovita At present – No.116, Mabulgoda, Pannipitiya 2A Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. K.T. Chitrasiri, J.			Download
2016-09-07	SC/FR/277/2010	1. Ameer Ismail, 37B, Boswell Place, Colombo 06. 2. Punyadasa Edussuriya, 18/225, Dabare Mawatha, Colombo 05. 3. Indra De Silva, (Expired on 31st December 2015) 398/B Eksath Mawatha, Kalapaluwawa, Rajagiriya. Petitioners Vs. 1. Mrs. Luckshmi Jayawickrama, Former Director-General, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, 36, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. 1A. Ganesh Rajendra Dharmawardana, Director General, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, 36, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. Added 1AA Mrs. Dilrukshi Dias Wickramasinghe, P.C. Director General, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, 36, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. 2. Ms. E.D. Kumudu, Deputy Director General, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, 36, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. 3. Lalith Weerathunga, Secretary to H.E. the President, Presidential Secretariat, Colombo 01. ADDED (3A) P.B. Abeykoon, Secretary to H.E. the President, Presidential Secretariat View More	Hon. K. Sripavan, C.J.			Download
2016-08-11	SC/APPEAL/197/2011	Keva Fragrances (Private) Limited, Devakaran Mansion, No. 36, Mangaldas Road, Mumbai 400 002. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Bobby Industries (Private) Limited, No. 14, 1st Lane, Mawilmada, Kandy. 2. A. Razaak, Managing Director, Bobby Industries (Private) Limited, No. 14, 1st Lane, Mawilmada, Kandy. Defendants AND Keva Fragrances (Private) Limited, Devakaran Mansion, No. 36, Mangaldas Road, Mumbai 400 002. Plaintiff Appellant Vs. 1. Bobby Industries (Private) Limited, No. 14, 1st Lane, Mawilmada, Kandy. 2. A. Razaak, Managing Director, Bobby Industries (Private) Limited, No. 14, 1st Lane, Mawilmada, Kandy. Defendant Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Keva Fragrances (Private) Limited, Devakaran Mansion, No. 36, Mangaldas Road, Mumbai 400 002. Plaintiff Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Bobby Industries (Private) Limited, No. 14, 1st Lane, Mawilmada, Kandy. 2. A. Razaak, Managing Director, Bobby Industries (Private) Limited, No. 14, 1st Lane, Mawilmada, Kandy. Defendant Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Upaly Abeyrathne, J.			Download
2016-08-09	SC/APPEAL/118/2014	Hettiarachchilage Piyadasa Dehiowita, Atalugama. PLAINTIFF Vs. 1. Hettiarachchilage Piyaseeli 2. G. R. Piyaseeli 3. Hettiarachchilage Nandawathie 4. Hettiarachchilage Piyawathie 5. G.K. Jane (DECEASED) 5A. Hettiarachchilage Piyadasa 5B. Hettiarachchilage Piyaseeli 5C. Hettiarachchilage Nandawathie 5D. Hettiarachchilage Piyawathie All of Dehiowita, Atalugama 1 – 4TH AND 5A – 5D SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANTS AND Hettiarachchilage Piyadasa Dehiowita, Atalugama. 1ST AND 5B SUBSTITUTED-DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT Vs. Hettiarachchilage Piyadasa Dehiowita, Atalugama. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT 2. G. R. Piyaseeli 3. Hettiarachchilage Nandawathie 4. Hettiarachchilage Piyawathie 5A. Hettiarachchilage Piyadasa 5B. Hettiarachchilage Nandawathie 5D. Hettiarachchilage Piyawathie 2ND – 4TH AND 5A, 5C AND 5D SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN Hettiarachchilage Piyadasa Dehiowita, Atalugama. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs. Hettiarachchilage Piyaseeli Dehiowita, Atalugama. 1ST AND 5B SUBSTITUTED-APPELLANT-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2016-08-09	SC/HC CALA/492/2014	The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12 Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Ulviti Gamage Dhanapala No.32, Galhena Road Gangodawila, Nugegoda Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. K.T. Chitrasiri, J.			Download
2016-08-08	SC/APPEAL/105/2013	Daya Jayaratne, (nee Agampodi Silva), No. 24, Vanderwert Place, Dehiwela. Plaintiff Vs 1. Singha Arachchige Ajith Thilaksiri 2. Weerasinghe Mudiyanselage Dayawathie 3. Kuranage Densil Anton Perera 4. Adhikari Mudiyanselage Seneviratne 5. Suduwa Dewage Ranjith Gunaratne 6. Wijesuriya Arachchilage Lionel 7. Suduwa Dewage Nimal Rathne 8. Asarappulige Lalith Mahinda 9. Dapanage Chandana Pradeep Appuhamy 10. Hewawasam Hakgalage Karalinahamy 11. Ranepura Hewage Gunajeeva 12. Hikkaduge Sunil Fernando 13. Jayasuriya Arachchilage Don Lakshman Jayantha 14. Jayasuriya Arachchilage Don Asoka Jayasinghe 15. Sebastian Lawrence 16. N.Joseph Michael Royala 17. Doresamy Kandasamy 18. Suriya Arachchige Sampath Appuhamy 19. Mutthai Waduwei Sarawanamuttu 20. Jayasuriya Arachchige Pelician Perera 21. Suduwa Dewage Lushan Fernando 22. Muthugalage Sisira Sarath 23. Sebesthian Pulle Selwaniathi 24. Hewabattage Premadasa Ediriweera 25. Madurasinghage Don Grace Ethala 26. Chakrawarthige Lal Fernando 27. Deepal Aravinda Suduwa Dewage 28. Kanvedige Ve View More	Hon. S. Eva Wanasundera PCJ.			Download
2016-08-08	SC/SPL LA/27/2015	Kuda Banda Dunuwila 55/12, Bawwagama, Nawalapitiya. PLAINTIFF Vs. Menikrama Mudalige Sriya Malani Piyadasa No. 1, Kumarapaya, Meepitiya, Nawalapitiya. DEFENDANT AND BETWEEN Menikrama Mudalige Sriya Malani Piyadasa No. 1, Kumarapaya, Meepitiya, Nawalapitiya. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Vs. Kuda Banda Dunuwila 55/12, Bawwagama, Nawalapitiya. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Menikrama Mudalige Sriya Malani Piyadasa No. 1, Kumarapaya, Meepitiya, Nawalapitiya. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-PETITIONER Vs. Kuda Banda Dunuwila 55/12, Bawwagama, Nawalapitiya. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2016-08-08	SC/FR/108/2016	1. Tirathai Public Co.Ltd., 516/1, Moo 4 Bangpoo Industrial Estate, Praksa Muang Samutprakan 10280 Thailand 2. H.R.Holdings (Pvt) Ltd., 476/10, Galle Road Colombo 03 Petitioners Vs. 1. Ceylon Electricity Board No.50, Sir Chittampalam Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2, and 17 others Respondents View More	HON. K.T. CHITRASIRI J			Download
2016-08-08	SC/SPL LA/127/2015	Menikrama Mudalige Sriya Malanim Piiyadasa No. 1, Kumarapaya, Meepitiya, Nawalapitiya. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-PETITIONER Vs. Kuda Banda Dunuwila 55/12, Bawwagama, Nawalapitiya. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J			Download
2016-08-04	SC/APPEAL/106/2011	Abans Retail (Pvt) Ltd., No. 498, Galle Road, Colombo 3. Plaintiff-Petitioner V. H.N.Jayaratne Bandara, N0.448, Buddhayaye, Galamuna, Hingurakgoda, Polonnaruwa. Defendant-Respondent View More	HON. H.N.J.PERERA, J.			Download
2016-08-03	SC/APPEAL/84/2011	Brown and Company Limited, No. 481, T. B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10. Petitioner Vs 1. The Commissioner of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 2. A. Dissanayake, Assistant Commissioner of Labour, (Colombo Central), Labour Secretariat, Colombo 5. 3. R. B. Godamunna, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Industrial Relations Unit, 7th Floor, Labour Secretariat. Respondents M. V. Thegarajah, 23/2, Independence Avenue, Colombo 7. Complainant Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Brown and Company Limited, No. 481, T. B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10. Petitioner Appellant Vs 1. The Commissioner of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 2. A. Dissanayake, Assistant Commissioner of Labour, (Colombo Central), Labour Secretariat, Colombo 5. 3. R. B. Godamunna, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Industrial Relations Unit, 7th Floor, Labour Secretariat, Respondents Respondents M. V. Thegarajah, 23/2, Independence Avenue, Colombo 7. Complainant Respondent Respondent View More	Hon. S. Eva Wanasundera PCJ.			Download
2016-08-02	SC/APPEAL/100/2015	U. B. Heenkenda No. 77, Peralanda Road, Pandiwatte, Kundasale. APPLICANT Vs. H. B. S. Motors (Private) Limited 37, Cross Street, Kandy EMPLOYER H. B. S. Motors (Private) Limited 37, Cross Street, Kandy EMPLOYER-PETITIONER Vs. U. B. Heenkenda No. 77, Peralanda Road, Pandiwatte, Kundasale. APPLICANT-PRESPONDENT B. M. Wipularatna Banda No.106/1 Harnakahawa, Kandy. RESPONDENT And Now Between H. B. S. Motors (Private) Limited 37, Cross Street, EMPLOYER-PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs. U.B. Heenkenda, Pandiwatte, Kundasale. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT B.M. Wipularatna Banda No.106/1 Harnakahawa, Kandy. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Buwaneka Aluwihare P.C.J.			Download
2016-08-02	SC/FR/26/2009	Dodampe Gamage Asantha Aravinda, No, 466, Madawalamulla, Galle. (Presently detained at the Welikada Remand Prison) Petitioner Vs. 1. Atapattu (21899) Police Sergeant, Police Station, Pitabeddara. 2. Bandu Saman (64017) Police Constable, Police Station, Pitabeddara. 3. Jinadasa (24187) Police Sergeant, Police Station, Pitabeddara. 4. Hemachandra (22331) Police Sergeant, Police Station, Pitabeddara. 5. Edirisinghe (25156) Police Sergeant, Police Station, Pitabeddara. 6. Karunarathne (858) Police Sergeant, Police Station, Pitabeddara. 7. Gamini (58881) Police Constable, Police Station, Pitabeddara. 8. Wajira (14705) Police Constable, Police Station, Pitabeddara. 9. Jayawardane (62785) Police Constable, Police Station, Pitabeddara. 10. Sugath (3089) Police Constable, Police Station, Pitabeddara. 11. Officer in Charge, Police Station, Pitabeddara. 12. P.V. Chandrasiri, Naththawila Road, Tennahena, Pitabeddara. 13. Deputy Inspector General of Police of Southern Range, Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police View More	Hon. Sisira J de Abrew J.			Download
2016-07-28	SC/FR/368/2012	1. Mananadewage Shifani, No.34/1, Kolamunna, Piliyandala. 2. Nazreen Nazar, 3. Hazna Nazar, Both minor children presently believed to be residing at No.10, Horton Place, Colombo 07, and appearing by their mother, Custodian and/or Next Friend, Mananadewage Shifani (the 1st Petitioner above-named), of No. 34/1, Kolamunna, Piliyandala. Petitioners Vs. 1. W.A. Somaratne Wijayamuni, Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Piliyandala. 2. Samanthi Gunasekara, Police Officer (WPC), Women and Children’s Division, Police Station, Piliyandala. 3. Kattadige Dayananda, Police Officer (PC No.22039), Police Station, Piliyandala. 4. Ellagodage Thushara Rukshan, Police Officer (PC No.72753), Police Station, Piliyandala. 5. Kadiragamar, Officer attached to the Special Police Investigations Unit, National Child Protection Authority, 6. Buddhika Prasad Balachandra, Officer-in-Charge, Special Police Investigations Unit, National Child Protection Authority, 7. R.M.R. Rathnayaka, Officer attached to the Special Police Investigations Unit View More	Hon. Sisira J. De Abrew, J.			Download
2016-07-28	SC/APPEAL/137/2014	Meringnage Rohan Fernando 144, Old Negombo Road, Kanuwana, Ja-Ela. PLAINTIFF Vs. Patikiri Arachchige Dona Indrani Chandralatha Amarasekera No. 52, Weragala, Padukka. DEFENDANT AND Patikiri Arachchige Dona Indrani Chandralatha Amarasekera No. 52, Weragala, Padukka. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Vs. Meringnage Rohan Fernando 144, Old Negombo Road, Kanuwana, Ja-Ela. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Meringnage Rohan Fernando 144, Old Negombo Road, Kanuwana, Ja-Ela. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs. Patikiri Arachchige Dona Indrani Chandralatha Amarasekera No. 52, Weragala, Padukka. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Gooneratne J.			Download
2016-07-28	SC/WRT/1/2014	Balangoda Plantations PLC 110, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Janaka Bandara Tennakoon Minister of Lands and Land Development, 80/5, “Govijana Mandiraya” Rajamalwatta Mawatha, Battaramulla. 2. C.M. Kottewatte Divisional Secretary Ratnapura Ratnapura Divisional Secretariat Office Ratnapura. 3. H.W. Gunadasa Former District Secretary Ratnapura, District Secretariat, Ratnapura. 4. Hon. W.D.J. Seneviratne Minister of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 5. Hon. Mahinda Samarasinghe Minister of Plantation Industries Ministry of Plantation Industries 55/75, Vauxhall Lane, Colombo 2. 6. Secretary Ministry of Plantation Industries 55/75, Vauxhall Lane, Colombo 2. 7. Sri Lanka State Plantations Corporation, No. 11, Duke Street, Colombo 1. 8. Hon. Attorney General Attorney Generals Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J			Download
2016-07-26	SC/APPEAL/108/2014	Jayapathma Herath Mudiyanselage Herath Banda In front of Kotawehera Police Station, Kotawehera 4th Defendant-Appellant-Appellant vs. Herath Mudiyanselage Menuhami Andarakatuwa, Mahakirinda, Mahagiriulla Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 1. Jayapathma Herath Mudiyanselage Dingiri Menika, Halambe, Monnakulama 1A. Rasnayake Mudiyanselage Kapuru Bandara Rasnayake, No.279/4, Meda Ela Para, Nikaweratiya 2. Kulatunga Ranasinghe Herath Mudiyanselage Herath Bandage Somawathie 3. Herath Mudiyanselage Herathhamige Dingiri Amma, Diganna Watta, Digannewa 4. Jayapathma Herath Mudiyanselage Tikiri Banda, Mole Kade, Ihala Agarauda, Monnekulama 5. Jayapathma Herath Mudiyanselage Bandaranayake, In front of Kotawehera Police Station, Kotawehera Defendant-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. K.T. Chitrasiri, J.			Download
2016-07-25	SC/APPEAL/128/2013	1. The Municipal Council of Moratuwa, 2. His Worship Lord Mayor Moratuwa, 3. The Municipal Commissioner, All are of Moratuwa Municipal Council, Galle Road, Moratuwa. Respondent-Petitioners Vs. Weerahennadige Shian Hiresh Fernando, No. 04, De Vos Avenue, Colombo 04. Petitioner-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J.			Download
2016-07-25	SC/APPEAL/198/2015	ElectroRef Engineers (Pvt) Ltd., SC(HC) CALA/Application No. 74, Lesley Ranagala Mawatha No. 594/14 (Serpentine Road), Borella, Colombo 8 Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Sandalankawa Coconut Production & Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd., Wetakeyyawa, Gonawila. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J.			Download
2016-07-22	SC/FR/527/2011	Puwakketiyage Sajith Suranga Bogahawatta, Lellkada, Ginimalgaha. Petitioner Vs 1.Prasad Sub-Inspector of Police Station, Thelikada. 2.Sunil Sergeant Thelikada Police Station Thelikada. 3.Sugath Palitha Sergeant Thelikada Police Station, Thelikada. 4.Samantha Civil Defence Officer, Thelikada Police Station, Thelikada. 5.Inspector of Police Nalaka Officer-in-Charge, Thelikada Police Station, Thelikada. 6.N.K.Illangakoon, Inspector General of Police Police Head Quarters, Colombo 1. 7.Hon.Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	HON. H.N.J.PERERA, J.			Download
2016-07-22	SC/APPEAL/82/2013	1. Arampath Geeganage Somarathne Buthgamuwa, Pahala Buthgamuwa. 2. Jayasooriya Arachchillage Siriyalatha alias Siriyawathie Ragal Kanda, Alawwa. 3. Rathnayake Adikaram Thenennehelaga Sunil Rathnayake Ragal Kanda, Alawwa. 4. Ranamuka Arachchillage Asoka Ragal Kanda, Alawwa. DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-PETITIONERS Vs. Hettimudiyanselage Somarathna Kehel Kotuwa, Ragal Kanda, Alawwa. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More				Download
2016-07-21	SC/APPEAL/202/2012	Bogahawatta Durage Chandana Pushpakumara, No. 36/14, Ratnapura Road, Pelmadulla. Vs 1. Kottewatta Arachchilage Yasawathie Nanda Gunawardena, No. 98/5 Dharmapala Mawatha Pannipitiya. 2. Nalin Gankanda, Udaha Walawwa, Gallpoththawala, Pelmadulla. 3. Dinesh Rajiv Gankanda, Udaha Walawwa, Galpottawala, Pelmadulla. 4. Vijitha Gunatileka, No. 105, Dharmapala Mawatha, Pelmadulla. 5. Iduran Pitiya Kankanamalage Ratnaseeli, Dharmapala Mawatha, Pelmadulla. 6. Iduran Pitiya Kankanamalage Mangalasiri, Dharmapala Mawatha, Pelmadulla. 7. Iduran Pitiya Kankanamalage Thusithananda, Dharmapala Mawatha, Pelmadulla. 8. Kottawatta Arachchilage Gunawardena, Dharmapala Mawatha Pedesa, Pelmadulla. 9. Beligaswatta Akkaran Kuruppu Mudiyanselage Sirinilame, Mudduwa, Ratnapura. 10. Beligaswatta Akkaran Kuruppu Mudiyanselage Sugathapala, Mudduwa, Ratnapura. 11. Lindawatte Nandawathie, Vidyalaya Mawatha, Pelmadulla. 12. G. L. Jinadasa, Pahala Bempitiya, Medawatta, Pelmadulla. 13. A.M.M. Kularatne, No. 13, Medawatta, Bopitiya, Pelmadulla. 14. A. M. Dharmawardena, Kutwapitiya, Pelmadulla View More	Hon. S. Eva Wanasundera PCJ.			Download
2016-07-20	SC/FR/9/2015	1. R.H.A.S.S. Karunarathna, Na Sevana, Deraniyagala and 34 others Petitioners vs 1. University Grants Commission, No. 20, Ward Place, Colombo 7. 18 others Respondents View More	Hon. K. Sripavan, C.J.			Download
2016-07-20	SC/APPEAL/142/2012	1. Vitiyala Kankanamge Heenhamy alias Hamine. 2. Chandrasiri Senanayake, Both of 18 Ela, No.507, Padalangala. DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-PETITIONERS Vs. Seena Patabendige Roshini of “Ediriwarna Niwasa”, Baragama, Ambalanthota. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Sisira J de Abrew, J.			Download
2016-07-20	SC/FR/13/2015	1. D.T. Wickramaratna, Green crescent, Godagama, Matara. and 41 others Petitioners vs 1. University Grants Commission, No. 20, Ward Place, Colombo 7. and 18 others Respondents View More	Hon. K. Sripavan, C.J.			Download
2016-07-20	SC/FR/45/2015	1. T.D. Mataraarachchi, No. 3A, Mawatha II, Sevana, Aruppola, Kandy and 5 others Petitioners vs 1. University Grants Commission, No. 20, Ward Place, Colombo 7. and 18 others Respondents View More	Hon. K. Sripavan, C.J.			Download
2016-07-18	SC/APPEAL/33/2005	Gilbert Samaraweera PLAINTIFF (Deceased) Weerasooriya Arachchige Agnes No. 273/A, North Mulleriyawa, Angoda. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-PETITIONER Vs. Mahadurage Hemapala No. 170, Galle Road, Dehiwela. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT (Deceased) AND NOW BETWEEN Weerasooriya Arachchige Agnes No. 273/A, North Mulleriyawa, Angoda. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-PETITIONER Vs. Mahadurage Hemapala No. 170, Galle Road, Dehiwela. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT (Deceased) Mahadurage Asantha Senarathna No. 170, Galle Road, Dehiwela. RESPONDENT SOUGHT TO BE SUBSTITUTED 1. Mahadurage Palani Senarathna No. 255/5B/1, Saman Mawatha, Nadimala, Dehiwala 2. Mahadurage Manoja Senarathna No. 237/110, Mahagedara Watta, Arukgoda Road, Alubomulla. 3. Mahadurage Samantha Senarathna No. 437/1/B, Sama Pedesa, Hokandara North, Hokandara 4. Mahadurage Mahinda Senarathna No. 255/5B/1, Saman Mawatha, Nadimala, Dehiwala. 5. Mahadurage Helaruwan Senarathna No. 277/11A, Quarry Road, Nadimala, Dehiwala. RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2016-07-14	SC/FR/123/2015	Mohammed Mukthar Aisha, No 230, Kumaratunga Mawatha, Matara. Petitioner Vs. 1. W.B. Piyatissa, The Principal, (Chairman of the Interview Board) St. Thomas Boys College, Matara. 2. Hon. Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 3. Upali Marasinghe, The Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 4. The Chairman of the Appeal Board Grade 1 Admission Year 2015, St. Thomas Boys College, Matara. 5. Hon Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	HON. UPALY ABEYRATHNE, J.			Download
2016-07-14	SC/FR/663/2012	1. M.M. Ravi Perera, No. 56A, Pahalagama, Gampaha. and 3 others Petitioners Vs. 1. Commissioner General of Excise, Department of Excise, No. 34, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. and 50 others Respondents. 7A. D. Dissanayake, Chairman, 8A. Retired Hon. Justice A.W.A. Salam 9A. V. Jegarajasingham, 10A. Nihal Seneviratne, 11A. Dr. Prathap Ramanujam, 12A. S. Ranugge, 13A. D.L. Mendis, 14A. Sarath Jayathilaka, 15A. Dilhara Wijayatileke, All Members of the Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. Substituted Respondents View More	Hon. K. Sripavan, C.J.			Download
2016-07-14	SC/FR/23/2015	Mohammed Mukthar Aisha, No 230, Kumaratunga Mawatha, Matara. Petitioner Vs. 1. W.B. Piyatissa, The Principal, (Chairman of the Interview Board) St. Thomas Boys College, Matara. 2. Hon. Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 3. Upali Marasinghe, The Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 4. The Chairman of the Appeal Board Grade 1 Admission Year 2015, St. Thomas Boys College, Matara. 5. Hon Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Upaly Abeyrathne, J.			Download
2016-07-14	SC/FR/661/2012	1. A.A. Sarath 83/15, Wijithapura Mawatha, Mahakandara, Madapatha. 2. M.L.T. Ananda, Pettawatta, Korawela, Welipenna. 3. S.M.N.Kumarasinghe, 13, Bulagala, Dambulla. 4. Y.A.A.C. Kumara, 114/1, Madelgamuwa, Gampaha. 5. U.S. Liyanage, 623/6/A, Jaya Mawatha, Hospital Garden, Homagama. 6. S.Siva Kumar, D7/6, Thannimale, Undugoda, Kegalle. 7. A.T. Jayantha Premakumara, 174/1/E, Sri Dharmawansa Mawatha, Weragampita, Matara. 8. S.S.B.D.H. Jagath Jayawardana, 2/20, Nagaha Landa, Baduragoda Road, Kurikotuwa, Veyangoda. 9. B.K. Gunarathne, 21, Olugamthota, Balangoda. 10. A.R.M.Kiyasdeen, Common Road, Addalachanai. 11. H.M.A.S.B. Herath, ‘Chandana’, Waduressa, Bandarakoswaththa. 12. U. Jayawardana, Madiliya, Udagama, Atabage. 13. H.C.S. Nishantha, 203, Polwatta Road, Uduwawala, Polonnaruwa. 14. M.V.Shelton Ananda, 276/2/B, Mount Paradise 2, Gurudeniya, Kandy. 15. B.W.A.J.B.M. Baranagala, A69, Baranagala, Moronthota. 16. P.H. Rathnasiri, 152, Madawela, Harispaththuwa. 17. M.N. Mahayaya, 43, Bohingamuwa, Kuliyapitiya. 18. D.D.U.S. De Alwis, 61, Moragalla Road, Nugaliyadda, Thalathu-oya. 19. M.D.U.K. Wedanda, Kumarapaya, Wedanda, Demataluwa, Kurunegala. 20. L.R.W. Perera, 76, Yasarathna Tennekoon Mawatha, Kandy. 21. E.G.I. Dharmapriya, 125, Kannamgoda, Hikkaduwa. 22. K.W.K. Jayakody, ‘Sampatha’, Kahatagahawatta, Godakanda, Galle. 23. R.M.S.S. Rathnayake, Siyambalangamuwa Watta, Gonagama Road, Siyambalangamuwa, Maspatha. 24. G.A.M.S. Wijekoon, 472/2. Hokandara Road, Pannipitiya. Petitioners Vs. 1. Commissioner General of Excise, Department of Excise, No. 34, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 2. P.W. Rajapakshe, Commissioner of Excise, (Administration/Human Resources), Department of Excise, No. 34, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 3. W. Withanage, Deputy Commissioner of Excise, (Administration), Department of Excise, No. 34, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 4. Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Planning, The Secretariat, Colombo 1. 5. Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 6. Director-General Establishments, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 7. Dr. Dayasiri Fernando, Chairman, 7A. D.Dissanayake, Chairman, 8. Palitha M. Kumarasinghe, P.C., 8A. A.W.A. Salam 9. Sirimavo A. Wijeratne 9A. V.Jegarajasingham, 10. S.C. Manapperuma, 10A Nihal Seneviratne, 11 . Ananda Seneviratne, 11A. Dr. Prathap Ramanujam, 12. N.H. Pathirana 12A. S. Ranugge, 13. S. Thillanadarajah, 13A. D.L. Mendis, 14. M.D.W. Ariyawansa, 14A. Sarath Jayathilaka, 15. A. Mohamed Nahiya, 15A. Dhara Wijayatileke, AND OTHERS View More	HON. K. SRIPAVAN CJ			Download
2016-07-14	SC/FR/663/2012	1. M.M. Ravi Perera, No. 56A, Pahalagama, Gampaha. 2. K.Ramesh Kumar, No. 165A, New Kalmunai Road, Kallady, Batticaloa. 3. W.L.D. Wijesekara, No. 259B, West Doranagoda, Udugampola. 4. D.P. Hathurusingha, No. 564, Yakkaduwa, Ja-Ela. Petitioners Vs. 1. Commissioner General of Excise, Department of Excise, No. 34, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 2. P.W. Rajapakshe, Commissioner of Excise, (Administration/Human Resources), Department of Excise, No. 34, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 3. W. Withanage, Deputy Commissioner of Excise, (Administration Department of Excise,, No. 34, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 4. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Planning, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 5. Minister of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 6. Director-General Establishments, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 7. Dr. Dayasiri Fernando, Chairman, 7A. Retired Hon. Justice Sathya Hettige, P.C., Chairman. 8. Palitha M. Kumarasinghe, P.C., 8A. S.C. Mannapperuma 9. Sirimavo A. Wijeratne 9A. Ananda Seneviratne 10. S.C. Manapperuma, 10A. N.H. Pathirana 11 . Ananda Seneviratne, 11A. S. Thillanadarajah 12. N.H. Pathirana 12A. A. Mohamed Nahiya 13. S. Thillanadarajah, 13A. Kanthi Wijetunge 14. M.D.W. Ariyawansa, 14A. Sunil S. Sirisena 15. A. Mohamed Nahiya, 15A. Dr. I.M. Zoysa Gunasekera All Members of the Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 16. T.M.L.C. Senarathna, Secretary, Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 17. T. Upali Peiris, Udugampola Road, Kotugoda. 18. Hemantha Karunathilaka, 15/24, Senanayake Place, Padukka. 19. Terrence Weeratunga, 65B, Temple Road, Ekala, Ja-Ela. 20. B.M.S. Bandara, Eagalla, Wadhakada. 21. W.H.M. Ozna Perera, Uduwela, Ibbagamuwa. 22. J.A.U.S. Chandrasiri, Kalapaluwawa, Rajagiriya. 23. S.W. Jayantha Chandana, Madurawela, Anguruwathota. 24. W.T.P. Premasiri, Ranala Road, Habarakada. 25. Morandage Kanti Violet Jayasinghe, Manana, Mahagam. 26. W.K.M. Samarathunga, 223/1, Gangabada Road, Palathota, Kaluthara-North. 27. T.M.M.B. Tennakoon, Puttalam Road, Thittawella, Halpane. 28. T.M. Rewatha Tennakoon, Halpane Road, Giriulla. 29. A.A. Shantha Kumara, Madelgamuwa, Gampaha. 30. Imyhamy Mudiyanselage Nimal Karunasena, 131, Wijaya Rajadahana, Meerigama. 31. N.D.U. Gunasekara, 32. T.M.R. Tennakoon, 33. R.M.B. Ranasinghe, 34. T.U. Peiris, 35. K.B. Chandrasiri, 36. R. Nesakumar, 37. S.P. Wijerathne, 38. T. Weerathunga, 39. A.P. Kurukulasuriya, 40. A.M.D. Nilanthi, 41. V.Thiruchelvam, 42. G.W.M.S.B. Walisundara, 43. M.T. Abdeen, 44. M. Sathyaseelan, 45. K.A.D.S. Kothalawala, 46. S.R.L.A.S. Priyadarshani, 47. Y.C. Abeyrathna, 48. M.V. Nilmini, 49. U.B. Chandrasiri, 50. J.P.M. Sadaraj, All C/o. The Department of Excise, No. 34,W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 51. The Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp Street, Colombo 12. Respondents. 7A. D. Dissanayake, Chairman, 8A. Retired Hon. Justice A.W.A. Salam 9A. V. Jegarajasingham, 10A. Nihal Seneviratne, 11A. Dr. Prathap Ramanujam, 12A. S. Ranugge, 13A. D.L. Mendis, 14A. Sarath Jayathilaka, 15A. Dilhara Wijayatileke, All Members of the Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. Substituted Respondents View More	HON. K. SRIPAVAN CJ			Download
2016-07-12	SC/APPEAL/192/2014	Wewita Hettige Upul Premalal Perera, No. 209A, Mahawatta, Alubomulla. Petitioner Vs. Kiriwanawattegedara Beatrice Sandya Kumari, Udahawatta, Siyambalagoda, Danture Kandy. Respondent And between Kiriwanawattegedara Beatrice Sandya Kumari, Udahawatta, Siyambalagoda, Danture, Kandy. Respondent-Appellant Vs. Wewita Hettige Upul Premalal Perera, No. 209A, Mahawatta, Alubomulla. Petitioner-Respondent And now between Wewita Hettige Upul Premalal Perera, No. 209A, Mahawatta, Alubomulla. Petitioner-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Kiriwanawattegedara Beatrice Sandya Kumari, Udahawatta, Siyambalagoda, Danture, Kandy. Respondent-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Buwaneka Aluwihare P.C J.			Download
2016-07-11	SC/FR/207/2016	Udaya Prabhath Gammanpila, 65/14, Wickremasinghe Mawatha, Kumaragewatta Road, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. Presently at: Magazine Prison, Colombo 08. Petitioner Vs. 1. M.D.C.P. Gunathilake, Inspector of Police, Special Investigation Unit, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 2. Mevan Silva, Senior Superintendent of Police, Director, Special Investigation Unit, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 3. Pujitha Jayasundara, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 4. Brian John Shaddick, 2, Martins Knockrow, New South Wales 2479, Australia. 5. Lasitha Indeewara Perera, 726 Sri Nanda Mawatha, Madinnagoda Road, Rajagiriya. 6. J.C.P. Jayasinghe, 20 Tickell Road, Colombo 08. 7. Bandara, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Special Investigation Unit, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 8. The Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents. View More	Hon. K. Sripavan, C.J.			Download
2016-07-11	SC/FR/19/2015	1. Warushamannadi Saman de Silva 2. Yamuna Subhashini Dissanayake Both of: No. 188/7/2, 6th Avenue Apartment, Havelock Road, Thimbirigasyaya, Colombo 05. For and on behalf of: Chathuni Malintha de Silva PETITIONERS Vs 1. S.S.K. Aviruppola, Principal, Visakha Vidyalaya, Colombo 05. 2. Upali Marasinghe, Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 2(a) W.M. Bandusena, Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 3. Ranjith Chandrasekera, Director – National Schools, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 3(a) I.A.P.N. Illeperuma, Director – National Schools, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 4. U.M. Prasanna Upasantha, Principal, Mahanama College, Colombo 03. 5. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12 RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. S. E. Wanasundera PC. J.			Download
2016-07-05	SC/APPEAL/74/2012	Galkadu Dewage Nandasena, No. 379, Uggalboda West, Gampaha. Plaintiff- Respondent- Appellant Vs 1. Walimuni Senadheerage Malini Rupasinghe 2. HandungeSaranapala Both of No. 433, Galwetiya Road, Uggalboda, Gampaha. Defendant-Appellant-Respondents View More	HON. S. EVA WANASUNDERA, PCJ.			Download
2016-06-27	SC/APPEAL/221/2014	M. Anura Fernando No.116, Bodhirajapura, Werahera, Boralesgamuwa. Applicant-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Little Lion Associates (Pvt) Limited No.11, A.G. Hiiniappuhamy Mawatha, Colombo 13. Respondent-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J. De Abrew, J.			Download
2016-06-27	SC/APPEAL/83/2011	1. Merennege Lisi alias Erine Salgado 2. Mahatellage Saman Suranga Pieris 3. Mahatellage Sujith Asanga Pieris All of Nonis Mawatha, Molpe , Moratuwa. 4. Mahatellage Sarath Jayantha Pieris Of No. 19/2, Thapasarama Road, Moratumulla, Moratuwa. 5. Mahatellage Jayantha Pieris Of No. 34/288, Kirikannamulla, Yakkala. 6. Mahatellage Mallika Harriet Pieris Of No. 10/2, Nonis Mawatha, Molpe, Moratuwa. 7. Mahatellage Renuka Nimali Pieris Of Nonis Mawatha, Molpe, Moratuwa. PLAINTIFFS Vs. 1. A.M. A. Kalum Karunaratne Of No. 326/1, Suwarapola, Piliyandala. 2. Hapuhennedige Janet Elizabeth Of Mola Road, Katubedda, Moratuwa. DEFENDANTS AND A.M. A. Kalum Karunaratne Of No. 326/1, Suwarapola, Piliyandala. 1ST DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Merennege Lisi alias Erine Salgado 2. Mahatellage Saman Suranga Pieris 3. Mahatellage Sujith Asanga Pieris All of Nonis Mawatha, Molpe , Moratuwa. 4. Mahatellage Sarath Jayantha Pieris Of No. 19/2, Thapasarama Road, Moratumulla, Moratuwa. 5. Mahatellage Jayantha Pieris Of No. 34/288, Kirikannam View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2016-06-24	SC/FR/394/2015	Noble Resources International Pte Limited, No. 60, Anson Road, #19-01, Maple Tree, Anson Singapore 079914 Petitioner Vs. 1. Hon. Ranjith Siyambalapitiya, Minister of Power and Renewable Energy, No. 72, Ananda Coomaraswamy Mawatha, Colombo 07. and 74 others Respondents View More	Hon. K. Sripavan, C.J.			Download
2016-06-22	SC/APPEAL/170/2014	Brenda Hilda Violet Perera, No. 21, “ Mount Rose “, Jambugasmulla Mawatha, Nugegoda. Plaintiff Indramala Nelum Dhanaratne, No. 17, Rochester Drive, Pinner, Middlesex, United Kingdom Defendant AND BETWEEN Indramala Nelum Dhanaratne, No. 17, Rochester Drive, Pinner, Middlesex, United Kingdom Defendant Appellant Vs Brenda Hilda Violet Perera, No. 21, “ Mount Rose “, Jambugasmulla Mawatha, Nugegoda. Plaintiff Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Indramala Nelum Dhanaratne, No. 17, Rochester Drive, Pinner, Middlesex, United Kingdom Defendant Appellant Appellant Vs Brenda Hilda Violet Perera, No. 21, “ Mount Rose “, Jambugasmulla Mawatha, Nugegoda. Plaintiff Respondent Respondent View More	Hon. S. Eva Wanasundera PCJ.			Download
2016-06-22	SC/CHC APPEAL/1/2011	Selliah Ponnusamy 105, Manning Place, Colombo 6 Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs People’s Bank 75, Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha Colombo 2. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2016-06-21	SC/APPEAL/95/2013	Mohammed Abdul Gaffoor No.77/05, Vishaka Mawatha Bandarawela Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs Mohamed Jethum Umma No.77/05, Vishaka Mawatha Bandarawela Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. K.T. Chitrasiri J.			Download
2016-06-21	SC/FR/24/2016	Dr. K. Kobindarajah 130. Kannaki Amman Kovil Lake Road, Poompuhar, Batticaloa Petitioner SC FR Application No. 24/2016 Vs. 1. Eastern University, Sri Lanka Vantharumoolai, Chenklady 2. Prof. Uma Coomaraswamy Competent Authority Council Chairman, Eastern University, Sri Lanka Vantharumoolai, Chenkalady 3. Mr. V. Kanagasingam, Rector, Trincomalee Campus Council Member, 4. Dr. K.T. Sundaresan Dean, Faculty of Health –Care Sciences Council Member, 5. Dr. K. Rajendram Dean, Faculty of Arts & Culture Council Member, 6. Mr. R. Uthayakumar, Dean, Faculty of Commerce and Management Council Member, 7. Dr. F.C. Ragel Dean, Faculty of Science Council Member, 8. Dr. P. Sivarajah Dean, Faculty of Agriculture Council Member, 9. Mr. T. Baskar Dean, Faculty of Communication & Business Studies, Trincomalee Campus, Council Member, 10. Dr. K.E. Karunakaran, Senate Nominee, Council Member, 11. Mr. P. Sachithananthan, Senate Nominee, Council Member, 12. Mr. A. Gnanathasan, UGC Appointed Council Member, 13. Rev. Fr. Dr. Paul Robins View More	Hon. K. Sripavan, C.J.			Download
2016-06-10	SC/APPEAL/153/2014	Mohammed Ali Abdul Wadood of Ovitigama, Pugoda. PLAINTIFF (DECEASED) 1A. Mohammed Ashraff Mohammed Aswer 2A. Mohamemed Ashraff Mohammed Shapar Both of Ovitigama, Pugoda. SUBSTITUTED-PLAINTIFFS Vs. A.L. A. Ahamed Lebbe of Ovitigama, Pugoda. DEFENDANT (DECEASED) 1A. Ahamed Lebbe Abuhaneefa 2B. Ahamed Lebbe Sithithi Thamna 3C. Ahamed Lebbe Farida 4D. Mohammed Ali Puwuda Umma SUBSTITUTED –DEFENDANTS AND A.L.A. Ahamed Lebbe of Ovitigama, Pugoda. DEFENDANT-DECEASED 1A. Ahamed Lebbe Abuhaneefa of Ovitigama, Pugoda. SUBSTITUTED 1A DEFENDANT-PETITIONER Vs. Mohammed Ali Abdul Wadood of Ovitigama, Pugoda. PLAINTIFF (DECEASED) 1A. Mohammed Ashraff Mohammed Aswer 2A. Mohamemed Ashraff Mohammed Shapar Both of Ovitigama, Pugoda. SUBSTITUTED-PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS A.L. A. Ahamed Lebbe of Ovitigama, Pugoda. DEFENDANT (DECEASED) 2B. Ahamed Lebbe Sithithi Thamna 3C. Ahamed Lebbe Farida 4D. Mohammed Ali Puwuda Umma All of Ovitigama, Pugoda. SUBSTITUTED–DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS AND NOW A.L. A. Ahamed Lebbe of Ovitigama, Pugoda. DEF View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2016-06-10	SC/APPEAL/98/2007	1A. Sarath Godagampala 14. Indra Srimathie Godagampala 15. Nandanie Sriyalatha Godagampala 16. G.D. Wijethunga 17. G. D. Chandraratne Wijethunga All of Thalgasmote Veyangoda Defendant-Petitioner-Appellants Vs. W.K.Peter Fernando No.171, Thalgasmote, Veyangoda Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 2. G. D. Rosalin 3. G. D. Asilin 4. W.K.Jinadasa 5. W.K.Sunil 6. W.K.Kusumawathie 7. W.K.Vipulasena 8. W.K.Josephin 9. M.H.P.Jinel Nona 10.S.D.Nonis 11.S.D.Guneris 12.S.D.Lionel 13.S. Chandrasiri Udayaratne All of Thalagasmote Veyangoda Defendant-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. K.T. Chitrasiri, J.			Download
2016-06-09	SC/APPEAL/76/2011	1.Athamlebbe Mohamed Yusuf, 2.Seenimohamed Jemilunnisa, Both of Division3, Nintavur. Defendant Respondent Appellants Vs. 1.Mohamed Ismail Alim Suhaihaumma, 2.Athambawa Sulha Beebe, Both of Division 5, Sainthamaruthu. Substituted Plaintiff Appellant Respondents View More	Hon. Upaly Abeyrathne, J.			Download
2016-06-08	SC/APPEAL/174/2010	Maddumaralalage Dona Mary Nona of Galhena, Beruwala. Plaintiff Vs 1.Maddumaralalage Don Justin 2.Maddumaralalage Don Piyadasa 3.BudagodaArachchigeJayasenaWijewarden 4.BudagodaArachchigeSirisenaWijewardena 4a.Gammampila Imiyage DonaKarunawathi 5.Maddumaralalage Susil 6.Maddumaralalage Don Leelarathne 7.Maddumaralalage Don Hemachandra 8.Maddumaralalage Don Asilin 9.Maddumaralalage Don Thilakarathne 10.Maddumaralalage Don Chandrasena 11.Payagala Mudiyanselage alias Payagala Mudalige Nandawathi All of Galhena, Beruwala. 12. Kamburawala Kankanamge Panis Singho Of No. 5, Wickremasinghe Place, Kaluth- -ara South. 13. Hubert Danapala Ranasinghe of Kurun- -duwatta, Indajothi Mawatha, Hirana, Panadura. 14. Dodangoda Liyanage Podinona of Wata- -raka, Gintota. 15. Pitawala Kankanamage Don Poliyar Jayathilaka of Galhena, Beruwala. Defendants And 5, 9A. Maddumaralalage Sucil 9. Maddumaralalage Don Thilakarathne (dead) 11. Payagala Mudiyanselage alias Payagala Mudalige Dona Nandawathi. All of Galhena, Beruwala. 5th, 9th and View More	Hon. S. Eva Wanasundera PCJ.			Download
2016-06-02	SC/APPEAL/50/2010	1. Edirisinghe Mudiyanselage Gunamal Ethana Edirisinghe 2. Samarasinghe Thantrige Chinthaka Samarasinghe Both previously of: No. 22. Hewaheta Road, Illukmodera, Gurudeniya. Presently of: No. 46/1, Tennekumbura, Kandy. PLAINTIFFS Vs. 1. Dharmaratne Perera No. 38, Tennekumbura, Kandy. 2. W. A. P. Perera No. 71, Tennekumbura, Kandy. 3. Nissanka Bandara Sirimalwatte No. 71, Tennekumbura, Kandy. 4. Kurundeniya Seneviratnage Nissanka Seneviratne No. 43/40, Talwatte, Kandy. 5. Nihal Perera No. 48/2, Hewaheta Road, Talwatte, Kandy. 6. Ajith Nanayakkara “Olga Beer Point” No. 229, Srimath Bennet Soysa Street, Kandy. DEFENDANTS AND 2. A. P. Perera No. 71, Tennekumbura, Kandy. 3. Nissanka Bandara Sirimalwatte No. 71, Tennekumbura, Kandy. 4. Kurundeniya Seneviratnage Nissanka Seneviratne No. 43/40, Talwatte, Kandy. 5. Nihal Perera No. 48/2, Hewaheta Road, Talwatte, Kandy. DEFENDENT-PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Edirisinghe Mudiyanselage Gunamal Ethana Edirisinghe 2. Samarasinghe Thantrige Chinthaka Samarasinghe Both previously of: N View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2016-06-01	SC/APPEAL/95/2012	Kalutara Arachchide Namadasa alias Sumanadasa of Udumulla Kommala Benthota Plaintiff Respondent Petitioner Vs. W.D.Wimalaweera of Wadumulla Kommala Benthota Defendant Appellant Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J. de Abrew, J.			Download
2016-05-30	SC/APPEAL/4/2012	Gangabada Arachchige Prince Gamini Perera No. 310/8, Pahala Biyanwila, Kadawatha. PLAINTIFF Vs. Madavita Vidanamudalige Don Joseph No. 279, Dalupitiya, Kadawatha. DEFENDANT AND NOW Gangabada Arachchige Prince Gamini Perera No. 310/8, Pahala Biyanwila, Kadawatha. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs. Madavita Vidanamudalige Don Joseph No. 279, Dalupitiya, Kadawatha. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Gangabada Arachchige Prince Gamini Perera No. 310/8, Pahala Biyanwila, Kadawatha. Now residing at 221/A, Jayagath Mawatha, Ihala Biyanwila, Kadawatha. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-PETITIONER Vs. Madavita Vidanamudalige Don Joseph No. 279, Dalupitiya, Kadawatha. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2016-05-30	SC/APPEAL/183/2014	N. H. J. C. Rangajith Dassanayake Galliyedde, Ellawala 18th Defendant-Appellant- Appellant Vs A. Amaratunga Fernando 64/5, Cross Street Colombo 8 Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 1. A. Rosalin Fernando 2. A.E.Akman (deceased) 3. A. Swarnalatha 4. K.M.John Fernando (deceased) 5. A.R.Yasapala 6. A.R.Punyawathi 7. A.R.Gnanawathi 8. A.R.Siripala 9. A.R.Piyaseeli of Ellawela, Eheliyagoda 10. A.R.Luciya Fernando (deceased) 10A.V. H. Gunasoma 37, Sri Sumana Mawatha, Mudduwa, Ratnapura 11.A.R.Lewis C/o Ethoya Stores, Ratnapura 12. A.Alensu 317/F, Naiwala Road, Udugampola 13. A.Pedrik 300, Naiwala Road.Udugampola 14. A.Saimon 300, Naiwala Road.Udugampola 15.A.R.Ensa Niripola, Hanwella 16.A.Sunil Ellawela, Eheliyagoda 17.A.Abeywardane Ellawela, Eheliyagoda 19.Weragodage Kamini Chandralatha 20.A.S. Samanthika Abeywardane 21. Nisansala Lakmali Abeywardane Ellawela, Eheliyagoda Defendant-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. K.T. Chitrasiri, J.			Download
2016-05-16	SC/APPEAL/23/2010	Ceylinco Insurance Company Ltd Presently known as Ceylinco Insurance PLC 4th Floor, Ceylinco House 69, Janadipathi Mawatha Colombo 01. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. G.G.N.L.M.Razik Ranatunga Rice Mill Pothanegama Anuradhapura Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. K.T. Chitrasiri, J.			Download
2016-05-05	SC/APPEAL/190/2012	V.A.K.Cisilin Nona alias Pesonahamy Moratota Pelmadulla Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Gunasena Jayawardana Moratota Pelmadulla Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. K.T. Chitrasiri, J.			Download
2016-05-03	SC/FR/18/2015	Ceylon Electricity Board Accountants’ Association, No. 50, Sir Chiththampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Petitioner Vs. 1. Hon Patali Champika Ranawaka, Minister of Power and Energy, Ministry of Power and Energy, No. 80, Sir Ernest De Silva Mawatha, Colombo 07. 1a. Hon. Ranjith Siyambalapitiya, Minister of Power and Renewable Energy, Ministry of Power and Renewable Energy, No. 80, Sir Ernest De Silva Mawatha, Colombo 07. 2. Dr. B.M.S. Batagoda, Secretary, Ministry of Power and Energy, No. 80, Sir Ernest De Silva Mawatha, Colombo 07. 3. Ceylon Electricity Board, No. 50, Sir Chiththampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 4. M.C. Wickremasekara, General Manager, Ceylon Electricity Board, No. 50, Sir Chiththampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 5. W.D.A.S. Wijayapala, Chairman, Ceylon Electricity Board, No. 50, Sir Chiththampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 6. B.N.I.F.A. Wickramasuriya, Vice Chairman, Ceylon Electricity Board, No. 50, Sir Chiththampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 6a. W.A. G View More	Hon. K. Sripavan, C.J.			Download
2016-05-02	SC/APPEAL/211/2012	Udagepolage Gunasiri Seneviratne ‘Yamuna’, Gulawita, Walallawita. PLAINTIFF Vs. Pattiya Widanage Carmen Premalatha No. 8, Waagouwwa Cross Road, Central Watte, Waagouwwa, Minuwangoda. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Vs. Udagepolage Gunasiri Seneviratne ‘Yamuna’, Gulawita, Walallawita. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Udagepolage Gunasiri Seneviratne ‘Yamuna’, Gulawita, Walallawita. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs. Pattiya Widanage Carmen Premalatha No. 8, Waagouwwa Cross Road, Central Watte, Waagouwwa, Minuwangoda. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2016-04-29	SC/APPEAL/166/2011	ISPAT Corporation (Pvt) Ltd., No. 111-1/C/2, New Parliament Road, Battaramulla. PLAINTIFF Vs. Hiat Steel (Pvt) Limited, Pelahela, Dekatana. DEFENDANT AND People’s Bank, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. 1ST CLAIMANT-PETITIONER Ismail Abdul Gaffar, No. 20B, Sujatha Mawatha, Kalubowila, Dehiwela. 2ND CLAIMANT-PETITIONER Vs. ISPAT Corporation (Pvt) Ltd., No. 111-1/C/2, New Parliament Road, Battaramulla. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT Hiat Steel (Pvt) Limited, Pelahela, Dekatana. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN ISPAT Corporation (Pvt) Ltd., No. 111-1/C/2, New Parliament Road, Battaramulla. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs. Hiat Steel (Pvt) Limited, Pelahela, Dekatana. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT People’s Bank No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. 1ST CLAIMANT-PETITIONER-RESPONDENT Ismail Abdul Gaffar, No. 20B, Sujatha Mawatha, Kalubowila, Dehiwela. 2ND CLAIMANT-PETITIONER-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN People’s Bank No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. 1ST View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2016-04-01	SC/APPEAL/41/2012	1. S.M. Heenmenike, 2. S.K.A. Priyanthe Senanayake 3. S.K.A. Chamila Kumari Senanayake All of 1/27, Main Street, Rambukkana. Substituted Defendants-Appellants Appellants Vs. 1. Suraweera Aratchchilage Mangalika Malkanthi 2. Kaluaratchchilage Pushpa Kaluaratchchi Both of “Abaya Niwasa” Walalgoda Rambukkana Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep, PC. J.			Download
2016-04-01	SC/APPEAL/131/2012	Shaik Ibrahim Ahamed Kabeer Of No.97 Wattalpola Road, Henamulla Panadura PLAINTIFF Vs. M.I Mohamed Zahir of No. 56D Galle Road Moratuwa DEFENDANTS AND M.I Mohamed Zahir of No. 56D Galle Road Moratuwa DEFENDANT APPELLANT Vs. Shaik Ibrahim Ahamed Kabeer Of No.97 Wattalpola Road, Henamulla Panadura PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN M.I Mohamed Zahir of No. 56D Galle Road Moratuwa DEFENDANT –APPELLANT-PETITIONER-APELLANT Vs. Shaik Ibrahim Ahamed Kabeer Of No.97 Wattalpola Road, Henamulla Panadura PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENT_RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Buwaneka Aluwihare P.C J.			Download
2016-04-01	SC/FR/260/2011	A.A. Dinesh Priyankara Perera 43/1, Shri Dharmananda Mawatha, Gorakana, Keselwatta. Panadura. Petitioner Vs 1. 6118, Police Constable Police Station, Keselwatta, Panadura-North & 15 Others View More	Hon. Buwaneka Aluwihare P.C.J.			Download
2016-04-01	SC/HC CALA/73/2013	Lasantha Samarasiri Ananda Wickremasinghe of Kurupetta, Ruwanwella Intervenient-Petitioner Vs. 1. Manikuwalage Rosalin 2. Ranjith Ananda Wickremasinghe (Deceased) 2.A Dharmasiri Ananda Wickremasinghe Of Kurupetta , Ruwanwella Plaintiffs-Respondents-Petitioners-Respondents 7. Aswaththalage Julis 11. Colalmbage Dhanapala 12. Galaudage Jelin 13. Galaudage Girigoris 14. Galaudage Rosalin. All of Kurupetta, Ruwanwella 7th, 11th, 12th, 13th -14th Defendants-Appellants- Respondents-Respondents 1. Ambalanpitiyage Brampi (Deceased) 2. Ambalanpitiyage Marthelis 3. Ambalanpitiyage Simon 4. Ambalanpitiyage Selesthina 5. Ambalanpitiyage Emanis 6. Aswaththalage Doisa (Deceased) 8. Ambalanpitiyage Leelawathie 9. Ambalanpitiyage Premawathie 10. Ambalanpitiyage Sriyawathie of Kurupetta, Ruwanwella 1st to 6th and 8th to 10th Defendants-Respondents Respondents 1. Ambalanpitiyage Wasanthi Kalyani 2. Ambalanpitiyage Renuka Udayangani 3. Ambalanpitiyage Padma Irangani 4. Ambalanpitiyage Manjula Lalith Wijesinghe 5. Ambalanpitiyage Thilak Pushpakumara Wijesinghe 6. View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep, PC. J.			Download
2016-04-01	SC/SPL LA/79/2015	Muththusamy Balaganeshan Of 65/138, Crow Island Mattakkuliya Colombo 15 Accused-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. 1. The Officer-in-Charge Police Station Seeduwa. 2. The Attorney General Colombo Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Dep PC, J.			Download
2016-03-31	SC/FR/891/2009	1. Sithambiralage Martin Sebastian Premalal Perera, P.O. Box 14, Ja-ela. 2. Thelge Chithraratne Peris, 219, Ven Baddegama Wimalawansa Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3. Werakkodige Chandrasiri Alwis, 123, Wattegedera Road, Maharagama. 4. Pinnawala Appuhamilage Dias Karunaratne, Medical Clinic, Kandy Road, Imbulgoda. 5. Nimal Gamini Wijethunge, 45/10, Malwatta Road, Maharagama. 6. Alagapanne Shantha Kumar, No. 480/151, Roxy Gardens, Colombo 06. PETITIONER Vs 1.Tissa Karalliyadda, Minister of Indigenous Medicine , Old Kottawa Road, Nawinna , Maharagama. 2.Secretary, Ministry of Indigenous Medicine, Old Kottawa Road, Nawinna, Maharagama. 2a. Dr. D.M.R.B. Dissanayake, Secretary, Ministry of Health and Indigenous Medicine, No. 385, Ven.Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. - Substituted 2a Respondent 3. Homeopathic Council, No. 94, Shelton Jayasinghe Mawatha, Welisara, Ragama. 4.G.G.A.Apponso, No. 82, Galle Road, Colombo 04. 5. K. P. Walisinghe, No. 62/60, Dabare Place, Mirihana, Nugegoda 6 L.M.S. Alagiyawanna, “Anoma”, Meevitag View More	Hon. S. Eva Wanasundera PC, J.			Download
2016-03-31	SC/FR/138/2007	D.G. Wijotmanna, No.195, Ranawana Road, Katugastota PETITIONER vs 1. Diyakeliyawela, Officer in Charge, Katugastota Police Station, Katugastota & 8 others View More	Hon. Chandra Ekanayake, J.			Download
2016-03-31	SC/APPEAL/6/2011	Pincha Dewage Heebat Hemachandra No.354V, Abeysekara Mawatha, Polpithi Mukalana, Kadana. 12A Defendant- Petitioner-Petitioner-Appellant Vs Hewadewage Alpin Nona No. 380A, Polpithi Mukalana, Kadana. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent 1. Suduwa Hewage Piyasena No 10, Abeysekara Mawatha, Polpithi Mukalana, Kadana 2. Priyantha Nilmini Galabadage Abeysekara Mawatha, Polpithi Mukalana, Kadana 3. Galabadadewage Mable Abeysekara Mawatha, Polpithi Mukalana, Kadana 4A. Hewadewage Alpin Nona alias Alginnona 380A, Polpithi Mukalana, Kadana 5A. Hewadewage Alpin Nona alias Alginnona 380A, Polpithi Mukalana, Kadana 6. Suduwadewage Jelin Nona No.642, Paranankara, Wattala. 7. Suduwadewage Ajonona C/O, Mr. Bawar, Uggalboda, Polpithi Mukalana, Kadana 8. H.D. Isonona Uggalboda, Polpithi Mukalana, Kadana 9. SD Siriyawathi C/O B.D. Abeysekara, Gonahena, Kadawatha. 10. SD Gunaratne Walpola Batuwatta. 11A. Pincha Dewage Ratnawathi Polpithi Mukalana, Kadana 12A. P.D. Ariyaratne Polpithi Mukalana, Kadana Defendant-Respondent-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2016-03-31	SC/APPEAL/37/2012	Mary Helen Martin Christoffelez (Nee Perera), No. 15A, Pokuna Road, Kawdana, Dehiwela. And Now at No. 54, Broadway Road, Kawdana, Dehiwela. Respondent Respondent Appellant Vs Elrea Joseph Romould Pereira, “Brighton”, 87, Sri Saranankara Road, Kalubowila, Dehiwela. 1st Petitioner Respondent Respondent Archbishop of Colombo, Archbishop’s House, Colombo 08. 2nd Intervenient Petitioner Petitioner Respondent Mary Theresa Bright Kariyawasam (nee Pereira), No. 123, St. Anthony’s Road, Moratumulla, Moratuwa. 3rd Respondent Respondent Respondent View More	Hon. S. Eva Wanasundera PCJ.			Download
2016-03-31	SC/APPEAL/239/2014	Telephix Technologies (Pvt) Ltd, 185, Peradeniya Road, Kandy Plaintiff Vs R.M. Jinasena, No.47, Sri Dhamma Siddhi Mawatha, Asgiriya, Kandy. Defendant AND Telephix Technologies (Pvt) Ltd, 185, Peradeniya Road, Kandy Plaintiff-Petitioner Vs R.M. Jinasena, No.47, Sri Dhamma Siddhi Mawatha, Asgiriya, Kandy. Defendant-Respondent NOW BETWEEN R.M. Jinasena, No.47, Sri Dhamma Siddhi Mawatha, Asgiriya, Kandy. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs Telephix Technologies (Pvt) Ltd, 185, Peradeniya Road, Kandy Plaintiff-Petitioner-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2016-03-31	SC/APPEAL/118/2011	Karunasinghe Herathge Lalitha Padmini No.91/1Keedagammulla, Gampaha Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs 1. Wijesinghe Arachchige Wijedasa No.5 Sri Dharmapala Mawatha, Gampaha 2. Bandaranayake Mudiyanselage Bandara Manawatta. No.45, Diyawanna Road, Etul Kotte, Kotte Defendant-Respondent-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2016-03-30	SC/APPEAL/143/2012	Andra Hennedige Chandrarathne, Nakulugamuwa, Kudawella South. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Dayathileke Patabendige Edirisooriya, “Dayani”, Dodampahala, Dickwella. 2. Kusuma Abeysooriya, Dodampahala North, Dickwella. Defendants AND Andra Hennedige Chandrarathne, Nakulugamuwa, Kudawella South. Plaintiff Appellant Vs. 1. Dayathileke Patabendige Edirisooriya, “Dayani”, Dodampahala, Dickwella. 2. Kusuma Abeysooriya, Dodampahala North, Dickwella. Defendant Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Kusuma Abeysooriya, Dodampahala North, Dickwella. 2nd Defendant Respondent Appellant Vs. Andra Hennedige Chandrarathne, Nakulugamuwa, Kudawella South. Plaintiff Appellant Respondent 1. Dayathileke Patabendige Edirisooriya, “Dayani”, Dodampahala, Dickwella. 1st Defendant Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Upaly Abeyrathne, J.			Download
2016-03-30	SC/APPEAL/16/2014	1. Dr. K.M.L. Rathnakumara No. 50A-9, 6th Lane, Hansagiri Road, Gampaha. 2. Dr. A.D.S.R.T. Siriwardhana 3. Dr. R. Indralingam 4. Dr. S. I. V. Dahanayake 5. Dr. S.H. Gunathilaka 6. Dr. K.A.P. Thushantha 7. Dr. A.J. Dharmawansa 8. Dr. V. Athukorala 9. Dr. M.G. Jeevathasan 10. Dr. Nirthasaran Sathiyavanj 11. Dr. N. Gallage 12. Dr. S. Kalaialagan 13. Dr. A.S.Hennanayake 14. Dr. G. T. Gunawardena Petitioners Vs. 1. The Postgraduate Institute of Medicine, No.160, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 07. And 48 others. Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Dr. K.M.L. Rathnakumara No. 50A-9, 6th Lane, Hansagiri Road, Gampaha. 2. Dr. A.D.S.R.T. Siriwardhana 3. Dr. S.H. Gunathilaka 4. Dr. K.A.P. Thushantha 5. Dr. A.J. Dharmawansa 6. Dr. V. Athukorala 7. Dr. M.G. Jeevathasan 8. Dr. N. Gallage 9. Dr. S. Kalaialagan 10. Dr. A.S.Hennanayake Petitioners – Appellants Vs. 1. The Postgraduate Institute of Medicine, No.160, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 07. And 52 others. Respondents – Respondents View More	Hon. Priyantha Jayawardena, PC, J.			Download
2016-03-30	SC/APPEL/176/2010	Pattinige Abayadasa, 95/9, Godagamawatte, Godagama. Plaintiff Vs Welisarage Chandrawathie Perera, No. 476/4/A, Arawwala, Pannipitiya. Defendant AND BETWEEN Welisarage Chandrawathie Perera, No. 476/4/A, Arawwala, Pannipitiya Defendant Petitioner Vs Pattinige Abayadasa, 95/9, Godagamawatte, Godagama. Plaintiff Respondent AND BETWEEN Pattinige Abayadasa, 95/9, Godagamawatte, Godagama. Plaintiff Respondent Appellant Vs Welisarage Chandrawathie Perera, No. 476/4/A, Arawwala, Pannipitiya Defendant Petitioner Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Welisarage Chandrawathie Perera, No. 476/4/A, Arawwala, Pannipitiya Defendant Petitioner Respondent Petitioner Vs Pattinige Abayadasa, 95/9, Godagamawatte, Godagama. Plaintiff Respondent Appellant Respondent View More	Hon. S. Eva Wanasundera PCJ.			Download
2016-03-29	SC/HC CALA/445/2014	Kahatapitiya Pathirennahalage Edward Jayasinghe , Ihalagama, Wevaldeniya. Plaintiff Vs. Liyanage Sumudu Niroshan Siri Kumara, No. 51/01, Pahalagama, Wevaldeniya. Defendants AND Liyanage Sumudu Niroshan Siri Kumara, No. 51/01, Pahalagama, Wevaldeniya. Defendant Appellant Kahatapitiya Pathirennahalage Edward Jayasinghe , Ihalagama, Wevaldeniya. Plaintiff Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Liyanage Sumudu Niroshan Siri Kumara, No. 51/01, Pahalagama, Wevaldeniya. Defendant Appellant Petitioner Vs. Kahatapitiya Pathirennahalage Edward Jayasinghe , Ihalagama, Wevaldeniya. Plaintiff Respondent- Respondent View More	Hon. Upaly Abeyrathne, J.			Download
2016-03-29	SC/APPEAL/111/2009	D. K. Peiris Wijerathna, R.D. 06, Alapara, Kumburu Niwasa, Kawdulla. Plaintiff Vs. A. Bandara Menike, Gabada Handiya, Kawdulla. Defendant AND A. Bandara Menike, Gabada Handiya, Kawdulla. Defendant Appellant Vs. D. K. Peiris Wijerathna, R.D. 06, Alapara, Kumburu Niwasa, Kawdulla. Plaintiff Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN D. K. Peiris Wijerathna, R.D. 06, Alapara, Kumburu Niwasa, Kawdulla. Plaintiff Respondent Appellant Vs. A. Bandara Menike, Gabada Handiya, Kawdulla. Defendant Appellant Respondent View More	Hon. Upaly Abeyrathne, J.			Download
2016-03-29	SC/APPEAL/123/2015	1. D. A. Suranga Mojith Kumara 2. L. Nilmini Nirosha Gulankanda, Horangalla, Thalagaswala Defendant-Respondent-Appellants Vs. K. B. Ariyarathna Horangalla, Thalagaswala Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. K.T. Chitrasiri, J.			Download
2016-03-29	SC/APPEAL/112/2015	Dissanayake Hitihamy Mudiyanselage Sarath Kumara Dissanayake 455, Belagama Road, Kelanimulla, Angoda. CLAIMANT Vs. Kanthi Wimala Ratnayake (DECEASED) 62, Kothalawala, Kaduwela. JUDGMENT CREDITOR And Between Dissanayake Hitihamy Mudiyanselage Sarath Kumara Dissanayake 455, Belagama Road, Kelanimulla, Angoda. CLAIMANT-PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs. Kanthi Wimala Ratnayake (DECEASED) 62, Kothalawala, Kaduwela. JUDGMENT-CREDITOR-RESPONDENT Malin Nivantha Kumarage 17/C/07, Kothalawala, Kaduwela SUBSTITUTED-JUDGMENT-CREDITOR-RESPONDENT Malin Nivantha Kumarage No. 174/C/7, Suhada Mawatha, Kothalawala, Kaduwela New address And now between Dissanayake Hitihamy Mudiyanselage Sarath Kumara Dissanayake 455, Belagama Road, Kelanimulla, Angoda. CLAIMANT-PETITIONER-PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs. Malin Nivantha Kumarage No. 174/C/7, Suhada Mawatha, Kothalawala, Kaduwela New address SUBSTITUTED-JUDGMENT-CREDITOR-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J			Download
2016-03-28	SC/FR/689/2012	Rajapaksha Pathirage Justin Rajapaksha N.218/A/2, Hiripitiya, Pannipitiya Petitioner Vs 1. Prasanna Rathnayake Inspector of Police, C/o, The Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters, Colombo1. Formerly Headquarters Inspector (HQI) Police Station, Homagama. 2. WPE Fernando Inspector of Police, Police Station Homagama, Homagama. 3. Asanka Nuwan Bandara Police Constable 77517, Police Station Homagama, Homagama. 4. Ranathunga Police Sergeant 22632, Police Station Homagama, Homagama. 5. Gunaratna, Police Constable 60641, Police Station Homagama, Homagama. 6. A.L.M Aseem Sub Inspector of Police Police Station Thalangama, Thalangama. And Now of: 204, Thettawaadi Road, Oluvil, Akkaraipattu. All c/o The Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters, Colombo1. 7. T Chandrasekara Inspector of Police, Officer-in-Charge of the Crimes Investigation Unit, Police Station Homagama, Homagama 8. NK Illangakoon Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters, Colombo1. 9. Head Quarters Inspector Police Station Homagama, View More	Hon. Sisira J de Abrew J.			Download
2016-03-28	SC/APPEAL/194/2011	Sarangi Charika Kuruppu of No 3/14, Canbera Avenue, Dandenong , Australia and appearing by her power of attorney holder Gulawattage Don Dayaratana of Ovitigala Road, Munagama, Horana. PLANTIFF Vs. DFCC Bank PLC of No 73/5, Galle Road, Colombo 03. DEFENDANT And Now Sarangi Charika Kuruppu of No 3/14, Canbera Avenue, Dandenong , Australia and appearing by her power of attorney holder Gulawattage Don Dayaratana of Ovitigala Road, Munagama, Horana PLANTIFF-PETITIONER Vs. DFCC Bank PLC of No 73/5, Galle Road, Colombo 03. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Chandra Ekanayake, J.			Download
2016-03-28	SC/APPEAL/165/2013, SC/APPEAL/164/2013	A.K. Mohammed Illyas , No. 114, Nikagolla, Yatawatte. APPLICANT Vs Agricultural and Agriarian Insurance Board, No. 27, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN A.K. Mohammed Illyas. No. 114, Nikagolla, Yatawatte APPLICANT – APPELLANT Vs 1. Agricultural Insurance Board, 267, Union Place, Colombo 02. 1A. Agricultural and Agrarian Insurance Board, Subadrarama Road, Nugegoda. RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN A.K. Mohammed Illyas. No. 114, Nikagolla, Yatawatte APPLICANT – APPELLANT Vs 1. Agricultural Insurance Board, 267, Union Place, Colombo 02. 1A. Agricultural and Agrarian Insurance Board, Subadrarama Road, Nugegoda. RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT , ... A.K. Mohammed Illyas , No. 114, Nikagolla, Yatawatte. Vs Agricultural and Agriarian Insurance Board, No. 27, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN A.K. Mohammed Illyas. No. 114, Nikagolla, Yatawatte APPLICANT – APPELLANT Vs 1. Agricultural Insurance Board, 267, Union Place, Colombo 02. 1A. Agricultural and Agrarian Insurance Board, Subadraram View More	Hon. S. Eva Wanasundera PCJ.			Download
2016-03-28	SC/APPEAL/3/2010	National Institute of Co-operative Development Polgolla RESPONDENT-APPELLANTPETITIONER Vs. Vimal Jayathilake Wijesekara Nikathenna, Puwakdheniya Kegalle APPLICANT-RESPONDENTRESPONDENT View More	HON. CHANDRA EKANAYAKE, J.			Download
2016-03-24	SC/APPEAL/71A/2010	Mahawattage Wijayapala of Hathuwa, Piyadigama, Ahangama. PLAINTIFF Vs 1.Suduwelikondage Percy Mahinda Weliwatta 2. Ahangama Vidanage Magilin Silva (Dead) 2A. Wanigathunga Arachchige Ranjith de Silva of Sri Ginananda Mawatha, Karandugoda, Ahangama. 3. Baranage Allis Appu (Dead) of Karandugoda, Ahangama. 3A. B. Peter Appu of Piyadigama, Ahangama. 3B. R.P.Rosalinnona of Sri Ginananda Mawatha, Karandugoda, Ahangama. 4. Parana Rattambige Arlin Nona (Dead), Sri Ginananda Mawatha, Karandugugoda, Ahangama. 5. Akuressa Acharige Bandusena, Sena Jewellers , Ahangama. 6. Uyana Hewage Babunona (Dead) 7. Wellage Nandasiri. 8. Wellage Nandasena. 9. Wellage Padumasena. 10.Wellage Indrani, all of Sri Ginanada Mawatha, Karandugoda, Ahangama. 11. Lanhewage Agnes Silva (Dead ) 11A. Wellalage Sumithra Sudharma Gunathilaka of Sri Ginananda Mawatha, Karandugoda, Ahangama. 12. Dikkumburage Nikulas Silva (Dead) of Sri Ginananda Mawatha, Karandugoda, Ahangama. 12A.Dikkumburage Wijedasa of Piyadigama, Ahangama. 13.Nanayakkara Liyanage E View More	Hon. S. Eva Wanasundera PCJ.			Download
2016-03-24	SC/APPEAL/133/2014	DFCC Bank (PLC) Head Office, P.O.Box 1397 Colombo 03 Defendant-Appellant Vs. 1. Fathima Ruzana Fakurdeen alias Faleel Ariff Pathuma Rushana alias Fathima Ruzana Ariff No.27, Keththarama Mawatha Grandpass Colombo 14. 2. Mohamed Sarook Mohamed Fakurdeen No. 27, Keththarama Mawatha Grandpass Colombo 14 Plaintiff-Respondents View More	Hon. K.T. Chitrasiri, J.			Download
2016-03-21	SC/APPEAL/160/2013	Bharatha Wijesundera, No. 116, Negombo Road, Sayakkaramulla, Marandagahamula Plaintiff Vs. 1.Nanedirige Sarath Thilakasiri, “Srimali Rice Mill”, Weyangoda Road, Wegouva, Minuwangoda. 2. Nanedirige Ananda Tilakaratne, No. 427, Dematagolla, Horampella. Defendants AND THEN 1.Nanedirige Sarath Thilakasiri, “Srimali Rice Mill” Weyangoda Road, Wegouwa, Minuwangoda. 2.Nanedirige Ananda Tilakaratne, No. 427, Dematagolla, Horampella. Defendant Appellants Vs. Bharatha Wijesundera, No. 116, Negombo Road, Sayakkaramulla, Marandagahamula. Plaintiff Respondent AND NOW 1. Nanedirige Sarath Thilakasiri, “Shrimali Rice Mill”, Weyangoda Road, Wegouva, Minuwangoda. 2. Nanedirige Ananda Tilakaratne, 2a. Gamage Piyawathi. 2b. Nanedirige Wasantha Lakmali Tilakaratne. 2c. Nanedirige Thilina Lakmal Tilakaratne. 2d. Nanedirige Tharindu Lakmal Tilakaratne. All of No. 427, Dematagolla, Horampella. Defendants Appellants Appellants Vs. Bharatha Wijesundera, No. 116, Negombo Road, Sayakkaramulla, Minuwangoda. Plaintiff Respondent Responden View More	Hon. S. Eva Wanasundera PCJ.			Download
2016-03-16	SC/CHC APPEAL/36/2004	CIC Feeds (Pvt) Limited (formerly)Known as Nutrena(Pvt) Limited ofNo. 252, Kurunduwatta Road, Ekala.PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTVs.Pan Asia Bank Limited of No. 450, Galle Road, Colombo 3. And having a branch office at 1334, Kotte Road, Rajagiriya.DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2016-03-10	SC/APPEAL/23/2015	Director General Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption Complainant Vs 1. Ukwatta Liyanage Colvin Chandrasiri Dias 2. Sangaralingam Navaratnam Accused AND Ukwatta Liyanage Colvin Chandrasiri Dias 1st Accused-Appellant Vs Director General Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption Complainant-Respondent Hon. Attorney General Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Ukwatta Liyanage Colvin Chandrasiri Dias Accused-Appellant-Appellant 1. Director General Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption Complainant-Respondent-Respondent 2. Hon. Attorney General Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2016-03-09	SC/APPEAL/47/2012	W. M. Chandra Kumari Palamakumbura, 06th Post, Hingurakdamana. Plaintiff Vs. P. A. Hema Damayanthie, Layfarm, Hingurakgoda. Defendant AND W. M. Chandra Kumari Palamakumbura, 06th Post, Hingurakdamana. Plaintiff- Appellant Vs. P. A. Hema Damayanthie, Layfarm, Hingurakgoda. Defendant- Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN P. A. Hema Damayanthie, Layfarm, Hingurakgoda. Defendant -Respondent-Petitioner Vs. W. M. Chandra Kumari Palamakumbura, 06th Post, Hingurakdamana. Plaintiff- Appellant- Respondent View More	Hon. Buwaneka Aluwihare PC.J.			Download
2016-03-09	SC/APPEAL/231/2014	Horathal Pedige Jayathilake also known as Hettiarachchige Jayathilake Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs 1. Horathal Pedige Jayarathne 2. Wijayalath Pedige Jayawathi Dayawathi 3. Horathal Pedige Upul Priyantha Deepthi 4. Horathal Pedige Jayathissa 5. Yoda Pedige Josi Nona 6. Horathal Pedige Nimalasiri Jayatissa 7. Horathal Pedige Leelaratne Jayatissa 8. Jeevananda Jayatissa 9. HA Keerthi Jayalath Defendant-Respondent-Respondent- Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2016-03-08	SC/CHC APPEAL/31A/2003	No. 31A/2003 Seylan Bank Limited No. 33, Sir Baron Jayathilake Mawatha, Colombo 1. Presently at Ceylinco - Seylan Towers No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. PLAINTIFF Vs. 1. Cosmacorale Patabendige Ali Asker Anver Cadir 2. Abdul Majeed Faleel Jiffry Both carrying on business in Partnership Under the name, style and firm of Island Operators of No. 37, Nikape Road, Dehiwela. Presently of No. 20, Main Street, Dehiowita. DEFENDANTS AND NOW Seylan Bank Limited No. 33, Sir Baron Jayathilake Mawatha, Colombo 1. Presently at Ceylinco - Seylan Towers No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Cosmacorale Patabendige Ali Asker Anver Cadir 2. Abdul Majeed Faleel Jiffry Both carrying on business in Partnership Under the name, style and firm of Island Operators of No. 37, Nikape Road, Dehiwela. Presently of No. 20, Main Street, Dehiowita. DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2016-03-04	SC/APPEAL/18A/2009	Roylin Fernando, Borelessa, Lunuwila Plaintiff-Petitioner-Petitioner vs. 1. W.A.Christian Gamini Fernando, of Shantha Sevana, Nainamadama -West Nainamadama 2. Waduge Henry Livera 3. Warnakulasuriya Mary Sarijini both of Dummaladeniya West, Wennappuwa. 4. Waduge Anuradha Livera 5. Waduge Nimala Rosary Livera both of 36, Main Street, Nuwara Eliya 1st to 5th Defendants-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Chandra Ekanayake Acting C.J.			Download
2016-02-26	SC/APPEAL/124/2012	Ranamukadewage Anoris Fernando No. 232, Wanawasala Road, Kelaniya. PLAINTIFF Vs. 1. Hewadewage Peiris Fernando 2. Nammunidewage Martin Fernando DEFENDANTS (DECEASED) 1. Ranamukadewage Emi Nona 1.(a)Hewadewage Chandrani Kusumalatha 2.(b)Hewadewage Chandra Piyaseeli 3.(c)Hewadewage Chandrasiri Jayalath 4.(d)Hewadewage Kamala Kanthi All of No. 243/1, Sirikotha Mawatha, Wanawasala, Kelaniya. SUBSTITUTED-DEFENDANTS AND NOW BETWEEN Ranamukadewage Anoris Fernando No. 232, Wanawasala Road, Kelaniya. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT (DECEASED) Ranamukadewage Somasiri Karunaratne No. 232, Wanawasala Road, Kelaniya. SUBSTITUTED-PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs. 1.(a)Hewadewage Chandrani Kusumalatha 2.(b)Hewadewage Chandra Piyaseeli 3.(c)Hewadewage Chandrasiri Jayalath 4.(d)Hewadewage Kamala Kanthi All of No. 243/1, Sirikotha Mawatha, Wanawasala, Kelaniya. SUBSTITUTED-DEFENDANTS- RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN Ranamukadewage Somasiri Karunaratne No. 232, Wanawasala Road, Kelaniya. SUBSTITUTED-PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-PETITIONER Vs. 1.(a)Hewadewage Cha View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2016-02-24	SC/FR/236/2011	Sehu Allaudeen Fathima Shanaz No.12/16A George Mawatha Keranga Pokuna, Mabola, Wattala Petitioner Vs 1. University of Colombo 2. Prof. (Mrs.) Kanishka Hirimburegama 3. Dr. Tuder Weersainghe 4. Prof. Indralal de Silva 5. Prof. Maria E.S. Perera 6. Prof. N Selvakumaran 7. Prof. Harshalal Senevirathne 8. Dr. PSM Gunarathne 9. Prof. TR Ariyarathne 10. Prof. Sunil Chandrasiri 11. Prof. Nayani Malagoda 12. Prof. Rohan Jayasekara 13. Vidyanidhi NR de Silva 14. Ranjan Asirwardam 15. K. Kanag-Iswaran 16. Thilak Karunarathne 17. Chellaih Thangarajah 18. C. Maliyadda 19. Mahinda Rajapaksha 20. HWN Warakulle 21. PW Senevirathne 22. M Wckramasinghe 23. Leisha de Silva Chandrasena 24. Prof. J Thilakasiri 25. Dr. Cuda Witeratne 26. Prof. Sarath Wijesuriya 27. Rev. Agalakada Sirisumana 28. Dr. (Mrs.) Ajantha Hapuarchchi 29. TLR Silva All are of No.94, Cumarathunga Munidasa Mawatha 30. Hon Attorney General Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2016-02-23	SC/SPL LA/147/2015	Handun Harsha Prabath De Silva 43, Katana Road Thimbirigaskatuwa Negombo Petitioner- Petitioner Vs. Seylan Bank PLC 90, Galle Road Colombo 03. Respondent- Respondent View More	Hon. K.T. Chitrasiri, J.			Download
2016-02-19	SC/APPEAL/141/2009	Pahalayaya Nandasena, Kumbaldiwela, Molagoda. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Karunanayaka Hitiralalage Ananda Bandara of Edalla Watta, Suriyagama, Dewalagama. 2. Sunethra Kumari, 3. Mayura Kumari, 4. Abekoon Bandara, 5. Galagoda Bandara, 6. Y. M. Dingiri Kumarihamy, All of Kabaldiwela, Molagoda. Defendants AND Pahalayaya Nandasena, Kumbaldiwela, Molagoda. Plaintiff Appellant Vs. 1. Karunanayaka Hitiralalage Ananda Bandara of Edalla Watta, Suriyagama, Dewalagama. 2. Sunethra Kumari, 3. Mayura Kumari, 4. Abekoon Bandara, 5. Galagoda Bandara, 6. Y. M. Dingiri Kumarihamy, All of Kabaldiwela, Molagoda. Defendant Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Karunanayaka Hitiralalage Ananda Bandara of Edalla Watta, Suriyagama, Dewalagama. 2. Sunethra Kumari, 3. Mayura Kumari, 4. Abekoon Bandara, 5. Galagoda Bandara, 6. Y. M. Dingiri Kumarihamy, All of Kabaldiwela, Molagoda. Defendant Respondent Appellants Vs. Pahalayaya Nandasena, Kumbaldiwela, Molagoda. Plaintiff Appellant Respondent View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep, PC, J.			Download
2016-02-19	SC/APPEAL/124/2011	1. Wathukarage Sirisena 2. Wathukarage Ariyasena (Deceased) 2A.A. Nanda Jayawardena, Both of Maddakanda, Balangoda. Plaintiffs Vs. 1. Wathukarage alias Rantheiyalage Karolis Fernando, 1A.W. Jayasooriya, Wathukarakanda, Maddekanda, Balangoda. 2. Wathukarage Robet, C/o W. Seelawathie, Wathukarakanda, Maddekanda, Balangoda. 3. M. M. A. Haramanis 3A.Muhubada Manik Arachchige Padmalatha 4. Wathukarage Seelawathie, 5. Wathukarage Jayasinghe, 6. Wathukarage Wimalasena, 7. P.A. Karunaratne, All of Wathukarakanda, Maddekanda, Baolangoda. Defendants AND W. Jayasooriya, Wathukarakanda, Maddekanda, Balangoda. Substituted 1A Defendant Appellant Vs. 1. Wathukarage Sirisena 2. Wathukarage Ariyasena (Deceased) 2A.A. Nanda Jayawardena, Both of Maddakanda, Balangoda. Plaintiffs Respondents 2. Wathukarage Robet, C/o W. Seelawathie, Wathukarakanda, Maddekanda, Balangoda. 3. M. M. A. Haramanis 3A.Muhubada Manik Arachchige Padmalatha 4. Wathukarage Seelawathie, 5. Wathukarage Jayasinghe, 6. Wathukarage Wimalasena, 7. P.A. Karunara View More	Hon. Upaly Abeyrathne, J.			Download
2016-02-18	SC/APPEAL/50/2015	Dassanayaka Arachchige Jayasekera PLAINTIFF Vs. 1. Alawathura Raalalage Dhanusekera 2. Hapan Thanthrige Pabilis DEFENDENTS Alawathura Raalalage Dhanusekera 1ST DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Vs Dassanayaka Arachchige Jayasekera PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT Hapan Thanthrige Pabilis 2ND DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal made in terms of Section 5C(1) of Act No. 54 of 2006 Alawathura Raalalage Dhanusekera Adjoining Kahatadeniya Boutique Dangalla, Pepiliyawala 1ST DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-PETITIONER Vs. Dassanayaka Arachchige Jayasekera Punchi Horagolla Watta, Ranwala, Meethirigala PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT Hapan Thanthrige Pabilis (Deceased) 2ND DEFENDANT-RESPONDENNT 2a. Aluthge Kankanamalage Alpi Nona 2b. Hapan Thanthrige Dayangani 2c. Hapan Thanthrige Deepani All of No. 97, Vihara Mawatha, Kothalawala, Kaduwela. 2d. Hapn Thanthirige Dayaratna Punchi Horagolla Watta. Ranwala, Devindugama, Meethirigala . SUBSTITUTED 2ND DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2016-02-18	SC/FR/523/2009	Sandhya Ramani Vithana Petitioner Vs 1. Sri Lanka Ports Authority 2. RM Priyantha Banadarawickrama Chairman, Sri Lanka Ports Authority 3. Nalin Aponso, Deputy General Manager Communication and Public Relations Department, Sri Lanka Ports Authority 4. S Sunanda Gunasekara Communication and Public Relations Assistant, Sri Lanka Ports Authority 5. HSF Farzana Media DivisionSri Lanka Ports Authority. 6. Hon. Attorney General Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2016-02-17	SC/APPEAL/146/2012	Koswatte Gamage Jayanath Kulasiriwardena, \"Weerasiri\" Pinwatte, Waturagama. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Jayasinghe Arachchige Ranjanie Jayasinghe 2. Ellapperuma Arachchige Shashi Jana Aadarshi Ellapperuma Arachchi. 3. Ellapperuma Arachchige Dayananji Sudakshana Ellaperuma Arachchi 4. Ellapperuma Arachchige Dananja Nilashen Ellaperuma Arachchi All of No.73/3 , Indigolla, Gampaha Defendants Koswatte Gamage Jayanath Kulasiriwardena, \"Weerasiri\" Pinwatte, Waturagama. Plaintiff-Petitioner Vs. 1. Jayasinghe Arachchige Ranjanie Jayasinghe 2. Ellapperuma Arachchige Shashi Jana Aadarshi Ellapperuma Arachchi. 3. Ellapperuma Arachchige Dayananji Sudakshana Ellaperuma Arachchi 4. Ellapperuma Arachchige Dananja Nilashen Ellaperuma Arachchi All of No.73/3 , Indigolla, Gampaha Defendant- Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Koswatte Gamage Jayanath Kulasiriwardena, \"Weerasiri\" Pinwatte, Waturagama. Plaintiff-Petitioner-Petitioner Vs. 1. Jayasinghe Arachchige Ranjanie Jayasinghe 2. Ellapperuma Arachchige Shashi Jana Aadarshi Ellapperuma Arachch View More	Hon. Buwaneka Aluwihare P.C J.			Download
2016-02-17	SC/CHC APPEAL/33/2009	Industrial and Commercial Development [Private] Ltd No.30, Sea View Avenue Colombo 03 1st Defendant-Appellant Vs. International Cement Traders [Pvt] Ltd., No.44/1, New Nugegoda Road Peliyagoda Plaintiff-Respondent Devco Showa [Private] Ltd New Nugegoda Road Peliyagoda 2nd Defendant-Respondent View More	Hon. K.T. Chitrasiri, J.			Download
2016-02-17	SC/FR/158/2008	1. Muthuwahennadi Roshan Koitex No. 57, Thuduwegodawela, Hikkaduwa 2 . Muthuwahennadi Harison alias Tennyson Opposite Jananandaramaya, Hikkaduwa Petitioner Vs 1. Sub Inspector Sanjeewa Seneviratne Police Station, Hikkaduwa 2. Police Constable Suranga 64244 Police Station Hikkaduwa 3. Officer-in-Charge, Police Station Hikkaduwa 4. Keembiyage Susani Anjala, Opposite Hospital Archchikanda, Hikkaduwa 5. The Inspector General of Police 6. Hon. Attorney General Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2016-02-16	SC/CHC APPEAL/33/2006	Selvarajah Mahera Kanth of 271, Havelock Road, Colombo 06. Presently carrying on business as a sole proprietor under the name and style of „Marken Enterprises‟ of No. 29, Ground Floor, Lucky Plaza, No. 70, St. Anthony‟s Mawatha, Colombo 03. Plaintiff Vs. MTN Networks (Pvt) Ltd. 475, Union Place, Colombo 04. Defendant And Now Between Selvarajah Mahera Kanth of 271, Havelock Road, Colombo 06. Presently carrying on business as a sole proprietor under the name and style of „Marken Enterprises‟ of No. 29, Ground Floor, Lucky Plaza, No. 70, St. Anthony‟s Mawatha, Colombo 03. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. MTN Networks (Pvt) Ltd. 475, Union Place, Colombo 04. Defendant-Respondent View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera, PC. J.			Download
2016-02-15	SC/APPEAL/161/2013	Hassen Lebbe Mohamed Nizam 89/2, Lady Gordon's Road, Kandy. Petitioner-Petitioner -Vs-1. Dr. M.S. Jaldeen.2. R. W. M.S.B. Rajapakse 3. Dilshan Jayasooriya All members of the Ceiling on Housing Property Board of Review No. G 10, Vipulasena Mawatha Housing Scheme, Sri Vipulasena Mawatha, Colombo 10. 4. The Commissioner for National Housing Department of National Housing, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla, 5.Gnoi Bintan Moomin No. 504/6 Peradeniya Road, Kandy.6.K. Engonona Wickramasinghe 504/1, Peradeniya Road, Kandy. 37. Mulin Medawatte -Gedara, 504/1, Peradeniya Road, Kandy. 8. M.C. De LaMotte, No. 36, Windsor Place, .Dehiwala9. W.M.H.L. Mohamed Farrok 504, Peradeniya Road, Kandy. Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Buwaneka Aluwihare P.C.J.			Download
2016-02-15	SC/APPEAL/22/2012	Mercantile Investments Ltd., 236, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Petitioner Vs. 1. J.A. Sumith Adhihetty, No. 1, Cambridge Terrace. Colombo 7. 2. Mahinda Madihahewa, Commissioner General of Labour, Department of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Colombo 05. 3. Minister of Labour Department of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Colombo 05. 4. T. Piyasoma Esq., The Arbitrator, 9th Floor, Industrial Court, Department of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Colombo 05. Respondents And Now Between J.A. Sumith Adhihetty, No. 1, Cambridge Terrace. Colombo 7. Respondent-Appellant Vs. Mercantile Investments Ltd., 236, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Petitioner-Respondent 1. Mahinda Madihahewa, Commissioner General of Labour, Department of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Colombo 05. 2. Minister of Labour Department of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Colombo 05. 3. T. Piyasoma Esq., The Arbitrator, 9th Floor, Industrial Court, Department of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Colombo 05. Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera, PC. J.			Download
2016-02-15	SC/FR/219/2015	1. Lanksakara Kulathunga Mudiyanse Ralahamillage Mohan Anuruddha Bandara Alawala No.117/A, Colombo Road, Wanduragala, Kurunegala. 2. Mohammed Shiffan Ibrahim No.282/01, Modara Road, Egoda Uyana, Moratuwa. 3. Janaka Sampath Kaluarachchi No.50C/2, Vije Mangalarama Road, Kohuwala. 4. Dewarahandi Leel Chanaka De Silva Palathottawatta Main Road, Palathittawatta, Palathotta. 5. Makawita Appuhamlaiye Chathura Kanishka Makawita No.128/91 near to the Medankara Vidyalaya, Horana. 6. Malgalla Liyanage Sajith Dilushan No.72/91, Aleswatta, Kirimatimulla, Thelijjiwila. 7. Diggaha Ranawaka Arachchige Chamila Maduranga Ranawaka Gothatuwa Watta, Baddegama. 8. Liyanage Nayana Dharshaka Molligoda No.130, Dholla Addarawatta, Manikgoda, Nawaththuduwa, Mathugama 9. Veemanage Harshana Gayan Perera No.4, Sisil Uyana, Etavila Road, Nagodawatta, Kaluthara South. 10. Koonthotagedara Ranjan Abeyawansha No.10/10, Dream View, Summerfield Land, Malpana, Kandy 11. Jayamaha Pathiranelage Chaminda Thushara Sampath Jayamaha Viharegam View More	Hon. Buwaneka Aluwihare P.C.J.			Download
2016-02-12	SC/APPEAL/90/2009	1. Mary Leslin Mendis 2. T. Jayendra Mendis Both of No. 193, Chilaw Road, Negombo. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Land Reform Commission, C 82, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 7. 2. A. L. M. Fernando Chairman Land Reform Commission, C 82, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 7. 3 Director, Land Ceiling, Land Reform Commission, C 82, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 7. 4 Minister of Agriculture and Lands “Sampathpaya”, 82, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 5. T. Nandana Mendis 68, Temple Road, Negombo. 6. T. Tosathirathna Mendis 68, Temple Road, Negombo. RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Mary Leslin Mendis 2. T. Jayendra Mendis Both of No. 193, Chilaw Road, Negombo. PETITIONERS-PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Land Reform Commission, C82, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 7. 2. A. L. M. Fernando Chairman Land Reform Commission, C 82, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 7. 3 Director, Land Ceiling, Land Reform Commission, C 82, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 7. 4 Minister of Agriculture and Lands “Sampathpaya”, 82, Rajamawatta Road, Battaramulla. 5. T. Nandana Mendis 68, Temple Road, Negombo. 6. T. View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2016-02-11	SC/CHC APPEAL/6/2003	People’s Bank, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardinar Mawatha, Cololmbo 02. Plaintiff Vs. Ceylinco Insurance Company Limited 2nd Floor, 15 A, Alfred Place, Colombo 3. Formerly of 2nd Floor, Ceylinco House, No. 69, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 1. Defendant And Now In the matter of an Appeal preferred under and in terms of Section 754 of the Civil Procedure Code read together with Section 5 of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 10 of 1996. People’s Bank, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardinar Mawatha, Cololmbo 02. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. Ceylinco Insurance Company Limited 2nd Floor, 15 A, Alfred Place, Colombo 3. Formerly of 2nd Floor, Ceylinco House, No. 69, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 1. Defendant-Respondent View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera, PC. Acting CJ.			Download
2016-02-09	SC/FR/267/2010	Dr Mrs Elizabeth Manel Dassanayake, No. 25/10, Thalapathpitiya Road, Nugegoda Vs. K.E.Karunathilake, Secretary to the ministry of Agricultural Development and Agrarian services, No. 80/5, Govijana Mandiraya, Battaramulla and 6 Others Respondents and added respondents View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera, PC., J.			Download
2016-02-03	SC/APPEAL/100/2013	A.D. Damith Jayantha Applicant-Debtor 1. H.A. Sachintha Perera (Wife of the Debtor) 2. A.D. Supun Sameera (Son of the Debtor) 3. A.D.C. Maduwanthi (Daughter) All 04 of No. 226/1, Bolabotuwana, Bandaragama. Substituted Legal Heirs Vs. W.D. Dharmasiri Karunaratne, 57, Baseline Road, Colombo 08. Creditor And Thereafter in Revision 1. H.A. Sachintha Perera 2. A.D. Supun Sameera 3. A.D.C. Maduwanthi Vs. W.D. Dharmasiri Karunaratne, Respondent- Creditor And in the Court of Appeal 1. W.D. Dharmasiri Karunaratne, 57, Baseline Road, Colombo 08. 2. H.D. Iranganee Wijewardena, 397/3, Kotikawatta, Angoda. Petitioners Vs. 1. Debt Conciliation Board of Colombo 2. Mr. A. Dayantha De Alwis, Chairman of the Debt Conciliation Board 3. Mr. K.A.P. Rajakarua, Member of the Debt Conciliation Board 4. Mr. N. Balaraman. Member of the Debt Conciliation Board 5. The Secretary, The Debt Conciliation Board All 5 of No. 80, Adikarana Mawatha, Colombo 12. 6. H.A. Sachintha Perera 7. A.D. Supun Sameera 8. A.D.C. Maduwanthi All 03 of No. 22 View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera, PC. J.			Download
2016-01-29	SC/APPEAL/66/2015, SC/APPEAL/64/2015	1. Galange Kade Chandrawathie Nilagaratne Hawendeniyagama, Pussellewa. 2. Galange Gedera Swarnathilaka Nilagaratne 390, Siyambalagoda, Danthure. Plaintiffs VS. (deceased) 1. Kularatne Wijetileka Galanga, Siyambalagoda, Danthure. 1a. Haddage Prema Wijetileka (correctly read as Haddawage Prema Wijetileka) 1b. Pradeep Lakmal Wijetileka 1c. Wasana Wijetileka (appearing by her Guardian Haddage Prema Wijetileka) (deceased) 2. Suraweera Sumanasinghe 2a. Nishantha Kumarage Galanga, Siyambalagoda, Danthure. (deceased) 3. Galange Kade Sumanasingha 3a. Y.G. Thilakawathie 388, Siyabalagoda, Danthure. 4. Padma Kumari Nilagaratne Shantha Niwasa, Pussellawa. 5. Rupassarage Rohitha Wickramaratne Siyambalagoda, Danthure. 6. Bandula Nishantha Kumarage, Siyambalagoda, Danthure. Defendants AND Haddage Prema Wijetileka (correctly read as Haddawage Prema Wijetileka) Galanga, Siyambalagoda, Danthure. 1a Defendant-Appellant VS. 1. Galange Kade Chandrawathie Nilagaratne Hawendeniyagama, Pussellewa. 2. Galange Gedera Swarnathilaka Nil View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera, PC. J.			Download
2016-01-28	SC/CHC APPEAL/29/2009	Peoples Bank No.75, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha Colombo2. Plaintiff-Petitioner Vs 1. Ocean Queen Marine(pvt) Ltd, No.227/03, Jampettah Street, Colombo13. 2. Robert Peiris. No.227/03, Jampettah Street, Colombo13. 3. Emmanuel Ranjith Arulanandan No60/20 Church Street, Colombo 15 4. Sivapalan Weerasingham No.70/33, Rock House Lane, Modara, Colombo 15 5. Pothupitiyaga Nandasena Fernando No.70/33, Rock House Lane, Modara, Colombo 15 6. Sellapperumage Mahindasiri Fernando No.29, Jaya mawatha, Keselwatta, Panadura. Defendants-Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J de Abrew J.			Download
2016-01-28	SC/CHC APPEAL/9/2009	1. Gunamuni Buddhima Sudantha de Silva of No. 2/6, Galpotha Road, Nawala. 2. Gunamuni Sujeevan Chandranath de Silva of No. 105, Exeter Road, Raynards Lane, Harrow, England PETITIONS Vs. 1. Macarthy Private Hospital Limited of No. 22, Wijerama Mawahta, Colombo 7. 2. Gunamuni Chandima Sudhamma de Silva of No. 22, Wijerama Mawahta, Colombo 7. 3. Gunamuni Subadra Malini de Silva of No. 22, Wijerama Mawahta, Colombo 7. 4. Gunamuni Thusitha Kanthi de Silva of No. 22, Wijerama Mawahta, Colombo 7. 5. Gunamuni Udayi Yasoja de Silva of No. 22, Wijerama Mawahta, Colombo 7. 6. Gunamuni Channa Janaka de Silva of No. 22, Wijerama Mawahta, Colombo 7. 7. Gunamuni Prajapa de Silva of No. 22, Wijerama Mawahta, Colombo 7. RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Gunamuni Buddhima Sudantha de Silva of No. 2/6, Galpotha Road, Nawala. 2. Gunamuni Sujeevan Chandranath de Silva of No. 105, Exeter Road, Raynards Lane, Harrow, England PETITIONS-APPELLANTS Vs 1. Macarthy Private Hospital Limited of No. 22, Wijerama Mawahta, Colombo 7. 2. Gunamun View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2016-01-28	SC/APPEAL/149/2013	1. Sanvara De Ruberu Samaraweera Gunasekera 2. Suranga Madhawa De Ruberu Samaraweera Gunasekera 3. Gerald Mervin De Ruberu Samaraweera Gunasekera All of No. 25/12, De Alwis Road, Mt. Lavinia. Manna Marakkalage Lakshmi Malkanthi Cooray No. 25/12, De Alwis Road, Mt. Lavinia. (By Attorney of the 1st and 2nd Plaintiff) PLAINTIFF Vs. Fathima Thasneem Yusuff nee Nizar No. 174/2 – 12A, Kesbewa Road, Boralesgamuwa DEFENDANT AND BETWEEN 1. Sanvara De Ruberu Samaraweera Gunasekera 2. Suranga Madhawa De Ruberu Samaraweera Gunasekera 3. Gerald Mervin De Ruberu Samaraweera Gunasekera All of No. 25/12, De Alwis Road, Mt. Lavinia. Manna Marakkalage Lakshmi Malkanthi Cooray No. 25/12, De Alwis Road, Mt. Lavinia. (By Attorney of the 1st and 2nd Plaintiff) PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS Vs. Fathima Thasneem Yusuff nee Nizar No. 174/2 – 12A, Kesbewa Road, Boralesgamuwa DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND 1. Sanvara De Ruberu Samaraweera Gunasekera 2. Suranga Madhawa De Ruberu Samaraweera Gunasekera 3. Gerald Mervin De Ruberu Samaraweera Gunasekera View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2016-01-14	SC/FR/578/2011	1. S. G. P. Dilshan Tilekeratne (minor) Appearing through his next friend 2. H. M. Y. Kumarihamy (mother) The Petitioners of No. 31, Urulewaththa, Yatawatta Matale. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Sergeant Douglas Ellepola 2. Police Inspector Bandara 3. Hettiarachchi 4. R. Nishshanka, Officer-in-Charge The 1st to 4th Respondents of Police Station, Yatawatta. 5. Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 1. 6. Hon. The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Hultsdorp, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2016-01-14	SC/APPEAL/28/2013	Ambudeniyage Dona Leelawathie No. 132/22, Ramya Place, Matarahenwatta, Weliweriya. PLAINTIFF Vs. Karuna Aratchige Ranjith Ariyaratne No. 09, Lamp Light Way Atwood – 3049, Victoria, Australia. DEFENDANT AND Karuna Aratchige Ariyaratne 17, Quarry Road, Mirihana, Nugegoda. SUBSTITUTED-PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER Vs. Karuna Aratchige Ranjith Ariyaratne No. 09, Lamp Light Way Atwood – 3049, Victoria, Australia. DEFENDANT AND Karuna Aratchige Ariyaratne No. 17, Quarry Road, Mirihana, Nugegoda. SUBSTITUTED-PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER- PETITIONER Vs. Karuna Aratchige Ranjith Ariyaratne No. 09, Lamp Light Way Atwood – 3049, Victoria, Australia. DEFENDAN-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Karuna Aratchige Ariyaratne 17, Quarry Road, Mirihana, Nugegoda. SUBSTITUTED-PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER- PETITIONER-PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs. Karuna Aratchige Ranjith Ariyaratne No. 09, Lamp Light Way Atwood – 3049, Victoria, Australia. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2016-01-11	SC/FR/424/2015	Kaluhath Ananda Sarath De Abrew, No. 4/1, Attidiya Road, Ratmalana. Vs. 1. Chanaka Iddamalgoda, Chief Inspector of Police, Head Quarters Inspector, Police Station, Mount Lavinia. and 6 Others. Respondents View More	Hon. P. Jayawardena, P.C., J.			Download
2015-12-16	SC/APPEAL/15/2013	Jathika Sevaka Sangamaya, No. 416, Kotte Road, Pitakotte. (On behalf of S.S. Samarasinghe, G.V.A.N. Senadheera, S.N. Nanayakkara, P.B.H. Denuwara and Kalyani Samarakoon) Applicant Vs. Sri Lanka Hadabima Authority No. 08, Gannoruwa Road, Peradeniya. Respondent AND Jathika Sevaka Sangamaya No. 416, Kotte Road, Pitakotte (On behalf of S.S. Samarasinghe, G.V.A.N. Senadheera, S.N. Nanayakkara, P.B.H. Denuwara and Kalyani Samarakoon) Applicant-Appellant Vs. Sri Lanka Hadabima Authority No. 08, Gannoruwa Road, Peradeniya. Respondent-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Jathika Sevaka Sangamaya No. 416, Kotte Road, Pitakotte (On behalf of S.S. Samarasinghe, G.V.A.N. Senadheera, S.N. Nanayakkara, P.B.H. Denuwara and Kalyani Samarakoon) Applicant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Sri Lanka Hadabima Authority No. 08, Gannoruwa Road, Peradeniya. Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Priyantha Jayawardena, PC. J			Download
2015-12-15	SC/FR/1006/2009	Hapugodage Jagath Perera Petitioner Vs 1. Gothami Ranasinghe Inspector of Police, Officer-in-Charge of the Minor Crime Branch, Police Station, Mirigama. 2. Milla Vitharana alias Millavithanachchi Inspector of Police, Officer-in-Charge of the Traffic Branch, Police Station, Mirigama. 3. Milinda Premanath Karunaratne, Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Mirigama. 4. Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 1. 5. Hon. Attorney-General Attorney General's Department Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2015-12-14	SC/APPEAL/44/2012	Padmal Ariyasiri Mendis, No.29, Moratumulla Road South, Moratuwa. Plaintiff Vs. Vijith Abraham de Silva, No. 13, Peduru Mawatha, Moratumulla, Moratuwa. And Vijith Abraham de Silva, No. 13, Peduru Mawatha, Moratumulla, Moratuwa Defendant-Appellant Vs. Padmal Ariyasiri Mendis, No.29, Moratumulla Road South, Moratuwa. Plaintiff-Respondent And Now Between Vijith Abraham de Silva, No. 13, Peduru Mawatha, Moratumulla, Moratuwa Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Padmal Ariyasiri Mendis, (Deceased) No.610B, Halgahadeniya Road, Gothatuwa. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent Sarukkali Patabedige Claris de Silva, of No. 610B, Halgahadeniya Road, Gothatuwa. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera, PC. J			Download
2015-12-10	SC/APPEAL/27/2013	Hangidigedara Thilakaratne (Deceased) Plaintiff RAG Sumanawathi Substituted Plaintiff Vs Galkaduwegedara Sunil Jayathilake Defendant AND BETWEEN RAG Sumanawathi Substituted-Plaintiff-Appellant Vs Galkaduwegedara Sunil Jayathilake Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN RAG Sumanawathi Substituted-Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs Galkaduwegedara Sunil Jayathilake Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J			Download
2015-12-08	SC/APPEAL/11/2004	Mrs. D. Jayasekera (nee D.H. Hapangama) No. 1242, Welikada, Rajagiriya. Plaintiff Vs. Mrs. Eslin Wimalaratne No. 30/3, Gothami Road, Borella, Colombo 08. And Mrs. D. Jayasekera (nee D.H. Hapangama) No. 1242, Welikada, Rajagiriya. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. Mrs. Eslin Wimalaratne No. 30/3, Gothami Road, Borella, Colombo 08. Defendant-Respondent (deceased) And Miss I.S. Wimalaratne No. 30/3, Gothami Road, Borella, Colombo 08. Substituted Defendant-Respondent And Mrs. Eslin Wimalaratne No. 30/3, Gothami Road, Borella, Colombo 08. (deceased) Miss I.S. Wimalaratne No. 30/3, Gothami Road, Borella, Colombo 08. Substituted Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Mrs. D. Jayasekera (nee D.H. Hapangama) No. 1242, Welikada, Rajagiriya. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera, PC. J			Download
2015-12-08	SC/FR/170/2015	1. Coral Sands Hotel (private) limited, No. 326, Galle Rd, Hikkaduwa, 2. S.E. Goonewardena, Managing Director, Coral Sands Hotel limited Hikkaduwa Vs. Ravi Karunanayaka MP, The Minister of Finance, The Ministry of Finance & Planning, The Secretariat, Colombo 01, and Three others View More	Hon. K. Sripavan., C.J.			Download
2015-12-07	SC/APPPEAL/118/2011	Karunasinghe Herathge Lalitha Padmini No.91/1 Keedagammulla, Gampaha Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs 1. Wijesinghe Arachchige Wijedasa No.5 Sri Dharmapala Mawatha, Gampaha 2. Bandaranayake Mudiyanselage Bandara Manawatta. No.45, Diyawanna Road, Etul Kotte, Kotte Defendant-Respondent-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2015-12-02	SC/APPEAL/125/2011	Benthota Arachchige Kanthi Pushpa Ranjini “Karunawasa”, Kiralawelkatuwa, Embilipiriya. PLAINTIFF Vs. Handagalage Dhammika Wajirapriya Sarathchandra Textiles Pallegama Embilipitiya. DEFENDANT AND BETWEEN Handagalage Dhammika Wajirapriya Sarathchandra Textiles Pallegama Embilipitiya. DEFENDANT-PETITIONER Vs Benthota Arachchige Kanthi Pushpa Ranjini “Karunawasa”, Kiralawelkatuwa, Embilipiriya. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Handagalage Dhammika Wajirapriya Sarathchandra Textiles Pallegama Embilipitiya. DEFENDANT-PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs Benthota Arachchige Kanthi Pushpa Ranjini “Karunawasa”, Kiralawelkatuwa, Embilipiriya. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2015-11-24	SC/FR/768/2009	Anusha Wijewardena 34, Orchard Gate, Bradly Stoke, BS 32 OHW, Bristol, United Kingdom By her attorney Simila Patuwatha Vithana 75/3-2, Isipathana Mawahta, Colombo 5. PETITIONER-PETITIONER Vs. 1. Minister of Lands, Sampathpaya, Battaramulla. 2. Minister of Lands Govijana Mandiraya, Battaramulla. 3. Divisional Secretary, Kaduwela. 4. Director Urban Development Authority, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 5. Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation, P.O. Box 56, No. 3, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha, Welikada, Rajagiriya. 6. Commissioner General of Agrarian Development Department of Agrarian Development 42, Sir Marcus Fernando Mawatha, P.O. Box 537, Colombo 7. 7. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General's Department Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2015-11-24	SC/APPEAL/56/2008	Anusha Wijewardena 34, Orchard Gate, Bradly Stoke, BS 32 OHW, Bristol, United Kingdom By her attorney Simila Patuwatha Vithana 75/3-2, Isipathana Mawahta, Colombo 5. PETITIONER-PETITIONER Vs. 1. Minister of Lands, Sampathpaya, Battaramulla. 2. Minister of Lands Govijana Mandiraya, Battaramulla. 3. Divisional Secretary, Kaduwela. 4. Director Urban Development Authority, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 5. Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation, P.O. Box 56, No. 3, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha, Welikada, Rajagiriya. 6. Commissioner General of Agrarian Development Department of Agrarian Development 42, Sir Marcus Fernando Mawatha, P.O. Box 537, Colombo 7. 7. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General\'s Department Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2015-11-16	SC/APPEAL/209/2012	Lanka Banku Sevaka Sangamaya, (On behalf of L.D. Dayananda), No. 20, Temple Road, Maradana, Colombo 10. Applicant Vs. People's Bank Head Office, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Respondent AND BETWEEN People's Bank Head Office, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Respondent-Appellant Vs. Lanka Banku Sevaka Sangamaya, (On behalf of L.D. Dayananda), No. 20, Temple Road, Maradana, Colombo 10. Applicant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN People's Bank Head Office, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Lanka Banku Sevaka Sangamaya, (On behalf of L.D. Dayananda), No. 20, Temple Road, Maradana, Colombo 10. Applicant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Buwaneka Aluwihare P.C J			Download
2015-11-12	SC/APPEAL/40/2013	Ranjith Flavian Wijeratne No. 27/1 (27B), Sir Ernest de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 07. Substituted 1A Respondent Appellant Vs. 1. Asoka Sarath Amarasinghe No. 32, Vidyalaya Road, Gampaha. Petitioner Respondent 2. Sirimevan Bibile (Former Chairman) 2A. Dr. M.S. Jaldeen (Chairman) 3. B. Bodinagoda (Former Vice Chairman) 3A. C. Ranawaka (Member) 4. B. Gunasekera (Former Member) 4A. J.M.S. Bandara (Member) 5. S.W. Gunawardene (Former Member) 5A. R.W.M.S.B. Rajapakse (Member) 6. M. Samaraweera (Former Member) All members of the Ceiling on Housing Property Board of Review, Department of National Housing, Sir. Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 7. D. Weerapana Former Commissioner of National Housing 8. Y.B. Pussedeniya Former Commissioner of National Housing 8A. M. Sritharan Commissioner of National Housing, The Department of National Housing, „Sethsiripaya‟, Sri Jayawardenapure Kotte, Battaramulla. 8B. L.S. Palanasooriya Commissioner of National Housing, The Department of National Housing, „Sethsiripaya‟, Sri Jayawardenapure Kotte, Battaramulla. 8C. Prof. W.N. Karunadasa Commissioner of National Housing, The Department of National Housing, „Sethsiripaya‟, Sri Jayawardenapure Kotte, Battaramulla. 9. Hon. R. Premadasa Minister of Housing, Local Government and Construction, „Sethsiripaya‟, Sri Jayawardenapure Kotte, Battaramulla. 9A. Hon. Wimal Weerawansa Minister of Construction, Engineering Services, Housing and Common Amenities, „Sethsiripaya‟, Sri Jayawardenapure Kotte, Battaramulla. 9B. Hon. Sajith Premadasa Minister of Housing and Samurdhi, „Sethsiripaya‟, Sri Jayawardenapure Kotte, Battaramulla. . Respondents- Respondents View More	Hon. Priyantha Jayawardena PC J			Download
2015-11-12	SC/APPEAL/48/2010	Asoka Sarath Amarasinghe No. 32, Vidyalaya Road, Gampaha. Petitioner Vs. 1. R. Wijeratne Respondent (Deceased) 1A. Ranjith Flavian Wijeratne No. 27/1 (27B), Sir Ernest de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 07. Substituted Respondent 2. Sirimevan Bibile (Former Chairman) 2A. Dr. M.S. Jaldeen (Chairman) 3. B. Bodinagoda (Former Vice Chairman) 3A. C. Ranawaka (Member) 4. B. Gunasekera (Former Member) 4A. J.M.S. Bandara (Member) 5. S.W. Gunawardene (Former Member) 5A. R.W.M.S.B. Rajapakse (Member) 6. M. Samaraweera (Former Member) All members of the Ceiling on Housing Property Board of Review, Department of National Housing, Sir. Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 7. D. Weerapana Former Commissioner of National Housing 8. Y.B. Pussedeniya Former Commissioner of National Housing 8A. M. Sritharan Commissioner of National Housing, The Department of National Housing, Sethsiripaya, Sri Jayawardenapure Kotte, Battaramulla. 9. Hon. R. Premadasa Former Minister of Housing, Local Government and Construction 9A. Wimal Weerawansa Minister of Housing, Local Government and Construction View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J			Download
2015-11-09	SC/APPEAL/100/2008	Property Finance and Investments Kandy (Private) Limited Petitioner Vs 1. Ms. KHA Meegasmulla, Municipal Commissioner, Kandy Municipal Council, Kandy. 2. Kandy Municipal Council, Kandy Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN 1. WAR Wimalasiri Municipal Commissioner Kandy Municipal Council, Kandy. 2. Kandy Municipal Council, Kandy Respondent-Petitioner-Appellants Vs Property Finance and Investments Kandy (Private) Limited Petitioner-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2015-11-03	SC/CHC APPEAL/8/2007	Merchant Bank of Sri Lanka Ltd., No. 28, St. Michael\'s Road, Colombo 3. (formerly at No. 189, Galle Road, Colombo 3) PLAINTIFF Vs. 1. Deguruge Nihal Perera Caring on business under the name, style and firm of “Desan Enterprises” At No. 19/21, Eksath Mawatha, Mahara, Kadawatha. 2. D.C.A. Ramani Mallika No. 14, Eksath Mawatha, Mahara, Kadawatha. DEFENDANTS AND 1. Deguruge Nihal Perera Caring on business under the name, style and firm of “Desan Enterprises” At No. 19/21, Eksath Mawatha, Mahara, Kadawatha. 2. D.C.A. Ramani Mallika No. 14, Eksath Mawatha, Mahara, Kadawatha. DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS Vs. Merchant Bank of Sri Lanka Ltd., No. 28, St. Michael\'s Road, Colombo 3. (formerly at No. 189, Galle Road, Colombo 3) PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN 1. Deguruge Nihal Perera Caring on business under the name, style and firm of “Desan Enterprises” At No. 19/21, Eksath Mawatha, Mahara, Kadawatha. 2. D.C.A. Ramani Mallika No. 14, Eksath Mawatha, Mahara, Kadawatha. DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS Vs. Merchant Bank of Sri Lanka Ltd., No. 28, St. Michael\'s Road, Colombo 3. (formerly at No. 189, Galle Road, Colombo 3) PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Priyantha Jayawardena, PC. J			Download
2015-11-02	SC/APPEAL/4/2010	1. J.R. Punchiappuhamy 2. J.R. Ratnasiri Senarath Bandara Both of Arama, Aranayake. Plaintiffs Vs. J.R. Dingiribanda of Galaudawatta, Arama, Aranayake. Defendant And then Between J.R. Dingiribanda of Galaudawatta, Arama, Aranayake. Defendant-Appellant Vs. 1. J.R. Punchiappuhamy 2. J.R. Ratnasiri Senarath Bandara Both of Arama, Aranayake. Plaintiff-Respondents And Now Between 1. J.R. Punchiappuhamy 2. J.R. Ratnasiri Senarath Bandara Both of Arama, Aranayake. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellants Vs. J.R. Dingiribanda of Galaudawatta, Arama, Aranayake. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera, PC.J			Download
2015-11-02	SC/APPEAL/15/2010	Batuwanage Siripala Plaintiff vs RA Jayatilleke (Deceased) Defendant AND RA Shirley Anura Substituted Defendant-Appellant Vs Batuwanage Siripala Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Batuwanage Siripala (Deceased) 1A Suneetha Nipuna Arachchi 1B Batuwanage Adeesha Sahan Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellants Vs RA Shirly Anura Substituted Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2015-10-28	SC/APPEAL/88/2005	M. G. P. Rajashilpa, Commissioner of Labour, Colombo East Labour Office, Narahenpita. Complainant Vs Ceylon Heavy Industries and Construction Co. Ltd Oruwela, Athurugiriya. Respondent AND Ceylon Heavy Industries and Construction Co Ltd., Oruwela, Athurugiriya. Respondent-Appellant M. G. P. Rajashilpa Commissioner of Labour, Colombo - East Labour Office, Labour Department, Narahenpita. Complainant-Respondent AND NOW Ceylon Heavy Industries and Construction Co. Ltd., Oruwela, Athurugiriya. Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner Vs M.G.P. Rajashilpa Commissioner of Labour, Colombo East Labour Office, Narahenpita. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent L.D.C Perera No.13/1 Gnanawimala Mawatha Athurugiriya Added Respondent View More	Hon. Buwaneka Aluwihare P.C. J			Download
2015-10-15	SC/APPEAL/63/2013	Hatton National Bank Limited Petitioner-Petitioner-Appellant Vs Sella Hennadige Chandrasiri Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2015-10-07	SC/APPEAL/46/2011	University of Colombo Kumaratunge Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 03. 1st Respondent-Petitioner Vs. 1. V. I. D. J. Perera 673 D, Kandewatta Road Battaramulla Petitioner-Respondent 2. Prof. Tilak Hettiarachchy Vice Chancellor & Chairman of the Council of the University of Colombo Kumaratunge Munidasa Mawatha Colombo 03 3. Mr. W. N. Wilson 4. Prof. Lakshman Dissanayake 5. Prof. R. L. C. Wijesundara 6. Mr. N. Selvakumaran 7. Prof. Dulita Mendis 8. Dr. P. S. M. Gunaratne 9. Prof. S. M. P. Senanayake 10. Prof. Lalitha Mendis 11. Prof. H. D. Gunawardane 12. Mrs. Malani Peiris 13. Mr. Nalin Attygale 14. Mr. Rajan Asirwarthan 15. Dr. Tressie Leitan 16. Mrs. Ramani Amarasuriya 17. Dr. N. R. de Silva 18. Mrs. A. M M. Hussein 19. Dr. Y. C. H. Yakandawala 20. Dr. Kingsley VVickramasuriya 21. Mr. K. Kanag-Ishwaran P.C. 22. Prof. Raja Gunawardena All Members of the Council of the University of Colombo Kumaratunge Munidasa Mawatha Colombo 03 23. Prof. Hirimburegama, Director, Institute of View More	Hon. B. Aluwihare PC. J			Download
2015-10-02	SC/APPEAL/117/2013	Hilary Howard Dunstan De Silva, No 18/1, Dakshinarama Road, Mount Lavinia. Plaintiff Vs. Rani Lokugalappaththi, C/O Shakila Achini De Silva, No. 26, Fathima Mawatha, Welikadamulla Road, Mabola, Wattala. Defendant AND Rani Lokugalappaththi, C/O Shakila Achini De Silva, No. 26, Fathima Mawatha, Welikadamulla Road, Mabola, Wattala. Defendant Petitioner Vs. Hilary Howard Dunstan De Silva, No 18/1, Dakshinarama Road, Mount Lavinia. Plaintiff Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Rani Lokugalappaththi, C/O Shakila Achini De Silva, No. 26, Fathima Mawatha, Welikadamulla Road, Mabola, Wattala. Defendant Petitioner Appellant Vs. Hilary Howard Dunstan De Silva, No 18/1, Dakshinarama Road, Mount Lavinia. Plaintiff Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. UPALY ABEYRATHNE, J			Download
2015-10-02	SC/CHC APPEAL/8/2010	Sanicoch Group of Companies, No. 24, Bristol Street, London FCIY 452 England. Appearing by its Attorney Denham Oswald Dawson 157, Dutugemunu Street, Kohuwala. PLAINTIFF Vs. Kala Traders (Pvt.) Limited, No. 151, Dam Street, Colombo 12. DEFENDANT In the matter of an application made under and in terms of Section 86(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. Kala Traders (Pvt.) Limited, No. 151, Dam Street, Colombo 12. DEFENDANT-PETITIONER Vs. Sanicoch Group of Companies No. 24, Bristol Street, London FCIY 452 England. Appearing by its Attorney Denham Oswald Dawson 157, Dutugemunu Street, Kohuwala. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND NOW Kala Traders (Pvt.) Limited, No. 151, Dam Street, Colombo 12. DEFENDANT-PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs. Sanicoch Group of Companies No. 24, Bristol Street, London FCIY 452 England. Appearing by its Attorney Denham Oswald Dawson 157, Dutugemunu Street, Kohuwala. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2015-09-22	SC/APPEAL/16/2009	Anthony Kanicius Malcolm Perera of No. 36/4, Horana Road, Panadura. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Warushahennedige Nimalasiri Fernando 75, Horana Road, Wekada, Panadura. 1st Defendant 2. Wagoda Pathirage Premaratne 75, Horana Road, Wekada, Panadura. Added 2nd Defendant And Wagoda Pathirage Premaratne 75, Horana Road, Wekada, Panadura. Added 2nd Defendant-Appellant Vs. D.H.K. Yasawathie, 19B No. 75, Eluwila Horana Road, Panadura. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent 1. Warushahennedige Nimalasiri Fernando 75, Horana Road, Wekada, Panadura. Defendant-Respondent And Between Wagoda Pathirage Premaratne 75, Horana Road, Wekada, Panadura. Added 2nd Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. D.H.K. Yasawathie, 19B No. 75, Eluwila Horana Road, Panadura. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 1. Warushahennedige Nimalasiri Fernando 75, Horana Road, Wekada, Panadura. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent And Now Between Wagoda Pathirage Premaratne 75, Horana Road, Wekada, Panadura. Added 2nd Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. D.H.K. Yasawathie, 19B No. 75, Eluwila Horana Road, Panadura. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. S. Eva Wanasundera, PC. J			Download
2015-09-17	SC/FR/256/2010	Ginigathgala Mohandiramlage Nimalsiri, 349/1, Horagala Watta, Beraketiya, Kiriwattuduwa. Petitioner Vs. 1. Colonel P.P.J. Fernando, Commanding Officer, 3/Sri Lanka General Corps, Panagoda Army Camp, Homagama. 2. Major General H.L. Weeratunge, Colonel Commander, General Services Corps, Panagoda Army Camp, Homagama. 3. Brigadier W.R. Palihakkara, Director, Pay and Records Office, Panagoda Army Camp, Homagama. 4. Major General H.J.G. Wijeratne, Director General (Legal), Sri Lanka Army, Army Headquarters, Colombo 02. 5. Lt. General Jagath Jayasooriya, Commander of the Sri Lanka Army, Army Headquarters, Colombo 02. 6. Mr. Gotabhaya Rajapakse, Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Public Security, Law and Order, Colombo 03. 7. Honourable Attorney General, Attorney General's Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Priyantha Jayawardena, PC, J.			Download
2015-09-17	SC/FR/451/2011	Horathalge Thilak Lalitha Kumara “Dharmashri”, No. 2, Korossa, Udugampola. PETITIONER Vs. 1. S.S. Hewapathirana Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Skills Development, “Nipunatha Piyasa”, No. 354/2, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 5. 2. H. Chithral Ambawatte Director General, Department of Technical Education and Training, P.O. Box 557, Olcott Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3. P. K. Sarathchandra Administrative Officer, Department of Technical Education and Training, P.O. Box 557, Olcott Mawatha, Colombo 10. 4. T. A. Piyasiri Director General, Tertiary and Vocational Education Commission, “Nipunatha Piyasa”, No. 354/2, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 5. 5. P. B. Abeykoon, Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 6. Wasantha Gunaratne Director (Administration) Department of Technical Education and Training, P.O. Box 557, Olcott Mawatha, Colombo 10. 7. T. M. D. Tennakoon Maintenance Engineer Department of Technical Education and Training, P.O. Box 557, Olcott Mawatha, Colombo 10. View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2015-09-10	SC/FR/611/2012	1. Wasantha Disanayake, No. 37/34, Weerapuranappu Place, Wariyapola Road, Matale. 2. Wickramapala Yapa, No. 189, Pallemulla, Haloluwa. 3. Wadugodage Shantha Weerasingha, Pahalawatta, Welihipitiya, Dikwella. 4. Kiribanda Bandara Wijewardane, No. 55, Isuru Uyana, Udaperuwa, Kinigama, Bandarawela. 5. Hapu Arachchige Premachandra Jayawardane, No. 214C, Doranagoda West, Udugampola. 6. Wariga Jeyesta Mudiyanselage Bandula, No. 49, Irrigation Office Road, Matale. 7. Wanakku Arachchige Don Udaya Priyantha Jayakodi, No. 61, Bollatha, Ganemulla. 8. Wanigasekara Mudiyanselage Wajirapani Wishaka Wanigasekara, No. 220/A, Sarvodaya Mawatha, Makandana, Madapatha. 9. Desi Malkanthi Samarawickrama, No. 477/2, Makumbura, Pannipitiya. 10. Mathara Lokuge Kamal Priyantha, 8E, Mahabuthgamuwa, Angoda. Petitioners Vs. 1. Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independent Square, Colombo 7. 2. Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Colombo 1. 3. Director General Department of Census and Statistics, No. 109, 5th Floor, Colombo. View More	Hon. K. Sripavan., C.J			Download
2015-09-02	SC/APPEAL/73/2014	Kosgolle Gedara Greeta Shirani Wanigasinghe, Alupatha, Ussapitiya. Applicant Vs. Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute, No. 114, Wijerama Road, Colombo 07. Respondent And Between Kosgolle Gedara Greeta Shirani Wanigasinghe, Alupatha, Ussapitiya. Applicant-Appellant Vs. Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute, No. 114, Wijerama Road, Colombo 07. Respondent-Respondent And Now Between Kosgolle Gedara Greeta Shirani Wanigasinghe, Alupatha, Ussapitiya. Applicant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute, No. 114, Wijerama Road, Colombo 07. Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. S. Eva Wanasundera, PC.J			Download
2015-09-02	SC/FR/171/2015	Tiran P.C. Alles No. 345/33, Kuruppu Lane, Colombo 08. Vs. Mr. N.K. Illangakoon, Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01 & four Others View More	Hon. K. Sripavan., C.J.			Download
2015-08-13	SC/APPEAL/142/2010	W.A.A.M. Dharmasena, Aluketiya, Hongamuwa, Ratnapura. Workman Vs. 1. Superintendent, Kekunagoda Estate, Elapatha, Ratnapura. 2. Lal Wasantha Abeywickrama, Alevihala, No. 252, Main Street, Ratnapura. Respondents AND Lal Wasantha Abeywickrama, Alevihala, No. 252, Main Street, Ratnapura. 2nd Respondent-Petitioner Vs. W.A.A.M. Dharmasena, Hapugastanna Plantation Ltd., Alukeliya, Hongamuwa, Workman-Respondent And Now Between Lal Wasantha Abeywickrama, No. 132/15, Moragahalandha Mawatha, Pannipitiya. 2nd Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. W.A.A.M. Dharmasena, Hapugastanna Plantation Ltd. Alukeliya, Hongamuwa. Workman-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Priyantha Jayawardena, PC. J			Download
2015-08-12	SC/APPEAL/146/2013	1. Dr. Rasiah Jeyarajah, 2. Rassiah Yogarajah, Both of No. 43/A, Yatinuwara Street, Kandy. appearing by their duly appointed Power of Attorney holder Sanmugam Sabhapathi Ganeshan. Plaintiffs Vs. Yogambihai Thambirajah nee-Renganathan Pillei, No. 43, Yatinuwara Street, Kandy. Defendant And Yogambihai Thambirajah nee-Renganathan Pillei, No. 43, Yatinuwara Street, Kandy. Defendant-Appellant Vs. 1. Dr. Rasiah Jeyarajah, 2. Rassiah Yogarajah, Both of No. 43/A, Yatinuwara Street, Kandy. appearing by their duly appointed Power of Attorney holder Sanmugam Sabhapathi Ganeshan. Plaintiffs-Respondents And Now 1. Dr. Rasiah Jeyarajah, 2. Rassiah Yogarajah, Both of No. 43/A, Yatinuwara Street, Kandy. appearing by their duly appointed Power of Attorney holder Sanmugam Sabhapathi Ganeshan. Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants Vs. Yogambihai Thambirajah nee-Renganathan Pillei, No. 43, Yatinuwara Street, Kandy. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. S. Eva Wanasundera, PC. J			Download
2015-08-05	SC/APPEAL/192/2012	Mapatunage Roland Perera, 4/62A, 4th Lane, Thalakotuwatta, Kolhengoda, Colombo 05. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Sunder Ayyar Rajagopalan, No. 44/83, St. Anthony\'s Mawatha, Colombo 13. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. S. Eva Wanasundera, PC.J			Download
2015-08-04	SC/APPEAL/111/2014	Dirk Bryant Flamer-Caldera No. 47/17, Ward Place, Colombo 7. 2ND DEFENDANT-PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs. Lutz Paproth Seenimodara Tangalle. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT Otto Geissler Seenimodara Nakulugamuwa. 1ST DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2015-07-30	SC/APPEAL/182/2012	R.L.P. Nihal, No. 303C, Bai Watte, Nivandana North, Ja-Ela. Applicant Vs. 1. Board of Directors, Salacine Television, Institute, SLBC Training Institute, Torrington Square, Colombo-07. 2. Niranga Hettiarachchi, Chairman/Executive Officer, Salacine Television Institute, SLBC Training Institute, Torrington Square, Colombo-07. 3. Lester S. Rupasinghe, Director, Salacine Television Institute, SLBC Training Institute, Torrington Square, Colombo-07. 4. Lakshitha Jayawardhana, Director, Salacine Television Institute, SLBC Training Institute, Torrington Square, Colombo-07. Respondents. AND THEN BETWEEN In the matter of an application In terms of section 3 of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 read with Article 154 P of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. 1. Niranga Hettiarachchi, Chairman/Chief Executive Officer, Salacine Television Institute, SLBC Training Institute, Torrington Square, Colombo07 2. Lester S. Rupasinghe, Director, Salacine Television Institute, SLBC Training Institute, Torrington Square, Colombo-07 View More	Hon. Buwaneka Aluwihare P.C.J			Download
2015-07-29	SC/APPEAL/140/2011	Balage Sarojin de Silva of No.06 Aniie Avenue, Dehiwala, 3 PETITIONER-PETITIONER [deceased] Shan Tissaka Wijeyesekara No.162/1, Galle Road Dehiwala. SUBSTITUTED PETITIONER-PETITIONER-PETITIONER Vs. Nalange Samanthi Sadhana Dharmabandu nee de Silva. Of No.20 Saddle Crescent Walkley Heights, South Australia 5015 Appearing by her Attorney Ajantha Demetrius Wijesena of No.29B, 2nd Lane, Koswatte, Nawala. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT Mallika Homes Limited, No.45, Visakha Road, Colombo 04. INTERVENIENT-PETITIONER-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Chandra Ekanayake J			Download
2015-07-28	SC/FR/108/2010	Kelum Dharshana Kumarasinghe Attorney at Law No. 38, Bodhirukarama Lane Galborella, Kelaniya. PETITIONER FOR & ON BEHALF OF 1. L.M.R. Pushpasiri, C/o, Swarna Saloon, Mapitigama, Alawwa. 2. S. D. G. Dharmasiri 201/02, Dissage Watta, Suriyagama, Kadawatha. 3. J. K. Rathnasiri Mahamagahena Karaputugala, Kamburupitiya. 4. D.M.R. Banda 105/01A, Gala Junction Kiribathgoda. 5. G. W. Jayarathna, Sooriyapaluwa, Kadwatha. 6. P. D.A. Rohan, 42/1, Wihara Mawatha, Naligama, Ragama. 7. R. M. Ariyarathna, Yapahuwa Junction Mahawa. 8. H.A.S. Geethadeva, 413, Maligathenna, Weyangoda. 9. P.H. Wasantha Batadoowa, Batapola, Meetiyagoda. 10. G.M.A. Bandara 11, Roswatta, Polgahawela. 11. M.G. Donald, 126A, Giyagala Watta, Garuwalgoda West, Agalugaya, Habaraduwa. 12. H.P.D.S. Pathirana 189/2, Dewahera, Nittambuwa. 13. H. D. Reshan, Randolawatta, Mitiyagoda. DETAINEES Detained at the Criminal Investigations Department Vs. 1. S. Hettiarachchi Additional Secretary Ministry of Defence, Public Security, Law and Peace, Colombo 3. View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J			Download
2015-07-23	SC/FR/230/2015	1. Safra Travels and Tours (Pvt) Ltd., No. S/L/G4, Dias Place, 2. Nawas Samsudeen Mohamed Althaf and Ainul Fouzia Mansoor of No. 751, Blumandol Road, Colombo 15. Carrying on the business in the name and style of Transworld Travels and Tours, at 476, Maradana Shopping Complex, Colombo 10. 3. Kara Travels and Tours (Pvt) Ltd., 60 B, Green Lane, Kotahena, Colombo 13. Petitioners Vs 1. M.H.M. Zameel, Director, Department of Muslim Religious and Cultural Affairs, No. 180, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. M.H.M Haleem, Minister of Muslim Religious and Cultural Affairs and Posts, No. 310, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3. Abdul Majeed, 4. Y.L.M. Navavi, 5. Fahim M. Hashim, 6. Dr. Thaha Ziyad, 7. Ash Sheikh M.S.M. Thassim, 8. A.A.M. Ilyas, 9. Mr. Yaseen, 3rd to 9th Respondents All of c/o Hajj committee, Ministry of Muslim Religious and Cultural Affairs and Posts, No. 310, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. 10. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera, PC., J			Download
2015-07-08	SC/APPEAL/142/2014	Ace Containers (Pvt) Ltd. 315, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 2. Plaintiff Vs. Commercial Bank of Ceylon PLC, Commercial House, No. 21, Sir Razeek Fareed Mawatha, Colombo 1. Defendant AND NOW BETWEEN Commercial Bank of Ceylon PLC, Commercial House, No. 21, Sir Razeek Fareed Mawatha, Colombo 1. Defendant Appellant Vs. Ace Containers (Pvt) Ltd. 315, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 2. Plaintiff Respondent View More	Hon. UPALY ABEYRATHNE, J			Download
2015-06-26	SC/APPEAL/122/2011	Mangalika De Silva (nee Hemachandra) No. 378, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs. Prabhath Joseph De Silva Jambo Restaurant No. 86/A-2, Negombo Road, Thudella, Ja-ela. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT Pushpa Kumari Jayawardena No. 72A, Kaleliya Road, Kapuwatta, Ja-ela. CO-DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2015-06-24	SC/FR/64/2015, SC/FR/71/2015, SC/FR/72/2015, SC/FR/84/2015	ACME Lanka Distillers (Pvt.) Ltd., 73/1, Old Awissawella Road, Hanwella. Petitioner Vs. 1. Hon Ravi Karunanayake, Minister of Finance, Ministry of Finance, General Treasury, Colombo 1. 2. Dr. R.H.S. Samarathunga, Secretary, Ministry of Finance, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 3. Mr. L.K.G. Gunawardena, Commissioner General of Excise, No. 34, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 4. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. K. Sripavan, C.J.			Download
2015-06-24	SC/FR/71/2015	1. Uva Glen (Pvt) Ltd., Duwahenawatta, Millewa, Moragahahena, And No. 13A, Badulupitiya Road, Badulla. 2. Mr. Karupaippiahpillai Kumaranayagam, No. 48-1/2, Dickman's Road, Colombo 05. 3. Mr. Karupaippiahpillai Jayanayagam, No. 38, Elibank Road, Colombo 05. 4. Ms. Priyashanthini Kumaranayagam, No. 48-1/2, Dickman's Road, Colombo 05. Petitioners Vs. 1. Hon Ravi Karunanayake, Minister of Finance, Ministry of Finance, General Treasury, Colombo 1. 2. Dr. R.H.S. Samarathunga, Secretary, Ministry of Finance, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 3. Mr. L.K.G. Gunawardena, Commissioner General of Excise, No. 34, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 4. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General's Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. K. Sripavan, C.J.			Download
2015-06-24	SC/FR/72/2015	ACME Lanka Distillers (Pvt.) Ltd., 73/1, Old Awissawella Road, Hanwella. Petitioner Vs. 1. Hon Ravi Karunanayake, Minister of Finance, Ministry of Finance, General Treasury, Colombo 1. 2. L.K.G. Gunawardhane, Commissioner General of Excise, No. 34, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 3. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General's Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. K. Sripavan, C.J.			Download
2015-06-24	SC/FR/84/2015	ACME Lanka Distillers (Pvt.) Ltd., 73/1, Old Awissawella Road, Hanwella. Petitioner Vs. 1. Hon Ravi Karunanayake, Minister of Finance, Ministry of Finance, General Treasury, Colombo 1. 2. L.K.G. Gunawardhane, Commissioner General of Excise, No. 34, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 02. 3. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General's Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. K. Sripavan, C.J.			Download
2015-06-19	SC/APPEAL/48/2012	Samarakoon Mudiyanselage Jayathilake of Palle Baddewela, Makehelwala DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-PETITIONER Vs. Balahinna Arachchige Sarath Abeyweera of No. 110, Aththalapitya, Hingula. PLAINTIFF-DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2015-06-17	SC/APPEAL/54/2011	LVC Kuruppu Administrator of the estate of DBH Kuruppu Plaintiff Vs B Carolis Perera Defendant HA Charlot Nonna Substituted Defendant AND BETWEEN HA Charlot Nonna Substituted Defendant-Petitioner Vs Obrey Orvil Carrol Kuruppu Substituted-Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN HA Charlot Nonna Substituted Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs Obrey Orvil Carrol Kuruppu Substituted-Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2015-06-11	SC/CHC APPEAL/47/2008	Alli Company (Pvt) Ltd. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs Mohamad Noohu Abdul Salam Defendant-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2015-06-09	SC/APPEAL/106/2012	Lanka Banku Sevaka Sangamaya (On behalf of EAA Dayananda) Applicant Vs People's Bank Respondent AND BETWEEN People's Bank Respondent-Appellant Vs Lanka Banku Sevaka Sangamaya (On behalf of EAA Dayananda) Applicant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN People's Bank Respondent-Appellant-Appellant Vs Lanka Banku Sevaka Sangamaya (On behalf of EAA Dayananda) Applicant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2015-06-04	SC/FR/273/2014	D.M. Anura Mangala Unit 4A/66 Badulu Oya, Kandekatiya. PETITIONER Vs. 1. The Inspector General of Police N.K. Illangakoon Police Headquarters, Colombo 1. 2. Deputy Inspector General of Police Uva Province Roshan Fernando Deputy Inspector General's Office Badulla. 3. M. Kumara Balasuriya Inquiring Officer Assistant Superintendent of Police Police Office Badulla. 4. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General's Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J			Download
2015-05-20	SC/FR/204/2011	J. A. Lionel Chandraratne (Library Assistant, Galgammulla Public Library) Ranasgalla, Nakkawatta. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Mr. Tissa R. Balalla The Governor of the North Western Province Governor's Office, Kurunegala. 2. Mr. Gamini Wattegedera The Chairman The Provincial Public Service Commission in the North Western Province, Provincial Council Complex Kurunegala. 3. Mr. H. M. Mettananda Nilame Member The Provincial Public Service Commission in the North Western Province, Provincial Council Complex Kurunegala. 4. Mr. Sarath Stanley Member The Provincial Public Service Commission in the North Western Province, Provincial Council Complex Kurunegala. 5. Mr. M. Iqbal Member The Provincial Public Service Commission in the North Western Province, Provincial Council Complex Kurunegala. 6. Ms. Kanthi Vehalla The Secretary The Provincial Public Service Commission in the North Western Province, Provincial Council Complex Kurunegala. 7. Mr. T. G. U. B. Tambugala The Chief Secretary of the North Western Province, Office of the Chief Secretary, Kurunegala View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J.			Download
2015-04-28	SC/HC CALA/331/2010	Sees Lanka (Private) Limited, Block 43, Export Processing Zone, Biyagama. By its Power of Attorney holder Don Lalith Hilary Ganlath of Ganlath\'s Law Office, Mezzanine Floor, Galadhari Hotel, No. 64, Lotus Road, Colombo 1. Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Board of Investment of Sri Lanka, West Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 1. Defendant-Petitioner-Respondent View More	Hon. K. Sripavan, C.J.			Download
2015-04-02	SC/APPEAL/155/2011	Ranasinghe Arachchilage Samadara Malini Ranasinghe (Deceased) PLAINTIFF 1A. Senarath Arachchilage William Singho 1B. Senarath Arachchilage Thushara Senarath 1C. Senarath Arachchilage Samindra Senarath 1D. Senarath Arachchilage Lasantha Senarath All of Weralugama Kuliyapitiya (Post) SUBSTITUTED-PLAINTIFFS Vs. Adhikari Appuhamilage Appuhamy (Deceased) DEFENDANT 1A. Wijesinghe Arachchilage Rosalin Nona (C/o. Balagolla Kade, Kobeygane (Post) 1B. Kalubowila Appuhamilage Rosalin Nona 1C. Adhikari Appuhamilage Ariyawansha 1D. Adhikari Appuhamilage Gunawansha 1E. Adhikari Appuhamilage Gunasinghe 1F. Adhikari Appuhamilage Wijesinhge 1G. Adhikari Appuhamilage Weerawansha 1H. Adhikari Appuhamilage Ariyakusum 1I. Adhikari Appuhamilage Chandra Kusum 1J. Adhikari Appuhamilage Dimuna Sanjeewanie All of No. 13, Jayasirigama, Pannala (Post) 1K. Jayalath Balagallage Solomon Dias 1L. Jayamanna Both of Thalammehera, Pannala (Post) SUBSTITUTED-DEFENDANTS AND BETWEEN 1k. Jayalath Balagallage Solomon Dias Thalammehera, Pannala (Post) View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J			Download
2015-03-31	SC/HC CALA/346/2013	1. Geekiyanage Thanuja Sanjeewani Amarasinghe No. 14. Vijitha Road, Dehiwala. 2. Geekiyanage Sardha Maheshini Amarasinghe Sisira Niwasa, Narammala. 3. Dona Kusuma Sardhalatha Amarasinghe Sisira Niwasa Narammala. Plaintiff-Petitioners-Petitioners Vs. 1. Geekiyanage Nirosha Prasadini Kahandawarachchi No. 2, Esther Place Park Road, Colombo 05. 2. Chanaka Ravindra Kahandawarachchi No. 2, Esther Place Park Road, Colombo 05. Defendant-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep, PC, J			Download
2015-03-27	SC/APPEAL/49/2012	P.M. Premarathne of No. 14A, Main Street, Rambukkana. 2 nd Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Sunil Pathirana alias Sinhala Pedige Karunaratne of Waligamuwa, Kotawella, Rambukkana. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent Lalajini Hemali Edirisinghe Lalani Rukmali Edirisinghe both of No. 17, Gemunu Mawatha, Kinigahapitiya, Rambukkana. 1A and 1B Defendant-Respondents View More	Hon. S. Eva Wanasundera, PC.J			Download
2015-03-26	SC/FR/31/2014	1. R.P.P.N. Sujeewa Sampath 2. R.P.P.N. Hasali Gayara Both of 114, Thimbirigasyaya Road, Colombo 5. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Sandamali Aviruppola Principal Vishaka Vidyalaya 133, Vajira Road. Colombo 5. 2. Anura Dissanayake Secretary, Ministry of Education Ministry of Education Isurupaya Battaramulla. 3. Bandula Gunawardhana Minister for Education Ministry of Education Isurupaya Battaramulla. 4. A. S. Rohini 5. K. A. D. M. S. Rathnayake 6. S. Guneratne 7. R. A. I. Randunge All Members of the Interview Board (on admissions to Grade 1, 2014) C/o. Vishaka Vidyalaya 133, Vajira Road. Colombo 5. 8. Members of the Appeal Interview Board (on admissions to Grade 1, 2014) C/o. Vishaka Vidyalaya 133, Vajira Road. Colombo 5. 8A. Gita Abeygunawardene Principal of Holy Family Convent Chairman of the Appeal Interview Board 8B. A. S. Rohini Secretary of the Appeal Interview Board. 8C. N. R. Jinasena Member of the Appeal Interview Board. 8D. H. A. M. C. A. Jayasundara Member of the Appeal Interview Board. 8E. Shrimathi Jayasoorioy View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J			Download
2015-03-25	SC/FR/46B/2014	1. B.M.N. Banneheka and (minor) 1a. Master B.M.I.A. Banneheka, Both of “Somi Kelum” Ihala Malkaduwawa Road, Kurunegala. Petitioners Vs. 1. Y.G. Thillakaratne, Principal (Chairman of the Interview Board) Maliyadeva Boys College, Negombo Road, Kurunegala. & 18 Others Respondents View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep, PC.J			Download
2015-03-25	SC/FR/498/2011	Christobuge Chrishan Hilary Srikith Fernando. No. 59, Puwakaramba Road, Kadalana, Moratuwa. Petitioners Vs. 1. National Water Supply and Drainage Board (NWS &DB) Head Office. Galle Road, Ratmalana. & 11 others Respondents View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep, PC, J			Download
2015-03-24	SC/APPEAL/199/2012	Mahawattage Dona ChanikaDiluniAbeyratne, No. 227/2, Stanley ThilakaratneMawatha, Nugegoda. Plaintiff-Respondent- Appellant Vs. Jaykay Marketing Services (Pvt.) Ltd., No. 130, Glennie Street, Colombo 2. Carrying on business at: Keels Super Market, No. 225, Stanley ThilakaratneMawatha, Nugegoda. 2ndDefendant-Petitioner-Respondent Janaka R. Gunawardena, No. 17, 1st Lane, Colombo 5. 1st Defendant-Respondent- Respondent View More	Hon. S. Eva Wanasundera PC J			Download
2015-03-23	SC/APPEAL/141/2011 PART I	Prins Gunasekera, No. 26, Flodden Road, London, SE5 9LH. Plaintiff Vs. Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Limited, No. 35, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. Defendant And Between Prins Gunasekera, No. 26, Flodden Road, London, SE5 9LH. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Limited, No. 35, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. Defendant-Respondent And Now Between Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Limited, No. 35, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Prins Gunasekera, No. 26, Flodden Road, London, SE5 9LH. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. S. Eva Wanasundera, PC.J			Download
2015-03-23	SC/FR/39/2013	Abdul Jabar Mohamed Sakir No. 61, Dambulla Road, Kurunegala (On behalf of minor M.S.F. Shameeha) PETITIONER Vs. 1. The Principal Holy Family Convent Kurunegala. 5. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General's Department Colombo 12. 11. P.M. Nazir Deputy Director of Education Provincial Education Office, Kurunegala And 05 others. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Anil Gooneratne J			Download
2015-03-23	SC/APPEAL/141/2011 PART II	Associated News Papers of Ceylon Limited Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs Prins Gunasekera Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J			Download
2015-03-12	SC/APPEAL/17/2013	Hon. Attorney General Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant Vs. Ambagala Mudiyanselage Samantha Sampath, No. 03, Urupitiya. Accused And Between Hon. Attorney General Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Appellant Vs. Ambagala Mudiyanselage Samantha Sampath, No. 03, Urupitiya. Accused-Respondent And Now Between Ambagala Mudiyanselage Samantha Sampath, No. 03, Urupitiya. Accused-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. S. Eva Wanasundera, PC.J			Download
2015-03-09	SC/APPEAL/47/2011	Paudgalika Tha Kamhal Himiyange Sangamaya also known as The Private Tea Factory Owners Association now known as The Sri Lanka Tea Factory Owners Association. No. 64-12A, Nawala Road, Nugegoda. Petitioner-Petitioner Vs. 1. Jayantha Edirisinghe, Tea Commissioner (Acting) Tea Commissioner\'s Division, Sri Lanka Tea Board, No. 572, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 2. Pankandurage Jemis, No. 117, Bolawana North, Gilimale, Ratnapura. 3. Samastha Lanka Kuda Tea Wathu Sanvardana Samithi Sanvidanaya also known as the Sri Lanka Federation of Tea Small Holdings Development Societies, No. 70, Parliament Road, Pelawatte, Battaramulla. 4. Ratnayake Liyanage Nevil Priyanga, President of the Sri Lanka Federation of Tea Small Holdings Development Societies, No. 70, Parliament Road, Pelawatte, Battaramulla. 5. K.L. Gunarathne, Treasurer of the Sri Lanka Federation of Tea Small Holdings Development Societies, No. 70, Parliament Road, Pelawatte, Battaramulla. 6. Kumara Gunasinghe, President of the Sri Lanka Federation View More	Hon. K. Sripavan, C.J.			Download
2015-03-06	SC/APPEAL/91/2012	Union Trust and Investments Ltd., No. 347, Union Place, Colombo 02. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Madagodage Thusitha Wijesena. 52, Ward Place, Colombo 7 And now at No. 32/1D, Barnes Place, Colombo 07. 2. Swarna Wijesena 51, Ward Place, Colombo 07 And now at No. 32/10D, Barnes Place, Colombo 07. 3. Wadisinghe Arachchige Kapilaratne 301/3, Gamunu Mawatha, Kiribathgoda. Defendants And 1. Madagodage Thusitha Wijesena. then of M and M Centre, 2nd Floor, No. 431/5, Kotte Road, Welikada, Rajagiriya. 2. Swarna Wijesena then of Ward Place, Colombo 07 and 32/10D, Barnes Place, Colombo 07 Both presently of 10/1, Reid Avenue, Colombo 7. 1st & 2nd Defendant-Petitioners Vs. Union Trust and Investments Ltd., No. 347, Union Place, Colombo 02 And presently of No. 30-2/1, 2nd Floor, Galle Road, Colombo 06. Plaintiff-Respondent Wadisinghe Arachchige Kapilaratne 301/3, Gamunu Mawatha, Kiribathgoda. 3rd Defendant-Respondent And Now Between Union Trust and Investments Ltd., No. 347, Union Place, Colombo 02 And presently of No. 30-2/1, 2nd Floor, Galle Road, Colombo 06. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera, PC.J			Download
2015-02-11	SC/APPEAL/39A/2010	KA Mary Nona Plaintiff Vs. HAP Wimaladasa Defendant AND BETWEEN HAP Wimaladasa Defendant-Appellant Vs KA Mary Nona Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN HAP Wimaladasa Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs KA Mary Nona Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J.			Download
2015-02-11	SC/APPEAL/67/2011	Honourable Attorney-General Attorney General's Department Colombo-12. Complainant Vs. 1. Ayiduroos Abdul Rahim 2. Shavul Hameed Nasir 3. Abdul Baffoor Amanullah 4. Sahibu Mohideen Accused AND BETWEEN 1. Ayiduroos Abdul Rahim No.2, Re-settlement Village Aajarawatta Norochchole. 2. Shavul Hameed Nasir No.A1, Kandakuliya Kalpitiya. 3. Abdul Gaffoor Amanullah Samagipura Puttalam. 4. Sahibu Mohideen, No.87/1, Obanbaduda Road, Puttalam. Accused-Petitioners Vs. Honourable Attorney-General, Attorney General's Department, Colombo-12. Complainant–Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Ayiduroos Abdul Rahim No.2, Re-settlement Village Aajarawatta Norochchole. 2. Shavul Hameed Nasir No.A1, Kandakuliya Kalpitiya. 3. Abdul Gaffoor Amanullah Samagipura Puttalam. 4. Sahibu Mohideen, No.87/1, Obanbaduda Road, Puttalam. Accused-Petitioners-Petitioners Vs. Honourable Attorney-General Attorney General's Department Colombo 12. Complainant–Respondent Respondent View More	Hon. Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC J			Download
2014-12-19	SC/CHC APPEAL/38/2010	Distilleries Company of Sri Lanka No. 110, Norris Canal Road Colombo 10 Plaintiff Vs. Randenigala Distilleries Lanka (Private) Limited No. 162, Rajagiriya Road, Rajagiriya Defendant AND NOW In the matter of an appeal in terms of section 5 and 6 of the High Court of Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No.10 of 1996 read with Chapter LVIII of the Civil Procedure Code Randenigala Distilleries Lanka (Private) Limited No. 162, Rajagiriya Road, Rajagiriya Defendant-Appellant Vs Distilleries Company of Sri Lanka No. 110, Norris Canal Road Colombo 10 Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Mohan Pieris PC CJ			Download
2014-12-17	SC/APPEAL/125/2010	Nandasena Wickramasekara Rajapaksha, No. 51, New Town, Kataragama. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-APPELLANT Vs 1. Wanniarachchi Kankanamalage Temawathie, 2. Wanniarachchi Kankanamalage Julie Nona, Both of No. 104, Old Buttala Road, Kataragama. PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof PC J			Download
2014-12-17	SC/APPEAL/193/2011	K. Mary Margret Fernando of Thopputhota, Waikkal. Substituted-Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs 1. Beeta de Silva of Guest House and Hotel, Anuradhapura. 2. L. Sarathchandra de Silva, Assistant Manager, Guest House and Hotel, Anuradhapura Defendants-Appellants-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof PC J			Download
2014-12-17	SC/APPEAL/96/2011	Jayantha Liyanage Petitioner-Appellant Vs Commissioner of Elections Election Secretariat No.2, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J			Download
2014-12-17	SC/CHC APPEAL/29/2003	Gamini Ranasinghe, No. 27, Kandawala Road, Ratmalana. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs Commercial Bank of Ceylon Limited, No. 21, Bristol Street, Colombo 01. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof PC J			Download
2014-12-17	SC/CHC APPEAL/53/2006	1. Nihal Seneviratne, No. 22, Mile Post Avenue, Colombo 03. 2. Jeevana Priyantha Seneviratne, No. 11/1, Mahanuga Gardens, Colombo 03. DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS Vs State Bank of India, No. 16, Sir Baron Jayatilaka Mawatha, Colombo 01. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof PC J			Download
2014-12-17	SC/FR/637/2009	1. Lake House Employees Union 2. B.M.D. Athula, President 3. Dharmasiri Lankapeli, General Secretary All of Lake House Employees Union, 35, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. PETITIONERS Vs 1. Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd, No.35, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. B. Padmakumara, Chairman / Managing Director. 3. Captain P. B. L. Silva, Deputy Security Manager, Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd, No.35, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. 4. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof PC J			Download
2014-12-17	SC/HC CALA/279/2012	M. Tudor Danister Anthony Fernando No. 475, Colombo Road, 3rd Kurana Negombo. Plaintiff Vs. Rankiri Hettiarachchige Fredie Perera No. 587/10, Colombo Road, 3rd Kurana, Negombo. Defendant AND BETWEEN Rankiri Hettiarachchige Fredie Perera No. 587/10, Colombo Road, 3rd Kurana, Negombo. Defendant-Appellant Vs. M. Tudor Danister Anthony Fernando No. 475, Colombo Road, 3rd Kurana Negombo. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN M. Tudor Danister Anthony Fernando No. 475, Colombo Road, 3rd Kurana Negombo. Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Rankiri Hettiarachchige Fredie Perera No. 587/10, Colombo Road, 3rd Kurana, Negombo. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Priyantha Jayawardena PC J			Download
2014-12-15	SC/APPEAL/10/2009	Saranguhewage Garvin De Silva, 36/1, Old Kesbewa Road, Nugegoda. PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs 1. Lankapura Pradeshiya Sabha, Talpotha. 2. Chairman, Lankapura Pradeshiya Sabha, Talpotha. 3. W.A.J.C. Fernando, BOP 398 (near Patunugama Junction), Abeypura, Pulasthigama. 4. Rev. Fr. Ranjith de Mel, Our Lady of Rosary Church, Palugasdamana, Polonnaruwa. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof PC J			Download
2014-12-15	SC/APPEAL/3/2012	1. Flexport (Pvt) Limited of No. 127, Jambugasmulla Road, Nugegoda 2. Puwak Dandawe Narayana Nandadasa of No. 127, Jambugasmulla Road, Nugegoda 3. Mallika Devasurendra of No. 127, Jambugasmulla Road, Nugegoda Defendants-Appellants-Petitioner Vs. Commercial Bank of Ceylon Limited of No. 21, Bristol Street, Colombo 01 and having a branch office and/or a place of business called and known as the “Wellawatte Branch” at No. 343, Galle Road, Mount Lavinia. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep PC J			Download
2014-12-12	SC/APPEAL/5/2011	1. Shelton Upali Paul 1st Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant 2. KKPS Silva (Deceased) Neelawathura Walawe Premawathi Party substituted for the deceased 2nd Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs EG Dayananda Defendant-Petitioner-Petitioner-Petitioner-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J			Download
2014-12-10	SC/APPEAL/33/2012	People\'s Bank, Head Office, 12th Floor, Sri Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. H.L. Ariyapala No. 85/2, Bandarawela Road, Badulla. Applicant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep PC J			Download
2014-12-10	SC/SPL LA/198/2011	Jeneeta Martel Loren Perera Nee Cooray, No. 8 Block M, Government Flats, Bambalapitiya, Colombo 4 Plaintiff Vs. 1. Francis Rajeev Perera 2. Rexy Alfred Perera 3. Reginold Perera 4. Mary Violet Perera (deceased) 4(a) Princy Priyadarshanie 5. Henry Leonard Perera, All at No. 1600, Cotta Road, Colombo 08. Defendants And between Jeneeta Martel Loren Perera Nee Cooray, No. 8 Block M, Government Flats, Bambalapitiya, Colombo 4 Plaintiff-Appellant Vs 1. Francis Rajeev Perera (Deceased) 1(a) Weerasinghe Arachchige Amarawathie, 2. Rexy Alfred Perera (Deceased) 2(a) Karunawathie Ranasinghe 3. Reginold Perera (Deceased) 3(a) M.W. Dharmawathie 4. Mary Violet Perera (Deceased) 4(a) Princy Priyadarshanie 5. Henry Leonard Perera, (Deceased) 5(a) Bopitiya Gamage Kapila Dilhan Perera, All at No. 1600, Cotta Road, Colombo 08. Defendant-Respondents And Now Between 1(a) Weerasinghe Arachchige Amarawathie, 2(a) Karunawathie Ranasinghe 3(a) M.W. Dharmawathie 4(a) Princy Priyadarshanie 5. Henry Leonard Perera All at No. 1600, Cotta View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep PC J			Download
2014-12-09	SC/APPEAL/212/2012	Dissanayake Gamini Ratnasiri Applicant Vs Sri Lanka Ports Authority Respondent AND Sri Lanka Ports Authority Respondent-Petitioner Vs Dissanayake Gamini Ratnasiri Applicant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Dissanayake Gamini Ratnasiri Applicant-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs Sri Lanka Ports Authority Respondent-Petitioner-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J de Abrew J			Download
2014-12-03	SC/APPEAL/79/2006	1. Yuni Motors (Pvt.) Ltd., No. 105, New Bullers Road, Colombo 4. 2. Yasasiri Kasturiarachchi, Chairman/Managing Director, Yuni Motors (Pvt) Ltd., No. 34, Vajira Road, Colombo 5. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. S.A.C.S.W. Jayatillake Director General of Excise (Special Provisions), 3rd Floor, Bristol Street, Paradise Building, Colombo 1. 2. Sarath Amunugama, Minister of Finance, Ministry of Finance, Colombo 1. 3. The Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Yuni Motors (Pvt) Ltd., No. 105, New Bullers Road, Colombo 4. 2. Yasasiri Kasturiarachchi, Chairman/Managing Director, Yuni Motors (Pvt) Ltd., No. 34, Vajira Road, Colombo 5. PETITIONER-PETITIONERS Vs. 1. S.A.C.S.W. Jayatilleke, Director General of Excise, (Special Provisions) 3rd Floor, Bristol Paradise Building, Colombo 1. 2. Sarath Amunugama, Former Minister of Finance, Ministry of Public Administration, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 3. The Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. RESPOND View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera PC J			Download
2014-11-27	SC/FR/349/2011	B.P. Udawatta No.239/15A, Mada Mawatha Sri Sumanagala Road Pannipitiya Petitioner Vs. 1. National Water Supply & Drainage Board Galle Road, Ratmalana. 2. K.L.L. Premanath General Manager, National Water Supply & Drainage Board, Galle Road, Ratmalana. 3. A. Abeygunasekera Ministry of Water Supply & Drainage “Lakdiya Medura, No. 35, Pelawatta Battaramulla. 4. K. Hettiarachchi 5. K.D. Gamini Gunaratne 6. N.P. Thibbotumunuwa 7. Dr. P.G. Mahipala 8. A.K. Seneviratne 9. P. Sanath Panawennage 4th to 9th All of National Water Supply & Drainage Board, Galle Road, Ratmalana. 10. M.P. Fernando No. 118/36, Uyana Road, Uyana, Moratuwa. 11. K.A.D.S. Nanayakkara No. 59, Kanduboda, Delgoda. 12. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General\'s Department Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep PC J			Download
2014-11-18	SC/APPEAL/153/2010	Paradeniyalage Andirisa, Kudapallegama, Mahapallegama. Plaintiff (Deceased) Paradeniyalage Gunapala, Kudapallegama, Mahapallegama. Substituted Plaintiff Vs. 1A. Paradeniyalage Jayaneris, 2A. Paradeniyalage Somapala, 3A. Paradeniyalage Sumanawathie 4A Paradeniyalage Anulawathie 5A. Hewayalage Jayantha Wimalasiri, All of Kudapallegama, Mahapallegama Substituted-Defendants And Between Paradeniyalage Gunapala, Kudapallegama, Mahapallegama. Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1A. Paradeniyalage Jayaneris, 2A. Paradeniyalage Somapala, 3A. Paradeniyalage Sumanawathie 4A Paradeniyalage Anulawathie 5A. Hewayalage Jayantha Wimalasiri, All of Kudapallegama, Mahapallegama Substituted-Defendant-Respondents And Now Between Paradeniyalage Gunapala, Kudapallegama, Mahapallegama. Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1A. Paradeniyalage Jayaneris, 2A. Paradeniyalage Somapala, 3A. Paradeniyalage Sumanawathie 4A Paradeniyalage Anulawathie 5A. Hewayalage Jayantha Wimalasiri, All of Kudapallegama, Mahapallegama Substitute View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera PC J			Download
2014-10-29	SC/APPEAL/130/2012	1. Edirisinghe Pedige Jayasinge, 2. Edirisinghe Pedige Thilakarathne, Both of Keraminiya, Horampella. Plaintiffs Vs. 1. Edirisinghe Pedige Mangalasena Edirisinghe, 1A. Heenmenike Jayasundara, No. 147/B, Keraminiya, Horampella. 2. Edirisinghe Pedige Somasiri, 3. Noiyya, more correctly Malhinnage Premawathie, 4. Edirisinghe Pedige Lal Premasiri, more correctly Lal Premasiri Edirisinghe, all of Keraminiya, Horampella. 5. Edirisinghe Pedige Sunithra Kanthi, Keraminiya, Bodhipihitiwela, Horampella. 6. Ramanayake Pedige Asilin, Keraminiya, Horampella. Defendants 1. Edirisinghe Pedige Jayasinge, 2. Edirisinghe Pedige Thilakarathne, (deceased), both of Keraminiya, Horampella. 2A. Edirisinghe Pathiranage Chamari Dushanthi Edirisinghe, all of Keraminiya, Horampella. Plaintiff-Petitioners Vs. 1. Edirisinghe Pedige Mangalasena Edirisinghe, (deceased) 1A. Heenmenike Jayasundara, No. 147/B, Keraminiya, Horampella. 2. Edirisinghe Pedige Somasiri, 3. Noiyya, more correctly Malhinnage Premawathie, 4. Edirisinghe Pedige Lal P View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera PC J			Download
2014-10-29	SC/TAB/01A/2014-01F/2014	1. Andrawas Patabendi Ganendra de Vaas Gunawardena 2. Bamunusinghe Arachchige Lakmina Indika Bamunusinghe 3. Athapaththuge Gamini Sanathchandra 4. Anantha Pathiranage Priyantha Sanjeewa 5. Dissan ayake Mudiyanselage Kelum Rangana Dissanayake 6. Andrawas Patabendi Ravindu Sameera de Vass Gunawardena Presently at Remand Prison, Welikada. 1 st 6 th Accused Appellants - Vs The Hon. Attorney General Attorney General\'s Dep artment, Colombo 12. Complainant Respondent View More	HON. MOHAN PIERIS PC CJ			Download
2014-10-28	SC/APPEAL/134/2013	Abusali Sithi Fareeda, No. 74, Anguruwella Road, Warakapola. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Mohamed Noor, 2. Mohamed Farook, Both of No. 76, Anguruwella Road, Warakapola. Defendants And Between Abusali Sithi Fareeda, No. 74, Anguruwella Road, Warakapola. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 3. Mohamed Noor, 4. Mohamed Farook, Both of No. 76, Anguruwella Road, Warakapola. Defendant-Respondents And Now Between Abusali Sithi Fareeda, No. 74, Anguruwella Road, Warakapola. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 5. Mohamed Noor, 6. Mohamed Farook, Both of No. 76, Anguruwella Road, Warakapola. Defendant-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera PC J			Download
2014-10-24	SC/HCLA/58/2012	Board of Investment of Sri Lanka World Trade Centre, West Tower, 15-17 Floors, Echelon Square, Colombo 1. RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs Million Garments (Pvt) Ltd, No. 14/7, Saparamadu Mawatha, Nugegoda. At present Head Office situated at:- A/14/2/3/, Matha Para, Narahenpita. PETITIONER-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof PC J			Download
2014-10-24	SC/HCLA/42/2013	Munasinghege Don Eranga Indrajith 105/4, 1st Lane Parakrama Mawatha Thalahena, Malabe. Plaintiff-Petitioner Vs. George Steuart Finance Limited “City Office” No. 15, Station Road Colombo 03. Defendant-Respondent View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep PC J			Download
2014-10-17	SC/APPEAL/123/2010	Balasinghe Pedige Wilson 7th Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs Nilgal Pedige Kusumawathi Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent-Respondent 1. Balasinghe Pedige Babiya (Deceased) 1a. Balasinghe Pedige Wilbert 2. Balasinghe Pedige Edwin 3. Balasinghe Pedige Wilbert 4. Balasinghe Pedige Anulawathi 5. Balasinghe Pedige Jayamanna 6. Balasinghe Pedige Nalini Jayamanna 7. Balasinghe Pedige Wilson 8. Sinhala Pedige Pesona 9. Balasinghe Pedige Swarna 10. Chandrasiri Pathiranage Keerthiratne Defendant-Respondent-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J			Download
2014-10-17	SC/APPEAL/143/2013	Fritzroy Clarance De Seram Plaintiff Vs Dehiwela Mount Lavinia Municipal Council Defendant AND BETWEEN Dehiwela Mount Lavinia Municipal Council Defendant-Appellant Vs Fritzroy Clarance De Seram Plaintiff-Respondent AND BETWEEN Dehiwela Mount Lavinia Municipal Council Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner Vs Fritzroy Clarance De Seram Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Dehiwela Mount Lavinia Municipal Council Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs Fritzroy Clarance De Seram Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J			Download
2014-10-17	SC/APPEAL/83/2012	Rygamage Dona Kamalawathie Diwrumpola, Godakawela. Plaintiff Vs. Godakawela Kankanamge Sirisena No. 17, Diwrumpola, Godakawela. Defendants And Rygamage Dona Kamalawathie Diwrumpola, Godakawela. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. Godakawela Kankanamge Sirisena No. 17, Diwrumpola, Godakawela. Defendant-Respondent And Now Between Rygamage Dona Kamalawathie Diwrumpola, Godakawela. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Godakawela Kankanamge Sirisena No. 17, Diwrumpola, Godakawela. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera PC J			Download
2014-10-03	SC/CHC APPEAL/28/2009	G P de Silva & Sons International (Pvt) Limited Plaintiff Vs Union Assurance Limited Defendant And now Between G P de Silva & Sons International (Pvt) Limited Plaintiff-Appellant Vs Union Assurance Limited Defendant-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J			Download
2014-10-03	SC/APPEAL/6/2013	Hiriyadeniya Karunarathna Ananda Athapattu Mudali 3rd Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs Abeykoon Mayadunnage Isuru Udayantha Abeykoon Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent-Respondent Abeykoon Mayadunnage Somapala Abeykoon 1st Defendant-Appellant-Respondent-Respondent Abeykoon Mayadunnage Gnanalatha Abeykoon Defendant-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J De Abrew J			Download
2014-10-03	SC/FR/73/2012	Natasha Dulmi Hewagama, ‘Vikumsiri’, Gurukanda, Kathaluwa, Ahangama. Petitioner Vs. 1. Secretary, Ministry of Higher Education, No. 18, Ward Place, Colombo 07. 2. Chairman, No. 20, Ward Place, Colombo 07. 3. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera PC J			Download
2014-10-03	SC/FR/74/2012	H. W. Rajitha Udakara Sampath, 316G, Bajjagodawatta, Hayley Road, Aththiligoda, Galle. Vs. 1. Secretary, Ministry of Higher Education, No. 18, Ward Place, Colombo 07. 2. Chairman, No. 20, Ward Place, Colombo 07. 3. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\\\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera PC J			Download
2014-09-29	SC/APPEAL/104/2008	K.H.M.S. Bandara No. 46, Circular Road, Malkaduwawa, Kurunegala. Petitioner Vs. 1. Air Marshal G.D. Perera, Commander of the Sri Lanka Air Force, Air Force Headquarters, Katunayake. 2. Group Captain K.A. Gunatilleke, Base Commander, Sri Lanka Air Force Base, Katunayake. 3. Wing Commander Prakash Gunasekera, Commanding Officer- 14th Battalion, Sri Lanka Air Force Base, Katunayake. 4. Wing Commander P.R. Perera Sri Lanka Air Force Base, Katunayake. 5. Mr. Ashoka Jayawardane, Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Colombo. 6. Hon. The Attorney General Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents. And Now Between 1. Air Marshal G.D. Perera, Commander of the Sri Lanka Air Force, Air Force Headquarters, Katunayake. 2. Group Captain K.A. Gunatilleke, Base Commander, Sri Lanka Air Force Base, Katunayake. 3. Wing Commander Prakash Gunasekera, Commanding Officer- 14th Battalion, Sri Lanka Air Force Base, Katunayake. 4. Wing Commander P.R. Perera Sri Lanka Air Force Base, Katunayake. 5. Mr. Ashoka Jayawardane, Secret View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera PC J			Download
2014-09-29	SC/CHC APPEAL/19/2009	Adamjee Lukmanjee & Sons Limited, No. 140, Grandpass Road, Colombo 14. Plaintiff Vs. Samarasinghe Arachchige Premasiri, No. 28/18, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Suwarapola, Piliyandala. Defendant And In the matter of an application under Section 839 read with Section 218 and 343 of the Civil Procedure Code. Samarasinghe Arachchige Premasiri, No. 28/18, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Suwarapola, Piliyandala. Defendant-Judgment-Debtor-Petitioner Vs. 1. Adamjee Lukmanjee & Sons Ltd. No. 140, Grandpass Road, Colombo 14. Plaintiff-Judgment-Creditor-Respondent 2. Hatton National Bank, HNB Towers, No. 479, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. Respondent And In the matter of an application under Section 298 and Section 300 of the Civil Procedure Code. Adamjee Lukmanjee & Sons Limited, No. 140, Grandpass Road, Colombo 14. Plaintiff-Petitioner Vs. Samarasinghe Arachchige Premasiri, No. 28/18, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Suwarapola, Piliyandala. Defendant-Respondent And Now In the matter of an application for Special Leave to Appeal under Article 1 View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera PC J			Download
2014-09-29	SC/CHC APPEAL/41/2014	ARPICO FINANCE COMPANY PLC. 146, Havelock Road, Colombo-05. Plaintiff Vs. RICHARD PIERIS ARPICO FINANCE LIMITED. 310, High Level Road, Nawinna, Maharagama. Defendant AND NOW In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal under and in terms of Section 5 (2) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 10 of 1996 read together with Chapter LVIII of the Civil Procedure Code. RICHARD PIERIS ARPICO FINANCE LIMITED 310, High Level Road, Nawinna, Maharagama. Defendant-Petitioner View More	Hon. Aluwihare PC J			Download
2014-09-25	SC/HC CALA/137/2012	1. Kumarapatti Pathrannehelage Namal Rohitha Peiris, No. 320, Thalawathugoda Road, Madiwela, Kotte. 2 Kumarapatti Pathrannehelage Sunil Jackson Peiris, No. 320, Thalawathugoda Road, Madiwela, Kotte. Defendants-Petitioners-Petitioners Vs. Kumarapatti Pathiranalage Freeda Doreen Peiris, (After marriage Gunathilaka), No. 117/4, Thalapathpitiya Road, Udahamulla, Nugegoda. Present Address: No. 06, Albert Place, Hopperskrosin, Victoria, Australia. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. K. SRIPAVAN J			Download
2014-09-18	SC/FR/27/2011	1. Kariyawasam Widanarachilage Gathidu Ugeeshwara Perera, No. 80/1, 12176, (T20) Kassapa Road, Colombo 05. 2. Kariyawasam Widanarachilage Dimuthu Sanjeewa Perera, No. 80/1, 12176, (T20) Kassapa Road, Colombo 05. Petitioners Vs. 1. Upali Gunasekera, Principal, Royal College, Colombo 07. 2 Director National Schools Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 3. Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 4. Honourable Attorney-General, Department of Attorney General, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. K. Sripavan J			Download
2014-09-18	SC/FR/457/2012	1. Sujeewa Arjune Senasinghe, No. 03, Chelsea Gardens, Colombo 03. Petitioner Vs. 1. Ajith Nivard Cabraal, Governor, Member, Monetary Board, Central Bank of Sri Lanka, No. 30, Janadhipathy Mawatha, Colombo 1. 2 Monetary Board of the Central Bank No. 30, Janadhipathy Mawatha, Colombo 1. 3. P.B. Jayasundera, Secretary, Ministry of Finance, No. 30, Janadhipathy Mawatha, Colombo 1. 4. Nimal Welgama, Member, Monetary Board, No. 30, Janadhipathy Mawatha, Colombo 5. Mrs. Mano Ramanathan, Member, Monetary Board, No. 30, Janadhipathy Mawatha, Colombo 1. 6. N.A. Umagiliya, Member, Monetary Board, No. 30, Janadhipathy Mawatha, Colombo 1. 7. Hon. Sarath Amunugama, Minister of International Monetary Cooperation, No. 50/1, Siripa Road, Colombo 05. 8. H.A.S. Samaraweera, Auditor General, Auditor General\'s Department, 306/72, Polduwa Road, Battaramulla. 9. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. K. Sripavan J			Download
2014-09-11	SC/FR/261/2013	Alagaratnam Manoranjan 22/1, Racca Lane, Racca Road, Chandukuli, Jaffna. Petitioner Vs. 1. Hon. G.A. Chandrasiri Governor, Northern Province, Governor\'s Secretariat, Old Park, Kandy Road, Chundukuli, Jaffna. 2. Ms. R. Wijialudchumi Chief Secretary, Chief Secretary\'s Secretariat, Northern Province Council, 187, Adiyapatham Road, Thirunelvely, Jaffna. 3. Dr. Dayasiri Fernando, Chairman 4. Mr. Palitha Kumarasinghe, PC. Member. 5. Mrs. Sirimavo A. Wijeratne Member 6. Mr. S.C. Mannapperuma Member 7. Mr. Ananda Seneviratne Member 8. Mr. N.H. Pathirana Member 9. Mr. Thillai Nadarajah Member 10. Mr. D.W. Ariyawansa Member 11. Mr. Mohamed Nahiya Member All of Public Service Commission 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 12. The Hon. Auditor General 306/72, Polduwa Road, Battaramulla. 13. Secretary to the Treasury, and Secretary to the Ministry of Finance and Planning, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 14. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents. 15. Hon. Justice C.V. Vigneswaran C View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera PC J			Download
2014-09-11	SC/APPEAL/150/2012	Wanakkuwatta Waduge Nirosh Priyasad Fernando. “Swarna”, Swarnajothi Mawatha, Thanthirimulla, Panadura. Plaintiff-Respondent- Petitioner Vs. 1. Subramaniam Indrajith, No. 26, Thissa Mawatha, Horethuduwa, Panadura. 2. H. Jagath Jayalal Fernando, 37/30, Edward Benadict Mw, Horethuduwa, Panadura. Defendant-Appellant- Respondents. View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera PC J			Download
2014-09-10	SC/APPEAL/85/2011	Sarath Dharma Siri Bandara, No. 86, Hewaheta Road, Galaha. Petitioner Vs. 1. Sarath Ekanayake, Chief Minister and the Minister in Charge of the Local Authorities-Central Province, No. 126, Secretarial Office, Kandy. 2. Pradeshiya Sabha Pathahewaheta, Thalathu Oya. 3. Abubakar Mohomadu Subuhan, Acting Chairman, Pradeshiya Sabha Pathahewaheta, Thalathu Oya. 4. Election Officer- Pathahewaheta, Election Office, Kandy. 5. Gamini S. Wathegedara, Inquiring Officer, No. 4, 3rd Lane, Right Circular Road, Kurunegala. Respondents And Now Between Sarath Ekanayake, Chief Minister and the Minister in Charge of the Local Authorities-Central Province, No. 126, Secretarial Office, Kandy. Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Sarath Dharma Siri Bandara, No. 86, Hewaheta Road, Galaha. Petitioner-Respondent 1. Pradeshiya Sabha Pathahewaheta, Thalathu Oya. 2. Abubakar Mohomadu Subuhan, Acting Chairman, Pradeshiya Sabha Pathahewaheta, Thalathu Oya. 3. Election Officer- Pathahewaheta, Election Office, Kandy. 4. Gamini S. Wat View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera PC J			Download
2014-09-05	SC/CHC APPEAL/19/2008	Lanka Kect (Pvt) Limited Plaintiff Vs 1. DA Wickramasinghe, Director Buildings, Buildings Department, Battaramulla. 2. Secretary. Ministry of Public Administration and Reforms 3. The Attorney General Defendants And now Between 1. DA Wickramasinghe, Director Buildings, Buildings Department, Battaramulla. 2. The Attorney General Defendant-Appellants Vs Lanka Kect (Pvt) Limited Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J de Abrew J			Download
2014-09-04	SC/HCLA/2/2014	Senok Trade Combine Ltd., No.03, R.A. de Mel Mawatha Colombo-05. Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. K.H.S. Pushpadeva, No.233/33, Mahawatta Road, Colombo-14. Applicant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Aluwihare PC J			Download
2014-09-03	SC/SPL LA/258/2013	1. M. Kanagaratnam, Sri Bhadra Kali Amman Kovil, Munneswaram, Chilaw 7th Respondent-Petitioner 2. Kalimuttu Sivapathasunderam, Sri Bhadra Kali Amman Kovil, Munneswaram, Chilaw 8th Respondent-Petitioner 3. Mahendrasamy, Sri Bhadra Kali Amman Kovil, Munneswaram, Chilaw 9th Respondent-Petitioner Vs. 1. Sri Bodhiraja Foundation, Sri Bodhiraja Dhamayathanaya, Embilipitiya 2. Jathika Sangha Sammelanaya, Jathyanthara Thorathuru Saha Dharma Paryeshayathanaya, Gothami Mawatha, Rajagiriya. 3. Olcott Gunasekara, President, Dharmavijaya Foundation, No. 380/7, Sarana Road, Colombo 7 4. Ven. Bandirippuwe Vineetha Thero, Thuparamaya, Bandirippuwa, Lunuwila 5. Iragani de Silva, Chairperson- Animal Welfare Trust, No. 93/20, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 8 6. Vishaka Tillekarathne, Trustee, Animal Welfare Trust, No. 73/2, Kirulapone Avenue, Colombo 5 7. Lorraine Margueritte Bartholomeusz, Vice President Sri Lanka Animal Protection Association, No. 5/3, Sulaiman Terrace, Colombo 5 8. Sharmini Desiree Ratnayake, Secretary, Sri Lan View More	HON. MOHAN PIERIS PC CJ			Download
2014-09-03	SC/FR/24/2013	Kalidasage Roshan Chaminda Wijewardhana, No. 179/9, Udupila, Delgoda. Petitioner Vs. 1. Kurunegala Plantations Limited, No. 80, Dambulla Road, Kurunegala. 2. S.K. Nillegoda, Chief Executive Officer, Kurunegala Plantations Limited, No. 80, Dambulla Road, Kurunegala 3. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera PC J			Download
2014-09-01	SC/APPEAL/41/2013	Hewage Don Piyasena Owitigala, Matugama. Plaintiff Vs. Karunasena Hathurusinghe, Rannagala, Naboda, Matugama. Defendant And Between Karunasena Hathurusinghe, Rannagala, Naboda, Matugama. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Hewage Don Piyasena Owitigala, Matugama. Plaintiff-Respondent (Deceased) a. Hewage Don Aruna Nishantha, No. 35, Sirikandura Road, Badugama, Matugama. b. Yakdehige Dona Somawathie, No. 35, Sirikandura Road, Badugama, Matugama. c. Hewage Don Lalith Susantha, No. 34, Sirikandura Road, Badugama, Matugama. d. Hewage Don Sandya Malkanthi, Owitigala, Matugama. e. Hewage Don Nayana Priyantha No. 34, Sirikandura Road, Badugama, Matugama. f. Hewage Don Yamuna Irangani, No. 34, Near Police Station, Baduraliya. g. Hewage Dona Ganga Priyanthi, No. 35, Sirikandura Road, Badugama, Matugama. h. Hewage Don Sanjeeva Prasanna, No. 35, Sirikandura Road, Badugama, Matugama. i. Hewage Don Sujeewa Nilantha, No. 35, Sirikandura Road, Badugama, Matugama. Substituted-Plaintiff-Respondents of Deceased Plaintiff-Respondent And a. H View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera PC J			Download
2014-09-01	SC/FR/79/2014	Muthuwa Sarukkalige Ranjith de Silva Petitioner Vs 1. Sumith Parakramawansa Principal, Dharmashoka College, Ambalangoda 2. Ravindra Pushpakumara 3. A.W. Sriyani Chandrika 4. N.H. Eranga Indralal 5. K. Indunil de Silva All members of the Interview Board for Admission to Year 1- 2014 Dharmashoka Vidyalaya, Ambalangoda 6. K.P. Wijerathne 7. Nuwan Dayantha de Silva 8. Dev Rohan 9. K.D. Lalith Ravindra All members of the Appeal Board for Admission to Year 1- 2014 Dharmashoka Vidyalaya, Ambalangoda 10. Hon. Bandula Gunawardene Minister of Education. 11. Anura Dissanayake. Secretary, Ministry of Education. 12. Hon. Attorney General Respondents View More	Hon. Sisira J de Abrew J			Download
2014-08-04	SC/FR/82/2014	Wijialudchumi Ramesh No.84, Chetty Street, Nallur, Jaffna. Petitioner Vs. 1. Justice C.V. Wigneswaran Chief Minister Northern Provincial Council, No.125, Temple Road, Jaffna. & 13 Others. Respondents View More	HON. MOHAN PIERIS PC CJ			Download
2014-07-30	SC/APPEAL/14/2013	Hettimudiyanselage Nani Wijesiri Somalatha Menike Applicant Vs Dalugama Multi Purpose Cooperative Society Ltd. Respondent And Hettimudiyanselage Nani Wijesiri Somalatha Menike Applicant-Appellant Vs Dalugama Multi Purpose Cooperative Society Ltd. Respondent-Respondent And Hettimudiyanselage Nani Wijesiri Somalatha Menike Applicant-Appellant-Petitioner Vs Dalugama Multi Purpose Cooperative Society Ltd. Respondent-Respondent-Respondent Now Between Hettimudiyanselage Nani Wijesiri Somalatha Menike Applicant-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs Dalugama Multi Purpose Cooperative Society Ltd. Respondent-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sisira J de Abrew J			Download
2014-07-17	SC/CHC APPEAL/37/2013	Ranjith Wagaarachchi, No. 246, Thissa Road, Wali Ara, Netolpitiya. PLAINTIFF Vs Union Assurance P.L.C Union Assurance Centre No. 20, St. Michal Road, Colombo 03. DEFENDANT AND NOW BETWEEN Ranjith Wagaarachchi No. 246, Thissa Road, Wali Ara, Netolpitiya. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER Union Assurance P.L.C Union Assurance Centre No. 20, St. Michal Road, Colombo-03. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT View More	HON. ALUWIHARE PC J			Download
2014-07-17	SC/SPL LA/229/2011	Dassanayake Mudiyanselage Ranbanda, “Dharshana” Narammala Road Wadha Kada Applicant-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. People\'s Bank P.O. Box 728 Colombo 02 Respondent-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep PC J			Download
2014-07-11	SC/APPEAL/79/2009	Gusthinggna Waduge Somasiri No. B/14, Jayanthipura-Yaya 11 Accused-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General\'s Department Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep PC J			Download
2014-07-10	SC/APPEAL/99/2012	The British High Commission, No. 389, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. Respondent-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Ricardo Wilhelm Michael Jansen No. 62, Perakumba Mawatha Kolonnawa. Applicant-Appellant-Respondent View More	HON. MOHAN PIERIS PC CJ			Download
2014-05-16	SC/APPEAL/23A/2009	Arumabadadurage Ariyaratne, Bolhinda, Weragama, Ambalantota. Accused Appellant Petitioner Vs Honourable Attorney General, Colombo 12 Respondent View More	Hon. K. Sripavan, J			Download
2014-05-13	SC/APPEAL/3/2011	W. Suvinipala, No. 83, Bandaranayake Mawatha, Matugama. Applicant Vs. The People\'s Bank, Head Office, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Respondent And Between W. Suvinipala, No. 83, Bandaranayake Mawatha, Matugama. Applicant-Appellant Vs. The People\'s Bank, Head Office, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Respondent-Respondent And Now Between The People\'s Bank, Head Office, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera, PC. J.			Download
2014-05-09	SC/FR/308/2013	Dr. Vickrambahu Karunarathne, 17, Barrack Lane, Colombo 02. Petitioner Vs 1. Prof. A. Senaratne Vice-Chancellor Ex-Officio Members – Council of the University of Peradeniya & 26 Others View More	Hon. K. Sripavan, J.			Download
2014-04-04	SC/APPEAL/157/2011	Warnakulasuriyage Charlert, Kusumawathi Kulasuriya, Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Don Wimal Harischandra Gunathilaka 27, Circular Road, Wadduwa. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Shiranee Tilakawardane, J.			Download
2014-04-04	SC/APPEAL/40/2010	Associated Motorways PLC, Registration No. PQ 16, No. 185, Union Place, Colombo 02. Petitioner-Petitioner Vs. 1. The Commissioner General of Inland Revenue, Inland Revenue Building, P.O. Box No. 515, Sir Chittampalam A, Gardinier Mawatha, Colombo 02. 2. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\\\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Shiranee Tilakawardane, J.			Download
2014-04-04	SC/APPEAL/126/2012	Amaradasa Liyanage, Kosmodara Ihalawatte, Kotapola, Carrying on business as a sole proprietor under the name and style of “Kosmodara Tea Factory”. Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Sampath Bank PLC, No. 11, Sir James Pieris Mawatha, Colombo 02. Petitioner-Petitioner-Respondent View More	Hon. Tilakawardane, J.			Download
2014-04-04	SC/APPEAL/178/2011	1. Kodithuwakku Arachchige Dayawathie 2. Kodithuwakku Arachchige Dayarathne Both of No. 119/1 Saranankara Road Kalubowila Dehiwala The Defendants-Appellants-Appellants Vs Pattiayage Iranganie Sirisena of No. 15/4, Sudharshana Road Dehiwala The Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep, PC, J			Download
2014-04-04	SC/APPEAL/45/2011	A. Arangallage No. 3/3, Rajakeeya Mawatha, Colombo 7. Plaintiff-Petitioner-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Pauline Herath No. 24B, Alfred Place, Colombo 3. 2. Bank of Ceylon Bank of Ceylon Building, No. 4, Lanka Banku Mawatha, Colombo 1. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Shiranee Tilakawardane, J.			Download
2014-04-02	SC/APPEAL/39/2011	1. Dissanayake Rallage Ranasingha Karuppattiya, Nelundeniya 2. Dissanayake Rallage Wijesinghe Karuppattiya, Warakapola 1st and 3rd Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Officer-in-Charge Police Station, Warakapola Complainant 1st Respondent-Respondent 2. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General's Department Colombo 12. 2nd Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep, PC, J			Download
2014-04-02	SC/APPEAL/92/2011	S.A.D.T. Jayathilaka 25, Alehiwatta Road Welisara, Ragama. Presently residing at 90/2, Palliyawatte, Hendala, Wattala. Applicant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs 1. People's Bank, 2. General Manager, 3. Chief Manager-Human Resources, 4. Assistant General Manager-Human Resources, 5. Chief Manager-Audit All of People's Bank No. 75, Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha Colombo 02. Respondent-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep, PC. J			Download
2014-04-02	SC/TAB/2/2012	1. W.M.M. Kumarihami, Chief Registrar, High Court, Colombo 12. Complainant Vs. 1. Galagamage Indrawansa Kumarasiri, 2. Thumbedura Vitty Newton, 3. Jayaratnage Dhammika Nihal Jayaratne, 4. Godapitiyawatte Arachchilage Janapriya Senaratne, Accused And now between 1. Galagamage Indrawansa Kumarasiri, 2. Thumbedura Vitty Newton, 3. Jayaratnage Dhammika Nihal Jayaratne, 4. Godapitiyawatte Arachchilage Janapriya Senaratne, Accused-Appellants Vs. 1. W.M.M. Kumarihamy, Chief Registrar, Colombo. 2. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Shiranee Tilakawardane, J.			Download
2014-03-31	SC/APPEAL/199/2011	1. Meerasaibo Mahamed Haniffa of Division No. 15, Ninthavur. 2. Meerasaibo Ummul Hair of Division No. 16, Ninthavur. 3. Meerasaibo Ummu Sellam of Division No. 16, Ninthavur. 4. Meerasaibo Jamal Mohamed of Division No. 14, Ninthavur. 5. Meerasaibo Atham of Division 2, Ninthavur. 6. Meerasaibo Sithy Faiza of Division No. 3, Ninthavur. 7. Meerasaibo Sara of Division No. 3, Ninthavur. 2nd to 8th Substituted-Defendants-Appellants-Petitioners-Petitioners Vs. Athambawa Mohamed Idroos of Division No. 3, Ninthavur. Substituted-Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera, PC.J.			Download
2014-03-31	SC/APPEAL/87/2010	1. Sangarapillai Navaratnarajavel 2. Wife Kangadevi Both of Puttur East, Puttur. Plaintiffs Vs. 1. Kandiah Naganathan 2. Wife Baskaradevi, Both of Punkadi, Puloli South, Puloli. 3. Arunasalam Varnadevid 4. Wife Santhanayaki 5. Jesudasan Santhirabose All three of Selvavalavu, Chunnakam. Defendants View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera, PC. J.			Download
2014-03-28	SC/FR/277/2009	1. B.V.M.W. Kumarasiri, No. 105/1, Egodawatta, Bellana. & 15 others Petitioners Vs. 1. M.M.N.D. Bandara, Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. & 13 others Respondents, Added Respondents View More	Hon. K. Sripavan, J.			Download
2014-03-27	SC/FR/64/2009	1. S.A.W. de Silva “Kusum”, Etholuwa Meetiyagoda, Ambalangoda and 59 Others PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Saliya W. Mathew, Chairman and 21 others RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Chandra Ekanayake, J.			Download
2014-03-27	SC/CHC APPEAL/54/2007	Ambewela Livestock Co. Ltd. Ambewela Farm, Ambewela. Plaintiff Vs. Sri Lanka Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. Markfed, Co-operative Square, 127, Grandpass, Colombo 14. Defendant And Sri Lanka Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. Markfed, Co-operative Square, 127, Gandpass, Colombo 14. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Ambewela Livestock Co. Ltd. Ambewela Farm, Ambewela. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Chandra Ekanayake, J			Download
2014-03-26	SC/SPL LA/169/2013	Wewalwalahewage Hemantha Ariya Kumara No. 63/B “Wasana” Tower Side City, Kandawala, Katana. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Kaluappu Kankanamalage Dona Bernadeth Yamuna Rani Karunarathne, of No. 31/4, Temple Road, Negombo Plaintiff-Petitioner-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep, PC., J			Download
2014-03-26	SC/HCLA/68/2012	Wajira Prabath Wanasinghe, No. 120/1, Balagalla, Diwulapitiya. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER Vs Janashakthi Insurance Company Limited, No. 47, Muttiah Road, Colombo 02. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof, J			Download
2014-03-26	SC/FR/524/2008	Dr. P.W.S.M. Samarasinghe, No. 6, Sarasavi Mawatha, Department of Agriculture Quarters, Peradeniya. PETITIONER Vs Justice Priyantha Perera, Former Chairman, Public Service Commission, No. 1777, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. And Others RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof, PC., J			Download
2014-03-26	SC/APPEAL/70/2010	Subramaniam Sivapalanathan No. 115 Kotahena Road, Colombo 13. Currently of No. 285 Mahawatte Road Colombo 14. Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. The Attorney General Attorney General's Department Colombo 12 2. The Officer-in-Charge Police Station Kotahena Respondent-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep, PC, J			Download
2014-03-25	SC/APPEAL/150/2010	DFCC Bank, No. 73/5, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 1ST RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs Weliwita Don Kusumitha Mudith Perera, No. 112, Sewagama, Polonnaruwa. PETITIONER-RESPONDENT 1. Mrs. Induni Karunananda, Attorney-at-Law, Legal Officer-DFCC Bank, No. 73/5, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 2. A.N. Fonseka, General Manager-DFCC Bank, No. 73/5, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 3. Sewagama Rice Products (Pvt) Ltd, No. 112, Sewagama, Polonnaruwa. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof, J.			Download
2014-03-25	SC/APPEAL/93A/2011	Kapila Warnasooriya No. 285/2, Idama, Moratuwa. (Acting through Attorney holder Patabendi Mahakariyakarawanage Rahal Warnasooriya of the same address) Plaintiff Vs. Dayawathi Sellahewa No. 13/2, Mendis Lane, Idama, Moratuwa. Defendant And Dayawathi Sellahewa No. 13/2, Mendis Lane, Idama, Moratuwa. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Kapila Warnasooriya No. 285/2, Idama, Moratuwa. (Acting through Attorney holder Patabendi Mahakariyakarawanage Rahal Warnasooriya of the same address) Plaintiff-Respondent And Dayawathi Sellahewa No. 13/2, Mendis Lane, Idama, Moratuwa. Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Kapila Warnasooriya No. 285/2, Idama, Moratuwa. (Acting through Attorney holder Patabendi Mahakariyakarawanage Rahal Warnasooriya of the same address) Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera, PC. J.			Download
2014-03-25	SC/APPEAL/11/2011	International Water Management Institute, No. 127, Sunil Mawatha, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Kithsiri Jayakody, No. 250, Gemunu Mawatha, Kotuwegoda, Rajagiriya. Applicant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof, PC., J.			Download
2014-03-24	SC/APPEAL/114/2013	Sumudu Kantha Hewage, No. 38/7, Pokuna Road, Oruthota, Gampaha. INTERVENIENT-PETITIONER-PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs Dr. Upathissa Atapattu Bandaranayake Wasala Mudiyanse Ralahamilage Shirani Anshumala Bandaranayake. Residence of the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka No. 129, Wijerema Mawatha, Colombo 07. Presently at: No. 170, Lake Drive, Colombo 08. PETITIONER-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT Vs 1. Chamal Rajapakse, Speaker of Parliament, Parliament of Sri Lanka, Sri Jayawardenepura, Kotte. 2. Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, Eeriyagolla, Yakawita. 3. Nimal Siripala de Silva, No. 93/20, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 08. 4. A. D. Susil Premajayantha, No. 123/1, Station Road, Gangodawila, Nugegoda. 5. Rajitha Senaratne, CD 85, Gregory\'s Road, Colombo 07. 6. Wimal Weerawansa, No. 18, Rodney Place, Cotta Road, Colombo 08. 7. Dilan Perera, No. 30, Bandaranayake Mawatha, Badulla. 8. Neomal Perera, No. 3/3, Rockwood Place, Colombo 07. 9. Lakshman Kiriella, No. 121/1, Pahalawela Road, Palawatta, Battaramulla. 10. John Amaratunga, No. 88, Negambo Road, Kandana View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof, J.			Download
2014-03-24	SC/FR/665/2012, SC/FR/666/2012, SC/FR/667/2012, SC/FR/672/2012	1. Athula Chandraguptha Thenuwara, 60/3A, 9th Lane, EthulKotte. (Petitioner in SC Application 665/12 [FR]) 2. Janaka Adikari Palugaswewa, Perimiyankulama, Anuradhapaura. (Petitioner in SC Application 666/12 [FR]) 3. Mahinda Jayasinghe, 12/2, Weera Mawatha, Subhuthipura, Battaramulla. (Petitioner in SC Application 667/12 [FR]) 4. Wijedasa Rajapakshe, Presidents’ Counsel, The President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka. (1st Petitioner in SC Application 672/12 [FR]) 5. Sanjaya Gamage, Attorney-at-Law The Secretary of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka. (2nd Petitioner in SC Application 672/12 [FR]) 6. Rasika Dissanayake, Attorney-at-Law The Treasurer of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka. (3rd Petitioner in SC Application 672/12 [FR]) 7. Charith Galhena, Attorney-at-Law Assistant-Secretary of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka. (4th Petitioner in SC Application 672/12 [FR]) Petitioners Vs. 1. Chamal Rajapakse, Speaker of Parliament, Parliament of Sri Lanka, Sri Jayawardenepura Kotte. 2. Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, Eeriyagolla, Yakawita. 3. Nimal Siripala de Silva, No. 93/20, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 08. 4. A. D. Susil Premajayantha, No. 123/1, Station Road, Gangodawila, Nugegoda. 5. Rajitha Senaratne, CD 85, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 07. 6. Wimal Weerawansa, No. 18, Rodney Place, Cotta Road, Colombo 08. 7. Dilan Perera, No. 30, Bandaranayake Mawatha, Badulla. 8. Neomal Perera, No. 3/3, Rockwood Place, Colombo 07. 9. Lakshman Kiriella, No. 121/1, Pahalawela Road, Palawatta, Battaramulla. 10. John Amaratunga, No. 88, Negambo Road, Kandana. 11. Rajavarothiam Sampathan, No. 2D, Summit Flats, Keppitipola Road, Colombo 05. 12. Vijitha Herath, No. 44/3, Medawaththa Road, Mudungoda, Miriswaththa, Gampaha. 2nd – 12th Respondents Hon. Members of Parliament; Members of the Select Committee of Parliament appointed with regard to the Charges against the Chief Justice. 13. The Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. Respondents 1. Koggala Wellala Bandula, No. 67A, Kandy Road, Dalugala, Kelaniya. (Intervenient-Petitioner-Respondent in SC Application 665/12 [FR],666/12 [FR], 667/12[FR] and 672/12 [FR]) 2. Jayasooriya Alankarage Peter Nelson Perera, No. 22/51, Chamikara Cannel Road, Chilaw. (Intervenient-Petitioner-Respondent in SC Application 666/12 (FR) and 667/12 [FR]) 3. Arumapperuma Arachchige Sudima Chandani, No. 300/3, Kandy Road, Kirillawala, Webada. (Intervenient-Petitioner-Respondent in SC Application 672/12 [FR]) Intervenient – Petitioners – Respondents View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof PC J			Download
2014-03-24	SC/FR/23/2013	1. Centre for Policy Alternatives (Guarantee) Ltd., No. 24/2, 28th Lane, off Flower Road, Colombo 7. 2. Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, No. 03, Ascot Avenue, Colombo 5. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. D.M. Jayaratne, Prime Minister, Prime Minister’s Office, No. 58, Sir Ernest De Silva Mawatha, Colombo 7. 2. Chamal Rajapakse, Speaker of Parliament, Parliament of Sri Lanka, Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte. 3. Ranil Wickremasinghe, Leader of the Opposition, No. 115, 5th lane, Colombo 3. 4. A.H.M. Azwer, Member of Parliament, No. 4, Bhathiya Road, Dehiwala. 5. D.M. Swaminathan, Member of Parliament, No. 125, Rosmead Place, Colombo 7. 6. Mohan Pieris, President’s Counsel, No. 3/144, Kensey Road, Colombo 8. 7. The Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof PC J			Download
2014-03-21	SC/CHC APPEAL/39/2010	1. Nelka Rupasinghe alias Rupasinghe Arachchilage Nelka alias R.A. Nelka Nanayakkara Galgodawatta, Talduwa, Ahangama. SC/CHC/Appeal No. 39/2010 2. Ahangama Gamage Nandawathie Galgodawatta, Talduwa, Ahangama. 1st & 2nd Defendant- Appellants Vs. National Development Bank PLC Formerly of National Development Bank Limited, No. 40, Nawam Mawatha, Colombo 2. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Wanasundera PC J			Download
2014-03-20	SC/APPEAL/156/2010	The People’s Bank, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02 Petitioner-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Rosy Jayasuriya No. 39B, Delkada Road Matara Respondent-Petitioner-Respondent 1. Ajith Ranasinghe Kodituwakku Layland Florists Station Road Matara 2. Ekman Dalugoda No. 39B, Delkada Road Matara Respondents-Respondents-Respondents 4. H.M. Ariyapala No. 76, Rahula Road Matara 4A. H.H. Shiromani Mala No. 76, Rahula Road Matara Substituted –Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep PC J			Download
2014-03-17	SC/CHC APPEAL/19/2011	MOD TEC LANKA (PVT) LTD, No.7, Rajagiriya Udyanaya, Rajagiriya. Defendant-Appellant -Vs- FOREST GLEN HOTEL & SPA(PVT) LTD No.7, Wilson Street, Colombo-12. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	HON. TILAKAWARDANE J			Download
2014-03-07	SC/APPEAL/18B/2009	Terrace Clinton Percival Thirunayake No. 7/1, Menerigama Place, Mt. Lavinia. PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT PETITIONER -Vs- M. George Anthony Fernando No.220, Puttalam Road, Kurunegala. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT APPELLANT RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Sathyaa Hettige PC J			Download
2014-02-21	SC/APPEAL/67/2013	Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General's Department, Colombo 12. PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs Dr. Upathissa Atapattu Bandaranayake Wasala Mudiyanse Ralahamilage Shirani Anshumala Bandaranayake, Residence of the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka No. 129, Wijerema Mawatha, Colombo 07. Presently at: No. 170, Lake Drive, Colombo 08. PETITIONER-RESPONDENT 1. Chamal Rajapakse, Speaker of Parliament, Parliament of Sri Lanka, Sri Jayawardenepura, Kotte. 2. Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, Eeriyagolla, Yakawita. 3. Nimal Siripala de Silva, No. 93/20, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 08. 4. A. D. Susil Premajayantha, No. 123/1, Station Road, Gangodawila, Nugegoda. 5. Rajitha Senaratne, CD 85, Gregory's Road, Colombo 07. 6. Wimal Weerawansa, No. 18, Rodney Place, Cotta Road, Colombo 08. 7. Dilan Perera, No. 30, Bandaranayake Mawatha, Badulla. 8. Neomal Perera, No. 3/3, Rockwood Place, Colombo 07. 9. Lakshman Kiriella, No. 121/1, Pahalawela Road, Palawatta, Battaramulla. 10. John Amaratunga, No. 88, Negambo Road, Kandana. 11. Rajavarothiam Sampanthan View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof J.			Download
2014-02-18	SC/APPEAL/51/2011, SC/APPEAL/52/2011	Nurun Anberiya Hanifa, No. 10, 4th Lane, Rajagiriya. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Mahapatunage Thilak Perera, No. 45/12, Swarna Road, Colombo 6. 2. Weliweriya Tholka Mudalige Kulasiri [deceased], No. 1173, 3rd Maradana, Borella, Colombo 8. 2A. Muttettuwage Violet Perera, No. 24/4, Janatha Mawatha, Mirihana, Kotte. Defendants View More	Hon. Tilakawardane, J			Download
2014-02-18	SC/FR/555/2009	Herath Mudiyanselage Yohan Indika Herath, “Ambasevana”, Dummalasuriya. Petitioner Vs. 1. Ajith, Police Constable, Police Station, Dummalasuriya. 2. Ariyasena, Police Constable, Police Station, Dummalasuriya. 3. Jayamaha, Police Constable, Police Station, Dummalasuriya. 4. Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Dummalasuriya. 5. Assistant Superintendent of Police, Office of the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Kuliyapitiya. 6. Inspector General of Police, Sri Lanka Police Headquarters, Colombo 1. 7. Hon. the Attorney General, Department of Attorney General, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Tilakawardane J			Download
2014-02-12	SC/APPEAL/75/2010	Arattana Gedera Susiripala, No. 96, Senarathgama, Katugastota. PETITIONER Vs 1. Commissioner of Elections, Election Commission Department Kotte Road, Rajagiriya. 2. U. Amaradasa, Returning Officer, Harispattuwa Pradeshiya Sabhawa Secretariat Kandy. 3. Nalin Sanjiwa Kurunduwatte Harispattuwa Pradeshiya Sabha Tittapajjala, Werallagama. 4. Susil Premajayantha Secretary, United People\'s Freedom Alliance No. 301, T.B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10 RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Commissioner of Elections Election Commission Department Kotte Road, Rajagiriya 1st Respondent-Petitioner 2. U. Amaradasa Returning Officer, Harispattuwa Pradeshiya Sabhawa Secretariat, Kandy 2nd Respondent-Petitioner Vs 1. Arattana Gedera Susiripala, No. 96, Senarathgama, Katugastota. Petitioner-Respondent. 2. Nalin Sanjeewa Kurunduwatte, Harispatuwa Pradeshiya Sabha, Tittapajjala, Werallagama. 3rd Respondent-Respondent. 3. Susil Premajayantha, Secretary, United People\'s Independent Alliance, No. 301, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo-10. 4th Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Sathyaa Hettige P.C. J			Download
2014-02-06	SC/CHC APPEAL/27/2007	Central Finance Company Limited, 84, Raja Veediya, Kandy. Plaintiff Vs. Janatha Estate Development Board, 55/75, Vauxhall Street, Colombo-02. Defendant. And now In the matter of an appeal in terms of Section 754(1) of the Civil Procedure Code. Janatha Estate Development Board, 55/75, Vauxhall Street, Colombo-02. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Central Finance Company Limited, 84, Raja Veediya, Kandy. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Sathyaa Hettige PC J			Download
2014-01-30	SC/FR/308/2009	1. Janaka I. De A. Goonetileke, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Sri Lanka Police College, Elpitiya. & 21 others Petitioners Vs. 1. Neville Piyadigama, Chairman, National Police Commission & 3 Others Respondents View More	Hon. K. Sripavan, J.			Download
2014-01-23	SC/APPEAL/8/2011	The Incorporated Trustees of the Sathya Sai Baba Trust of Sri Lanka. Of No. 113, New Chetty Street, Colombo 13. Plaintiff Vs. Cine Printers Limited, No. 117, New Chetty Street, Colombo 13. Defendant And The Incorporated Trustees of the Sathya Sai Baba Trust of Sri Lanka. Of No. 113, New Chetty Street, Colombo 13. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. Cine Printers Limited, No. 117, New Chetty Street, Colombo 13. Defendant-Respondent And Now Between Cine Printers Limited, No. 117, New Chetty Street, Colombo 13. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. The Incorporated Trustees of the Sathya Sai Baba Trust of Sri Lanka. Of No. 113, New Chetty Street, Colombo 13. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Wanasundera, PC.J.			Download
2014-01-22	SC/APPEAL/172/2011	1. Herath Mudiyanselage Leelawathie Menike 2. Kotahawadige Don Wimalasena Both of Mahajana Dispensary, Buttala. Plaintiffs Vs. 1. Ananda Dharmasinghe Bandara, Kalyani Pedesa, Kelaniya. 2. Herath Mudiyanselage Heen Bandara Jambu Sameeraya, Kiridigala. Defendants And Between 1. Ananda Dharmasinghe Bandara, Kalyani Pedesa, Kelaniya. 2. Herath Mudiyanselage Heen Bandara Jambu Sameeraya, Kiridigala. Defendant-Appellants Vs. 1. Herath Mudiyanselage Leelawathie Menike 2. Kotahawadige Don Wimalasena Both of Mahajana Dispensary, Buttala. Plaintiff-Respondents And Now Between 1. Ananda Dharmasinghe Bandara, Kalyani Pedesa, Kelaniya. Presently At No. 565/2C, 15th Lane, Mahindu Mawatha, Athurugiriya Road, Malambe. 2. Herath Mudiyanselage Heen Bandara Jambu Sameeraya, Kiridigala. Defendant-Appellant-Appellants Vs. 1. Herath Mudiyanselage Leelawathie Menike 2. Kotahawadige Don Wimalasena Both of Mahajana Dispensary, Buttala. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Wanasundera, PC.J.			Download
2014-01-20	SC/FR/37/2013	1. Galabada Gamage Sunethra Arambawela. 2. Nihinsa Senuli Arambawela Both of 109/10, Fife Road, Colombo 5. Petitioners Vs. 1. Mrs. Dhammika C.A. Jayanetti Principal Sirimavo Bandaranaike Vidyalaya, Stanmore Crescent Colombo 7. 2. Mr. S.M. Gotabaya Jayaratne Secretary to the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 3. Hon. Bandula Gunawardhana (M.P.) Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 4. The Interview Board (on admissions to Grade 1, 2013), C/O, Sirimavo Bandaranaike Vidyalaya, Stanmore Crescent Colombo 7. 5. Mr. J.H.M.W. Ranjith 6. Ms. B.G.I. Kalani Hemali 7. Ms. A.D.M.P. Gunasekara 8. Mr. P. Wickremasinghe 9. Ms. Ranjana Perera All members of the Appeal Interview Board (on admissions to Grade 1, 2013) for Sirimavo Bandaranaike Vidyalaya, Stanmore Crescent Colombo 7. 10. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General\\\'s Department, Hulftsdorp Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Wanasundera, PC.J.			Download
2014-01-17	SC/APPEAL/14/2011	1. Hakkini Asela De Silva 2. Hakkini Asanga De Silva 3. Kirimadura Kumudu Gunawardene Accused-Appellants-Petitioners-Appellants Vs. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General's Department, Colombo 12 View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof, PC. J			Download
2014-01-17	SC/APPEAL/22/2013	1. Wickrama Arachchilage Shriyakanthi 2. Hewa Malavige David, Both of at C.S. 105, Thambala Road, Railroad Junction, Polonnaruwa. Plaintiffs Vs. E.R. Podi Nileme of C.S. 105, Thambala Road, Polonnaruwa. Defendant And Between E.R. Podi Nileme of C.S. 105, Thambala Road, Polonnaruwa. Defendant-Appellant Vs. 1. Wickrama Arachchilage Shriyakanthi 2. Hewa Malavige David, Both of at C.N. 105, Thambala Road, Railroad Junction, Polonnaruwa. Plaintiff-Respondents And Now Between E.R. Podi Nileme of C.S. 105, Thambala Road, Polonnaruwa. Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Wickrama Arachchilage Shriyakanthi 2. Hewa Malavige David, Both of at C.N. 105, Thambala Road, Railroad Junction, Polonnaruwa. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. Wanasundera, PC.J.			Download
2013-12-18	SC/FR/231/2012	1. Mani Nuwan Jayawardana 2. T.W.N. Priyanga 3. Oshadha Randika Jayawardana (minor) The Petitioners of 55/2T-37, Maitland Place, Colombo 07. Petitioners Vs. 1. D.M.D. Dissanayaka, Principal, D.S. Senanayake College, Gregory\'s Road, Colombo 07. 2. Mayura Samarasinghe (Secretary) 3. Mr. Prince 1st to 3rd Respondents of the Interview Board (on admission to Year 1, 2012), D.S. Senanayake College, Gregory\'s Road, Colombo 07. 4. Ranjith Jayasundara (President) 5. Mr. Prince 4th & 5th Respondents of the Appeal Board (on admission to Year 1, 2012), D.S. Senanayake College, Gregory\'s Road, Colombo 07. 6. Director-National Schools, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Pelawatte, Battaramulla. 7. S.M.G. Jayaratne, Secretary Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Pelawatte, Battaramulla. 8. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Wanasundera, PC,J.			Download
2013-12-18	SC/FR/138/2013	1. Akuretiyage Onethra Amavindi Through her father 2. Akuretiyage Mahesh Kumar Lanka No. 6, Thotupala Lane, Poramba, Amabalangoda. Petitioners Vs. 1. M.G.O.P. Panditharatne Principal, Dharmashoka Vidyalaya, Ambalangoda. 2. T. Matheesha Deeptha De Silva 3. H.D.U. Chandima 4. W. Chandana Sisira 5. Sumith Petthawadu All members of the Interview Board (on admission to year 1 – 2013) Dharmashoka Vidyalaya, Ambalangoda 6. Wasantha Siriwardhena 7. A.W. Sriyani Chandrika 8. M. Anura De Silva 9. M. Janaka Wimalasuriya All members of the Appeal Board (on admission to year 1 – 2013), Dharmashoka Vidyalaya, Ambalangoda. 10. S.M.S.R. De Silva Through his mother K.K.A. Krishanthi No. 12, Watarauma Road, Enderamulla, Amabalangoda. 11. Hon. Bandula Gunawardena Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 12. Gotabhaya Jayaratne Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 13. Director-National Schools, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 14. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney View More	Hon. Wanasundera, PC.J.			Download
2013-12-10	SC/APPEAL/120/2011	Orient Financial Services Corporation Ltd., No. 100 Hyde Park Corner, Colombo 2. Petitioner-Petitioner-Petitioner Appellant Vs. 1. Range Forest Officer Department of Forest Conservation Regional Office, Ampara. 2. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General's Department Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondents-Respondent Respondents View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep, PC., J.			Download
2013-11-28	SC/FR/352/2010	1. Ms. A.M. Noon 46/2, Lady Lavinia Housing, 1st Templers Mawatha, Templers Road, Mount Lavinia. 2. K.P. Noon, 46/2, Lady Lavinia Housing, 1st Templers Mawatha, Templers Road, Mount Lavinia. Petitioners Vs. 1. University Grants Commission, 20, Ward Place, Colombo 07. & three others Respondents View More	Hon. K. Sripavan, J.			Download
2013-11-18	SC/HC CALA/101/2013	Tangerine Beach Hotel P.O. Box 195 No. 236, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 1st Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Ryan William Smith No. 27, Melibee Street, Blairgowrie, Victoria 3942 Australia. Formerly at No. 4/39, Plummer Road, Mentone, Victoria 3194, Australia. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 1. Mercantile Investments Limited Galle Road, Colombo 03. 2. Maggonage Wimalasena of No. 46, Gemunu Mawatha, Kalutara South, Kalutara. Defendants-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Tilakawardane J			Download
2013-11-18	SC/HC CALA/102/2013	Tangerine Beach Hotel P.O. Box 195 No. 236, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 1st Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Rodney Errol Smith No. 4/39 Plummer Road Mentone Victoria, 3194 – Australia. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 1. Mercantile Investments Limited Galle Road, Colombo 03. 2. Maggonage Wimalasena of No. 46, Gemunu Mawatha, Kalutara South, Kalutara. Defendants-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Tilakawardane J			Download
2013-11-18	SC/HC CALA/103/2013	Tangerine Beach Hotel P.O. Box 195 No. 236, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 1st Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Andew Errol Smith No. 20A, Emma Street Caulfied South Victoria 3162 – Australia. Formerly at No. 4.39, Plummer Road, Metone, Victoria 3194, Australia. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 2. Mercantile Investments Limited Galle Road, Colombo 03. 3. Maggonage Wimalasena of No. 46, Gemunu Mawatha, Kalutara South, Kalutara. Defendants-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Tilakawardane J			Download
2013-11-18	SC/APPEAL/139/2011	Don Gunawardana Weththasinghe, Egaloya, Bulathsinhala. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-PETITIONER Vs. 1A. D. Ariyawathi Mudalige, Egaloya, Bulathsinhala. 2. M.D. Munidasa, Raigam Waththa, Haburugala. 3. A.A. Somapala, Kobawaka, Gowinna. 4. J.V. Ranawaka. Egaloya, Bulathsinhala. 5A. Soma Mahanthanthila Manjula, Kobawaka, Gowinna. 6. Samanpura Nimalsena, Meegahakumbura, Bulathsinhala. DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Tilakawardane J			Download
2013-11-18	SC/APPEAL/113/2011	D. K. Abeysinghe 272, Kahatuduwa, Polgasowita. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-PETITIONER Vs. 1. M. M. Heen Manike 2. K. P. Tilakasiri Perera Both of 186, Sri Vijiragnana Mawatha, Maharagama DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. TILAKAWARDANE J			Download
2013-11-18	SC/APPEAL/161/2010	D.F.A. Kapugeekiyana, No. 29, Halgahadeniya Road, Kalapaluwawa, Rajagiriya. 2nd Petitioner-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Hon. Janaka Bandara Tennakone, Minister of Lands, Ministry of Lands, “Govijana Mandiraya”, No. 80/5, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 2. District Land Officer, Acquiring Officer, Divisional Secretariat, Kaduwela. 3. Urban Development Authority, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. & four others View More	Hon. TILAKAWARDANE. J			Download
2013-11-18	SC/APPEAL/46/2005	Rohan Ajith Jude Silva, of Walauwwa, Kochchikade. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT-PETITIONER-APPELLANT-APPELLANT Vs. Y.B. Aleckman, of Alight Motor Works, Kochchikade. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. SHIRANEE TILAKAWARDANE, J			Download
2013-11-18	SC/FR/43/2008	Ediriweera Arukpatabandige Sugath Rohan Jayasuriya, 194/2, Polgahawelena, Debarawewa, Tissamaharama. Petitioner Vs. 1. Police Constable Manikkaratnam, Police Station, Tissamaharama. 2. Constable 63623, Police Station, Tissamaharama. & four others Respondents View More	Hon. TILAKAWARDANE, J			Download
2013-11-12	SC/APPEAL/98/2011	Karunarathna Liyanage, No. 102/1A, Poorwarama Road, Kirulapone, Colombo 05. Plaintiff Vs. Mahara Mudiyanselage Loku Bandara, No. 16A, Subithipura, Battaramulla. Defendant And Between Mahara Mudiyanselage Loku Bandara, No. 16A, Subithipura, Battaramulla. Defendant-Petitioner Vs. Karunarathna Liyanage, No. 102/1A, Poorwarama Road, Kirulapone, Colombo 05. Plaintiff-Respondent And Between Mahara Mudiyanselage Loku Bandara, No. 16A, Subithipura, Battaramulla. Defendant-Petitioner-Petitioner Vs. Karunarathna Liyanage, No. 102/1A, Poorwarama Road, Kirulapone, Colombo 05. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent And Now Between Karunarathna Liyanage, No. 102/1A, Poorwarama Road, Kirulapone, Colombo 05. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent Petitioner Vs. Mahara Mudiyanselage Loku Bandara, No. 16A, Subithipura, Battaramulla. Defendant-Petitioner-Petitioner-Respondent View More	Hon. Wanasundera, PC,J.			Download
2013-11-12	SC/SPL LA/37/2012	Leon Peris Kumarasinghe, No. 23, Church Road, Nuwara Eliya. Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Samantha Weliveriya, Director General, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Torrington Square, Colombo 07. Applicant-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. TILAKAWARDANE. J			Download
2013-10-25	SC/FR/278/2008	1. Malalage Chaminda Tissa Peiris, 601/72/14, Thammanakulama, Anuradhapura. (now deceased) PETITIONER 1A. Malalage Gunadasa Peiris, No. 41/9, Wijaya Mawatha, Isurupura, Anuradhapura, SUBSTITUTED-PETITIONER Vs. 1. Mr. Hettigedara Weerakoon, Inspector of Police, Police Station, Anuradhapura. 2. T.D.M.S. Nishanka, Police Officer in Charge (Traffic), Police Station, Anuradhapura. 3. Mr. Hettiarachchi, Inspector of Police, Police Station, Anuradhapura. 4. Mr. Withana, Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Anuradhapura. 5. Mr. P.M. Wijeratne, Officer in Charge, Police Station, Anuradhapura. 6. Mr. Sarath Prema, Head Quarters Inspector of Police, Police Station, Anuradhapura. 7. Jayantha Wickramaratne, Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 8. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 02. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof PC J			Download
2013-10-10	SC/APPEAL/80/2010	Mrs. M.L.R. Fernando “Gaya”, Nalluruwa, Panadura. Plaintiff Vs. Mrs. I.M.R. Perera of No. 354/2, Galle Road, Panadura. Defendant And Mrs. M.L.R. Fernando “Gaya”, Nalluruwa, Panadura. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. Mrs. I.M.R. Perera of No. 354/2, Galle Road, Panadura. Defendant-Respondent And Between Mrs. I.M.R. Perera of No. 354/2, Galle Road, Panadura. Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Mrs. M.L.R. Fernando “Gaya”, Nalluruwa, Panadura. Plaintiff-Appellant-Responden View More	Hon. Wanasundera, PC.J.			Download
2013-10-01	SC/APPEAL/33A/2012	Nambukara Wakwellagamage Sujatha Janaki 257/l, Kosgahahena, Pannipitiya. Plaintiff vs 1.Milani Nimeshika Kariyawasam, No.19, Avissawella Road, Kirulapona, Colombo 05. 2.Premadasa Kariyawasam, No.19, Avissawella Road, Kirulapona, Colombo 05. 3.Dayawathi Kariyawasam, No.19, Avissawella Road, Kirulapona, Colombo 05. Defendants AND BETWEEN 1.Milani Nimeshika Kariyawasam, No.19, Avissawella Road, Kirulapona, Colombo 05. 1 s t Defendant-Petitioner vs Nambukara Wakwellagamage Sujatha Janaki 257/l, Kosgahahena, Pannipitiya. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Premadasa Kariyawasam, No.19, Avissawella Road, K irulapona, Colombo 05. Dayawathi Kariyawasam, No.19, Avissawella Road, Kirulapona, Colombo 05. 2 nd & 3 rd Defendant-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Milani Nimeshika Kariyawasam, No.19, Avissawella Road, Kirulapona, Colombo 05. 1 s t Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant vs. Nambukara Wakwellagamage Sujatha Janaki 257/l, Kosgahahena, Pannipitiya. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent Premadasa Kariyawasam, No.19, Avissawella Roa View More	Hon. Chandra Ekanayake J			Download
2013-09-26	SC/APPEAL/21/2013 PART I	Solaimuthu Rasu, Dickson Corner Colony, Stafford Estate, Ragala, Halgranaoya. Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. The Superintendent Stafford Estate, Ragala, Halgranaoya. 2. S.C.K. De Alwis Consultant/Plantation Expert, Plantation Reform Project, Ministry of Plantation Industries, Colombo 04. 3. The Attorney-General, Attorney-General\\\\\\\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. The Superintendent Stafford Estate, Ragala, Halgranaoya. 2. S.C.K. De Alwis Consultant/Plantation Expert, Plantation Reform Project, Ministry of Plantation Industries, Colombo 04. 3. The Attorney-General, Attorney-General\\\\\\\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents-Respondents-Petitioners Vs. Solaimuthy Rasu, Dickson Corner Colony, Stafford Estate, Ragala, Halgranaoya. Petitioner-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Sripavan J			Download
2013-09-26	SC/APPEAL/21/2013 PART II	1. The Superintendent Stafford Estate, Ragala, Halgranaoya. 2. S.C.K. De Alwis Consultant/Plantation Expert, Plantation Reform Project, Ministry of Plantation Industries, Colombo 04. 3. The Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondents-Petitioners Vs. Solaimuthu Rasu, Dickson Corner Colony, Stafford Estate, Ragala, Halgranaoya Petitioner-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Wanasundera PC J			Download
2013-09-26	SC/APPEAL/21/2013 PART III	1. The Superintendent Stafford Estate, Ragala, Halgranaoya. 2 2. S.C.K. De Alwis Consultant/Plantation Expert, Plantation Reform Project, Ministry of Plantation Industries, Colombo 04. 3. The Attorney-General, Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents-Respondents-Petitioners Vs. Solaimuthy Rasu, Dickson Corner Colony, Stafford Estate, Ragala, Halgranaoya. Petitioner -Appellant- Respondent View More	Hon. Mohan Pieris PC CJ			Download
2013-08-05	SC/CHC APPEAL/43/2010	Lionair (Private) Limited, Colombo Airport, Ratmalana. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Vs. Ceylinco Leasing Corporation Limited., No. 97, Hyde Park Corner, Colombo 02. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof PC J			Download
2013-08-05	SC/FR/414/2010	H.R.S. Dharmasiri, No.25/2, Galapitamada Road, Avissawella. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Provincial Director of Health Services of the Sabaragamuwa Province, Office of the Provincial Director of Health Services, No. 75, Dharamapala Mawatha, Ratnapura. 2. Deputy Provincial Director of the Health Services (Finance) of the Sabaragamuwa Province, Office of the Provincial Director of Health Services, No. 75, Dharamapala Mawatha, Ratnapura. 3. Governor of the Sabaragamuwa Province, Office of the Governor of the Sabaragamuwa Province, Ratnapura. 4. Chief Secretary of the Sabaragamuwa Province, Office of the Chief Secretary of the Sabaragamuwa Province, Ratnapura. 5. The Secretary to the Ministry of Health of the Sabaragamuwa Province, Office of the Secretary to the Ministry of Health of the Sabaragamuwa Province, Ratnapura. 6. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof PC J			Download
2013-08-01	SC/APPEAL/14/2012	Indrasena Arasaratnam Kenneth Virasinghe, C/O Air Vice Marshal A.B. Sosa, No. 36/4A, Sri Medhananda Avenue, Off Sujatha Road, Kalubowila, Dehiwela. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. Vajira Kalinga Wijewardena, No. 21/4, Buller\'s Lane, Colombo 07. 4TH DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof PC J			Download
2013-07-30	SC/CHC APPEAL/41/2004	Peoples Bank, No.75 Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02 Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. Good Fellows (Pvt) Ltd., No. 50/22 Mayura Place, Colombo 05 Defendant-Respondent View More	Hon. Tilakawardane J			Download
2013-07-30	SC/CHC APPEAL/55/2006	1. Araliya Impex (Private) Limited No. 69, Old Moor Street, Colombo 12. 2. Mylvaganam Rajkumar No. 58/24, Templers Road, Mount Lavinia. 3. Liyanage Mahesh Paul De Silva St. Leonards Kohalwila, Kelaniya. Defendants-Appellants Vs. Bank of Ceylon No. 04, Bank of Ceylon Mawatha, Colombo 1. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Tilakawardane J			Download
2013-07-17	SC/APPEAL/165/2010	1. Seyed Shahabdeen Najimuddin of No. 357, Peradeniya Road, Kandy. 2. Pichchei Hadjiar Shahabdeen of No. 357, Peradeniya Road, Kandy. Plaintiffs Vs. 1. Thureiratnam Nageshwari nee Sunderalingam of No. 307, Peradeniya Road, Kandy. 2. K.W.G. Chandrani Mangalika of No. 8/A, Peradeniya Road, Kandy. 3. Anthony Sandanam of No. 8/A, Peradeniya Road, Kandy. 4. W.M.W.B. Weerabahu of No. 307, Peradeniya Road, Kandy. Defendants And Between 4. W.M.W.B. Weerabahu of No. 307, Peradeniya Road, Kandy. 4th Defendant-Appellant Vs. 1. Seyed Shahabdeen Najimuddin of No. 357, Peradeniya Road, Kandy. 2. Pichchei Hadjiar Shahabdeen of No. 357, Peradeniya Road, Kandy. Deceased-Plaintiff-Respondents 1a. S.N. Fathima Rushana 1b. S.N. Mohamed Zawahir 1c. S.N. Fathima Rizmiya 1d. S.N. Fathima Shihara 1e. S.N. Mohamed Zahir 1f. S.N. Fathima Saffna all of No. 12/5, Riverdale Road, Anniwatte, Kandy. Substituted-Plaintiff-Respondents 1. Thureiratnam Nageshwari nee Sunderalingam of No. 307, Peradeniya Road, Kandy. 2. K.W.G. Chandrani Mang View More	Hon. Wanasundera PC J			Download
2013-07-03	SC/FR/313/2009	1. Ven. Walahahangunawewa Dhammarathana Thero Rajamaha Viharaya Mihintale. 2. Ven. Mihintale Seelarathane Rajamaha Viharaya Mihintale. Petitioners Vs 1. Sanjeewa Mahanama Officer-in-Charge Police Station Mihintale. 2. Chandana Weerarathna Waduge Kandy Road, Mihintale. 3. Inspector General of Police Police Head Quarters Colombo 01. 4. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General\'s Department Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep PC J			Download
2013-06-28	SC/RULE/3/2011	Nimal Jayasiri Weerasekara, Attorney - at - Law of the Supreme Court RESPONDENT Secretary, Bar Association of Sri Lanka, Colombo 12. COMPLAINANT Vs. Mr. Nimal Jayasiri Weerasekara, Attorney – at – Law, No. 21 A, Cooray Mawatha, Moragasmulla, Rajagiriya. RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof PC J			Download
2013-06-28	SC/APPEAL/67/2013	Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. PETITIONER - APPELLANT -VS- Dr.Upatissa Atapattu Bandaranayake Wasala Mudiyanse Ralahamilage Shirani Anshumala Bandaranayake, Residence of the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka, 129, Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 07. Presently at: No. 170, Lake Drive, Colombo 08. PETITIONER - RESPONDENT 01. Hon. Chamal Rajapakse, Speaker of Parliament, Parliament of Sri Lanka, Sri Jayawardenapura, Kotte. 02. Hon. Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, Eriyagolla. Yakwilla. 03. Hon. Nimal Siripala De Silva, 93/20, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 08. 04. Hon. A.D. Susil Premajayantha, 123/1, Station Road, Gangodawila, Nugegoda. 05. Hon. Rajitha Senaratne, CD 85, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 07. 06. Hon. Wimal Weerawansa, 18, Rodney Place, Cotta Road, Colombo 08. 07. Hon. Dilan Perera, 30, Bandaranayake Mawatha, Badulla. 08. Hon. Neomal Perera, 3/3, Rockwood Place, Colombo 07. 09. Hon. Lakshman Kiriella, 121/1, Pahalawela Road, Palawatta, Battaramulla. 10. Hon. John Amaratunga, 88, Negambo Road, Kandana. 11. Hon. Rajav Arothiam Sampathan, 2D, Summit Flats, Keppetipola Road, Colombo 05. 12. Hon. Vijitha Herath, 44/3, Medawaththa Road, Mudungoda, Miriswatta, Gampaha. 13. Hon. W.B.D. Dassanayake, Secretary General of Parliament, Parliament Secretariat, Parliament of Sri Lanka, Sri Jayawardenepura Kotte. RESPONDENT -RESPONDENTS View More	HON. SALEEM MARSOOF J.			Download
2013-06-27	SC/APPEAL/214/2012	Mr M.R.M. Ramzeen, Competent Authority, Sri Lanka Ports Authority. Colombo. Complainant Vs. Morgan Engineering (Pvt) Ltd., No. 31A, Morgan Road, Colombo 2. Respondent AND BETWEEN Morgan Engineering (Pvt) Ltd., No. 31A, Morgan Road, Colombo 2. Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Mr. L.H.M.B.B. Herath, Chief Manager Welfare and Industrial Relations, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, Colombo 01. Complainant-Respondent. AND BETWEEN Morgan Engineering (Pvt) Ltd., No. 31A, Morgan Road, Colombo 2. Respondent-Petitioner-Petitioner Vs. Mr. L.H.M.B.B. Herath, Chief Manager Welfare and Industrial Relations, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, Colombo 01. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Mr. L.H.M.B.B. Herath, Chief Manager Welfare and Industrial Relations, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, Colombo 01. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Morgan Engineering (Pvt) Ltd., No. 31A, Morgan Road, Colombo 2. Respondent-Petitioner-Petitioner-Respondent View More	Hon. Sripavan J			Download
2013-06-25	SC/APPEAL/38/2006-39/2006	Hatton National Bank Limited, No. 479, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. CLAIMANT–RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Casimir Kiran Atapattu 2. Tracy Judy de Silva Carrying on business in partnership under the name, style and firm of M/s Soul Entertainments of No. 400/60/7, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. RESPONDENT-PETITIONER-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof, P.C.J			Download
2013-06-14	SC/APPEAL/158/2010	1. Samastha Lanka Nidahas Grama Niladhari Sangamaya, No.10A, Nawagampura - Stage 2, Wallampitiya, Colombo 14. 2. Chandra Kayseen Jayasuriya, President, Samastha Lanka Nidahas Grama Niladhari Sangamaya, No.10A, Nawagampura - Stage 2, Wallampitiya, Colombo 14, residing at Ridiyagama Road, Galalethota, Ambalantota 3. R.M. Sirisena, Secretary Samastha Lanka Nidahas Grama Niladhari Sangamaya, No.10A, Nawagampura - Stage 2, Wallampitiya, Colombo 14, residing at Ihalawawa, Kiralogama PETITIONERS–APPELLANTS Vs. 1. D. Dissanayake Secretary, Public Administration and Ministry of Home Affairs, Torrington Square, Colombo 7. 2. Ms. P. Siriwardena Director General of Establishment, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Torrington Square, Colombo 7. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS View More	HON. SALEEM MARSOOF J.			Download
2013-06-14	SC/APPEAL/67/2012	Krishnan Nalinda Priyadarshana No. 55, Galabadawatta, Pitumpe, Padukka. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Kandana Arachchige Nilmini Dhammika Perera Ulagalle, Kosgashena, Paddukka, 2. Koddula Arachchige Lalith Perera Ulagalle, Kosgashena, Padukka. 3. Illukkumburaga Ruwan Kapila Nawasinghe 56B, Galabadawatta, Pitumpe, Padukka. Defendants And Between 1. Kandana Arachchige Nilmini Dhammika Perera Ulagalle, Kosgashena, Paddukka. 2. Koddula Arachchige Lalith Perera Ulagalle, Kosgashena, Padukka. 3. Illukkumburaga Ruwan Kapila Nawasinghe 56B, Galabadawatta, Pitumpe, Padukka. Defendant-Appellants Vs. Krishnan Nalinda Priyadarshana No. 55, Galabadawatta, Pitumpe, Padukka. Plaintiff-Respondent And Now Between Kandana Arachchige Nilmini Dhammika Perera Ulagalle, Kosgashena, Paddukka, 1st Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Krishnan Nalinda Priyadarshana No. 55, Galabadawatta, Pitumpe, Padukka. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 2. Koddula Arachchige Lalith Perera Ulagalle, Kosgashena, Padukka. 3. Illukkumburaga Ruwan Kapila Nawasinghe 56B View More	Hon. Wanasundera PC J			Download
2013-06-14	SC/APPEAL/68/2012	Krishnan Nalinda Priyadarshana No. 55, Galabadawatta, Pitumpe, Padukka. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Kandana Arachchige Nilmini Dhammika Perera Ulagalle, Kosgashena, Paddukka, 2. Koddula Arachchige Lalith Perera Ulagalle, Kosgashena, Padukka. 3. Illukkumburaga Ruwan Kapila Nawasinghe 56B, Galabadawatta, Pitumpe, Padukka. Defendants And Between 1. Kandana Arachchige Nilmini Dhammika Perera Ulagalle, Kosgashena, Paddukka. 2. Koddula Arachchige Lalith Perera Ulagalle, Kosgashena, Padukka. 3. Illukkumburaga Ruwan Kapila Nawasinghe 56B, Galabadawatta, Pitumpe, Padukka. Defendant-Appellants Vs. Krishnan Nalinda Priyadarshana No. 55, Galabadawatta, Pitumpe, Padukka. Plaintiff-Respondent And Now Between 2. Koddula Arachchige Lalith Perera Ulagalle, Kosgashena, Padukka. 3. Illukkumburaga Ruwan Kapila Nawasinghe 56B, Galabadawatta, Pitumpe, Padukka. 2nd & 3rd Defendant-Appellant-Appellants Vs. Krishnan Nalinda Priyadarshana No. 55, Galabadawatta, Pitumpe, Padukka. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 1. Kandana Arachchige Nilmini Dh View More	Hon. Wanasundera PC J			Download
2013-05-17	SC/HCLA/86/2012	1. Kamkaru Sevana, 10/1, Attidiya Road Ratmalana. 2. M.D.M. Senarathne No. 255/5B/1, Saman Mawatha, Nedimala, Dehiwala. 3. Mala Dassanayake, 43, Punsarawatte, Bettegama, Panadura. 4. K. Illangakoon, 133/3, 6th Lane, Uyana, Moratuwa. 5. Sunil Gajasinghe, 35, Goluma Pokuna Mawatha, Bolawalana, Negombo. 6. Sanet Dikkumbura, No. 99, Sri Gnanalankara Mawatha, Kalubowila, Dehiwala 7. Ranjith Liyanage 28, Araliya Mawatha, Sirimal Uyana, Ratmalana. 8. M. Sunitha Perera, Agamethi Mawatha, Bandaragama. Petitioners Vs. 1. Kingsly Perera, 10/1, Attidiya Road, Ratmalana. 2. Upali Gunarathne 59/1, Main Road, Attidiya, Ratmalana. 3. Nirmalan Daas 267/25, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 4. Lakshman Kumara Meragalla 213/21, Balika Niwasa Road, Rukmale, Pannipitiya. Respondents AND NOW In the matter of a Leave to Appeal 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 of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. 1. Kamkaru Sevan View More	HON. SRIPAVAN J			Download
2013-05-08	SC/APPEAL/117/2010	Hewa Kankanamage Pushpa Rajani No. 13, 1st Chapel Lane Wellawatta. Applicant Vs. Ruhunuge Sirisena 13A, 1st Chapel Lane, Wellawatta. Respondent And Between Ruhunuge Sirisena 13A, 1st Chapel Lane, Wellawatta. Respondent-Appellant Hewa Kankanamage Pushpa Rajani No. 13, 1st Chapel Lane Wellawatta. Applicant-Respondent And Now Between Ruhunuge Sirisena, 13A, 1st Chapel Lane, Wellawatta. Respondent-Appellant-Appellant Hewa Kankanamage Pushpa Rajani No. 13, 1st Chapel Lane Wellawatta. Applicant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Wanasundera PC J			Download
2013-05-07	SC/FR/620/2010	1. Dharmakeerthi Ranathungage Gamini Senadheera, Hathpokuna, Polpitigama. 2. Madduma Patabendige Vidura, No. 15, Dharmaraja Mawatha, Issadeen Town, Matara. 3. Wanigasinghe Arachchige Ajith Senarathne, “Wasana, Araliya Mawatha, Puwakdandawa, Beliatta. 4. Kutti Pathira Amila Indrajith Pathirana, Heenmulla, Dharga Town 5. Abdul Asis Badar Niza, 4/82, Aluth Ala Road, Pinarawa, Badulla. 6. Pannipitiya Arachchige Sunil, 422, Government Servants Scheme, New Town, Polonnaruwa. 7. Konara Mudiyanselage Karunaratne, Panwewa, Balalla. 8. Mestiyage Don Badra Namali Gunatilake, 338/1, Bopatta Road, Gothatuwa, Angoda. 9. Aluthge Dona Padma Priyanthi, 346/A, Kuruppuhena, Malamulla, Panadura. 10. Heiyanthuduwage Suneetha Ratnayake, 199, Koswatta, Kalapaluwawa Road, Thalangama North. 11. Serasingha Mudiyanselage Janaka Kumara Serasingha, Pugalla Road, Kalugamuwa, Kurunegala. 12. Gamaralage Champika, 34, Meegastenna, Yatiyantota. 13. Agra Nanda Kumara Walawage, No. 8A, Sarasavi Garden, Nawala Road, Nugegoda. 14. Hiruwalage C View More	HON. SRIPAVAN J			Download
2013-05-03	SC/FR/367/2010	Ravindra Lasantha Pathinayaka No. 314, Kaduwela Road, Koswatta, Thalangama North, Battaramulla. Petitioner Vs. 1. Bandara Police Sergeant (26433) Police Emergence Calling Unit, No. 03, Mihindu Mawatha, Colombo 12. 2. Thennakoon Police Constable (30032) Police Emergence Calling Unit, No. 03, Mihindu Mawatha, Colombo 12. 3. Anura Silva Assistant Superintendent of Police, Motor Traffic Division (Colombo North), No. 03, Mihindu Mawatha, Colombo 12. 4. Kapilarathne Officer-in-Charge, Police Emergence Calling Unit, No. 03, Mihindu Mawatha, Colombo 12. 5. The Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 6. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Tilakawardane J			Download
2013-04-05	SC/CHC APPEAL/11/2002	Master Feeds Limited, 14/2, Tower Building, 25, Station Road, Colombo 04. Defendant-Appellant Vs People\'s Bank No.75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep PC J			Download
2013-04-05	SC/HC CALA/277/2011	Illangakoon Mudiyanselage Gnanathilaka Illangakoon, Bulupitiya, Uhumeeya, Kurunegala. Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Anula Kumarihamy Lenawela, Lenawela Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. K. Sripavan J			Download
2013-04-05	SC/CHC/11/2002	Master Feeds Limited, 14/2, Tower Building, 25, Station Road, Colombo 04. Defendant-Appellant Vs People's Bank No.75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep, PC J.			Download
2013-02-26	SC/FR/536/2010	T.R.Ratnasiri 23/4, Makola South, Makola. PETITIONER-PETITIONER Vs. 1. P.B.Jayasundara Secretary to the Ministry of Finance and Planning, The Secretariat Building, Colombo 01. 2. Sarath Jayathilake 117/30, Ananda Rajakaruna Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3. Thilak Perera Director of Customs, 40, Main Street, Colombo 11. 4. Director General of Customs Sri Lanka Customs Department, 40, Main Street, Colombo 12. Sudharma Karunarathna (May 2010-Jan 2012) Now the Secretary, Ministry of Plantation Industries, 55/75, Vauxhall Lane, Colombo 2. Neville Gunawardena (Jan 2012- December 2012) Now Director General Trade & Investment Policy, Ministry of Finance, General Secretariat, Colombo 1. Jagath Wijeweera (Dec 2012 to date) 5. Board of Investment of Sri Lanka, West Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 01. 6. Colombo Dockyard Ltd, P.O.Box. 906, Port of Colombo, Colombo 15. 7. Mohan Pieris Former Attorney General, 3-14D, Kynsey Road, Colombo 8. 8. Attorney-General Attorney-General\\\'s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDEN View More	Hon. Tilakawardane J			Download
2013-02-22	SC/FR/431/2010	Warnakulasooriya Sunil Asoka Harischandra Fernando. Petitioner Vs. 1. Police Sergeant Dayawansa (Service No. 25084) Police Station, Madampe. 2. Sub Inspector Piyaseeli Police Station, Madampe. 3. Inspector of Police H.J.M.D. Indrajith Officer-in-Charge Police Station, Madampe. 4. Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 5. Hon. Attorney General The Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. S. I. Imam J			Download
2013-02-22	SC/APPEAL/30/2005-31/2005	Kiran Atapattu, 40/60/7, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. CLAIMANT-PETITIONER-APPELLANT VS Janashakthi General Insurance Co. Ltd., of No. 467, Muttiah Road, Colombo 03. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof PC J			Download
2013-02-22	SC/APPEAL/85/2004	Competent Authority Pugoda Textiles Lanka Ltd. 997/15, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha Welikada Rajagiriya, and Three Others. 2. Charitha Ratwatte Secretary to the Treasury The Secretariat Colombo 01. RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS VS 1. W.A.Richard Ratnasiri Pelpita, Pugoda, and Two Thousand Sixty Two Others PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof PC J			Download
2013-02-22	SC/FR/448/2009	1. Amura Deshapriya Alles, No. 83/A, Kajugahawatta, Gothatuwa, Angoda. 2. Gamunu Thissa Lankathillaka Vithanage, “Sandakalum” Galathara, Mawanella. PETITIONERS VS 1. Road Passenger Services Authority of the Western Province, No. 59 Robert Gunawardena Mawatha, Battaramulla; and 15 others, all of the said Road Passenger Services Authority of the Western Province; 17. H.K.Asoka Wickckramanayake, No.16/1, Giridara, Kapugoda; 18. P.L.R.P.C Wijewarnasooriya, Samagi Mawatha, off Fathima Mawatha, Kalamulla, Kalutara; 19. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\\\'s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof PC J			Download
2013-02-22	SC/SPL LA/173/2011	Mr. A.M. Ratnayake G 4/2, Railway Bungalow, Bungalow Road, Ratmanala Presently at No 101/2, adjoining to the temple Panadura PETITIONER-PETITIONER VS 1. Administrative Appeals Tribunal, No.5, Dudly Senanayake Mawatha, Colombo 08. 2. Justice N.E. Dissanayake, Chairman, Administrative Appeals Tribunal, No.5, Dudly Senanayake Mawatha, Colombo 08. 3. Justice Andrew Somawansa, Member, Administrative Appeals Tribunal, No.5, Dudly Senanayake Mawatha, Colombo 08. 4. Mr. E. T. A. Balasingham Member, Administrative Appeals Tribunal, No.5, Dudly Senanayake Mawatha, Colombo 08. 5. Vidyajothi Dr. Dayasiri Fernando Chairman, Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 6. Mr. Palitha M. Kumarasinghe P.C. Member, Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 7. Mrs. Sirimjavo A. Wijeratna Member, Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 8. Mr. S.C. Mannapperuma, Member, Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita 9. Mr. Ananda Seneviratne Member, Public View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof PC J			Download
2013-02-20	SC/RULE/1/2010	Mr. D. M. A. Jeewananda Dissanayake, No. 12K Ruben Perera Mawatha, Boralesgasmuwa. COMPLAINANT Vs. Mr. D.S. Bodhinagoda, Attorney-at-Law, No. 30/1 Wethara, Polgasowita. RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Thilakawardane J			Download
2013-02-20	SC/APPEAL/137/2010	International Dresses (Private) Limited, No.27, Angulana Station Road, Angulana, Moratuwa. Petitioner Vs. 1. W.D.J.Seneviratne, Minister of Power and Energy, (Formerly Minister of Labour) 493/1, T.B.Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. Athauda Seneviratne, Minister of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 3. Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 4. Commissioner of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 5. T. Piyasoma, No.77, Pannipitiya Road, Battaramulla. 6. S.R.Karunatillake, No.455, Chandrawanka Road, Pallimulla, Panadura. 7. M.H.Cyril, No.3/1, U.C.Quarters, Katubedda, Moratuwa. 8. Sudath Dissanayake, No.176, D.S.Wijesinghe Mawatha, (Mola Road) Katubedda, Moratuwa. 9. W.Hethuka Prabath Fernando, No.351/5, Station Road, Angulana, Moratuwa. 10. W.G.Wimalaratne, No.7/3, Kanagaratne Place, Laxapathiya, Moratuwa. 11. P.H.L, A.De Silva No.99, Dawatagahawatta, Halpita, Polgasowita. 12. W.Chandrasiri No.52, Kandawala Road Ratmalana. 13. Shelton Senaratne N View More	Hon. S.I. Imam J			Download
2013-02-15	SC/CHC APPEAL/2/2004	Consolidated Steel Industries (Pvt) Limited, No.3, Fredrica Mawatha, Colombo 06. And also of No. 237/4, Hekitta Road, Wattala. Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs People\'s Bank, No.75, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof PC J			Download
2013-02-13	SC/FR/478/2009	No. 11, Ramakrishna Gardens, Colombo – 06. Petitioner Vs. 1. University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 2. Prof. H. Abeygunawardena Vice Chancellor, (Chairman of the Council) University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 3. Prof. A. Wickremasinghe Deputy Vice Chancellor, (Chairman of the Council) University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 4. Prof. P.W.M.B.B. Marambe Deen, Faculty of Agriculture (Member of the Council), University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 5. Prof. K.T. Silva Deen, Faculty of Arts (Member of the Council), University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 6. Dr. E.A.P.D. Amaratunge Deen, Faculty of Sciences, (Member of the Council), University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 7. Prof. S.B.S. Abayakoon Deen, Faculty of Engineering, (Member of the Council), University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 8. Prof. W.I. Amarasinghe Deen, Faculty of Medicine, (Member of the Council), University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 9. Prof. S.H.P.P. Karunaratne Deen, Faculty of Science, (Member of the Council), University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 10. View More	Hon. Wanasundera PC J			Download
2013-02-06	SC/MISC/1/2011	Wakachiku Construction Co. Ltd., of No. 23-18, 2-Chome, Shimomeguroku, Tokyo 153-0064, Japan and having its Colombo Liaison Office at # 250- 3rd Floor, Apartment #6, Liberty Plaza, R.A. De Mel Mawatha, Colombo 3, Sri Lanka. Petitioner Vs. Road Development Authority, Sethsiripaya Battaramulla Respondent View More	Hon. K. Sripavan J			Download
2013-02-05	SC/APPEAL/119/2010	Wimala Herath Rajawila, Hingurakgoda. Plaintiff Vs. 1. M.D.G. Kamalawathie, No. 27/5, Flower Lane, Pepiliyana Road, Nugegoda. 2. S.A. Piyasena, Trackmo Institute, Wickramasinghe Road, Hingurakgoda. Defendants. And Between 1. M.D.G. Kamalawathie, No. 27/5, Flower Lane, Pepiliyana Road, Nugegoda. 2. S.A. Piyasena, Trackmo Institute, Wickramasinghe Road, Hingurakgoda. Defendant-Appellants Vs. Wimala Herath (Deceased) 1. Sarathchandra Rajapakshe. 2. Ananda Kumara Rajapakshe 3. Wasantha Kumara Rajapakshe All are of: Rajawila, Hingurakgoda. Plaintiff-Respondents. And Now Between Wimala Herath (Deceased) 1. Sarathchandra Rajapakshe. 2. Ananda Kumara Rajapakshe 3. Wasantha Kumara Rajapakshe All are of: Rajawila, Hingurakgoda. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellants Vs. 1. M.D.G. Kamalawathie, No. 27/5, Flower Lane, Pepiliyana Road, Nugegoda. 2. S.A. Piyasena, Trackmo Institute, Wickramasinghe Road, Hingurakgoda. Defendant-Appellant-Respondents View More	Hon. Eva Wanasundera, PC.J			Download
2013-01-20	SC/APPEAL/58/2011	Wijemunige Ranjith Alahapperuma 3. Wijemunige Senarath Jayatunga 4. Wijemunige Sriyani Wasanthi 5. Newsia Ireene Wijebandara 6. Wijemunige Chandrika Wijebandara All of Wadumaduwegedara, Wekandawela, Gonadeniya Defendants And Between Wijemunige Elbin Pallehagoda, Ellawelagewatta, Pallekanda, Walasmulla. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Wijemunige David Singho 2. Wijemunige Ranjith Alahapperuma 3. Wijemunige Senarath Jayatunga 4. Wijemunige Sriyani Wasanthi 5. Newsia Ireene Wijebandara 6. Wijemunige Chandrika Wijebandara All of Wadumaduwegedara, Wekandawela, Gonadeniya Defendant-Respondents And Now Between 1. Wijemunige David Singho 2. Wijemunige Ranjith Alahapperuma 3. Wijemunige Senarath Jayatunga 4. Wijemunige Sriyani Wasanthi 5. Newsia Ireene Wijebandara 6. Wijemunige Chandrika Wijebandara All of Wadumaduwegedara, Wekandawela, Gonadeniya Defendant-Respondent-Appellants Wijemunige Elbin Pallehagoda, Ellawelagewatta, Pallekanda, Walasmulla. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. P.A. Ratnayake, PC. J			Download
2012-12-07	SC/APPEAL/8A/2010	Mohamed Haniffa Sithy Zulfika, No. 33, Hill Street, Gampola. Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Chandrani Seelavangsha, No. 63, Nuwara Eliya Road, Gampola. And presently of, No. 156/A, \'Thilaka Nivasa\', Kirinda, Hodiyadeniya, Gampola. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Shiranee Tilakawardane J		In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal.	Download
2012-12-07	SC/APPEAL/126/2010	Pelana Pathiranalage Rahula Ananda Senasinghe Perera Of Ilukbadagama, Kekirawa. Defendant-Appellant- Petitioner-Appellant -Vs.- Dissanayake Mudiyanselage Kithsiri Bandara Dissanayake Of “Peak View Rest”, Purijjala, Matale. Plaintiff-Respondent Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Shiranee Tilakawardane J		In the matter of an application for Leave to appeal under Section 5C (i) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provinces) Act No. 19 of 1990 as amended by Act No. 54 of 2006.	Download
2012-12-07	SC/APPEAL/93/2009	Noor Nazima alias Noorul Naxima Hussain of the No. 81/1, Katugastota Road, Kandy. Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner -Vs.- Shantha Wimalasuriya Tilakaratne, Wevala, Harankahawa. 2nd Defendant-Appellant-Respondent 1. Noorul Parshana Hussain of No. 81/1, Katugastota Road, Kandy. 3. Sitti Sifaya Mohideen of No. 85, Katugastota Road, Kandy. 1st and 3rd Defendant-Respondents Respondents View More	Hon. Shiranee Tilakawardane J		In the matter of an Application for Special Leave from the Judgment of the Provincial High Court of the Central Province in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution read with Section 5C (1) of the Act No.54 of 2006.	Download
2012-12-07	SC/APPEAL/80/2011	Bambarawana Liyanagamage Dayawahie alias Daya Abeyawicsrama, No. 320, Galle Road, Mount Lavinia. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent -Appellant -Vs.- Magage Nimal Dias, Magage Kumara Ranjith Dias Magage Sirisena Chandra Dias Magage Manel Dias All of them at No. 314/2, Galle Road, Mount Lavinia. Defendants-Appellants-Respondents View More	Hon. Shiranee Tilakawardane J		In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal in terms of Section 754 read together with Section 757 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 5A of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006.	Download
2012-11-15	SC/APPEAL192/2011	Arachchilage Gedara Anulawathi, Paththampitiya, Netiyapana. Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Wadiyaralalage Weerasinghe Bandara, “Araliya Wilana”, Paththampitiya, Netiyapana Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, CJ			Download
2012-11-15	SC/APPEAL/166/2010	Mapalagamage Leelawathie, Olukarada, Kekirawa. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. P.P.R.A.S. Perera, Illukbadayagama, Kekirawa Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, CJ			Download
2012-10-31	SC/SPL LA/122-123/2011	1. The Municipal Council of Moratuwa, 2. His Worship Lord Mayor Moratuwa, 3. The Municipal Commissioner, All are of Moratuwa Municipal Council, Galle Road, Moratuwa. Respondent – Petitioners Vs. Weerahennadige Shian Hiresh Fernando, No. 04, De Vos Avenue, Colombo 04. Petitioner – Respondent View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof PC J		In the matter of an application for Special Leave to Appeal under an in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2012-10-12	SC/FR/492/2011	Ravidu Viduranga Lokuge appearing by his next friend Haputhanthrige Geethanjali Prasadhika, Both of No. 265/N/98, Torrington Flats, Housing Scheme, Torrington Avenue, Colombo 05. Petitioner -Vs.- 1. Upali Gunasekera Principal, Royal College, Colombo 07. 2. Wimal Gunaratne, Former Principal of Thurstan College, Chairman, Objections Panel of the Royal College Year one admissions for the year 2011, Royal College, Colombo 7. 3. H. M. Gunasekara Secretary, Ministry of Education, “Isurupaya”, Battaramulla. 4. Attorney General The Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. S.I. Imam J		In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Article 17 and Article 126 of the Constitution.	Download
2012-10-05	SC/CHC APPEAL/30/2003	Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd, No. 35, D.R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Pituwana Liyanage Shantha Chandraguptha Amarasinghe, 320/C/2, Jothikarama Mawatha, Thalawathugoda. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Shiranee Tilakawardane J			Download
2012-10-04	SC/APPEAL/79/2002	Ceylon Quartz Industries (Private) Limited, “Bartleet House”, 65, Braybrooke Place, Colombo 2. Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. The Director General of Customs Customs House, Bristol Street, Colombo 1. 2. H.M.H.B. Seneviratne, Assistant Director of Customs, Customs House, Bristol Street, Colombo 01. 3. Hon. The Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp Street, Colombo 12. Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, CJ			Download
2012-10-04	SC/CHC APPEAL/24/2004	K. Dharmasiriwardena No. 119, Thalangama North, Thalangama. Plaintiff Vs. Pure Beverages Company Ltd. No. 149A, Vaxuall Street, Colombo 02. Defendant AND Between Pure Beverages Company Ltd. No. 149A, Vaxuall Street, Colombo 02. Defendant-Appellant Vs. K. Dharmasiriwardena No. 119, Thalangama North, Thalangama. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. K. Sripavan J			Download
2012-10-04	SC/HC CALA/137/2010	Karunawathie Wickramasinghe Samaranayake, No. 1, Lady Mc Callum Drive, Nuwara Eliya. Plaintiff Vs Ranjani Warnakulasuriya, No. 2, Lady Mc Callum Drive, Nuwara Eliya. Defendant View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof PC J		In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal from the judgement of the High Court of the Criminal Province Holden in Kandy dated 15-03-2010.	Download
2012-09-07	SC/APPEAL/106/2009	M.D. Gunasena & Co. Ltd., 217, Olcott Mawatha, Colombo 11. Employer-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Somaratne Gamage, 4/101, Padukka Road, Horana Applicant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep PC J			Download
2012-09-03	SC/APPEAL/143/2010	Asian Hotels & Properties PLC (formerly known as Asian Hotels and Properties Ltd.,), No.77, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Petitioner-Appellant Vs . 1. Frederick S. Benjamin, No.15/2, Off de Saram Road, Mount Lavinia. 2. The Commissioner of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 3. Athauda Seneviratne, Minister of Labour Relations and Foreign Employment, Labour Secretariat, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 4. T. Piyasoma, No.77, Panniptiya Road, Battaramulla. 5. The Registrar, Industrial Court, 9th Floor, Labour Secretariat, Colombo 5. 6. Minister of Labour Relations and Foreign Employment, Labour Secretariat, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, CJ			Download
2012-08-31	SC/FR/30/2012	Mohamed Uzman Nazeem Appearing by his next friend, Mohamed Azvin Nazeem, Both of No. 11/5, Rosmead Place, Colombo 07. Petitioner Vs. 1. Upali Gunasekera, Principal, Royal College, Colombo 07. 2. H.M.Gunasekara, Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 3. Hon. Attorney-General, Attorney-General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. K. Sripavan J			Download
2012-07-31	SC/APPEAL/78/2010	Omatte Thilakaratne Mudiyanse Ralahamillage Wilfred Bandara Kalawana of Thilakaratne Walawwa, Kalawana. Plaintiff Vs. 1. Sirisena Nawalage, Near the Post Office, Kalawana 2. O.T.M.R.U. Bandara Kalawana Dolehena, Kalawana Defendants AND BETWEEN Omatte Thilakaratne Mudiyanse Ralahamillage Wilfred Bandara Kalawana of Thilakaratne Walawwa, Kalawana. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Sirisena Nawalage, Near the Post Office, Kalawana 2. O.T.M.R.U. Bandara Kalawana Dolehena, Kalawana Defendants-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Sirisena Nawalage, Near the Post Office, Kalawana 1st Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. 1. Omatte Thilakaratne Mudiyanse Ralahamillage Wilfred Bandara Kalawana of Thilakaratne Walawwa, Kalawana. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent 2. O.T.M.R.U. Bandara Kalawana Dolehena, Kalawana 2nd Defendants-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep PC J			Download
2012-07-02	SC/APPEAL/97/2010	(Deceased) Wedalage Siyaneris of Balapaththawa Ambanpitiya Plaintiff (Deceased) 1A. Arambayalage Saina of Balapaththawa. Ambanpitiya. 1B. Wedalage Piyaseeli Karunathileke, of Galagedara Mawatha, Polgahawela. Substituted Plaintiffs Vs. 1. Wedalage Jayasiri Dharmathileke, of Balapaththawa, Ambanpitiya. 2. Wedalage Siripala of Boyagama, Ambanpitiya. 3. Wedalage Rankira of Debatanpitiya, Ambanpitiya. 3A. Wedalage Gunapala of Debatanpitiya, Ambanpitiya. 4. Wedalage Gunapala of Debatanpitiya, Ambanpitiya. (Deceased) 5. Wedalage Amaris of Debatanpitiya, Ambanpitiya. 5A. Wanshapura Arachchige Magilin Nona of “Siri Niwasa” Debatanpitiya, Ambanpitiya. 6. Wedalage Jayasuriya of Debatanpitiya, Ambanpitiya. 7. Bisowela Gamaralalage PodiNilame of “Wimalasevana” Debatanpitiya, Ambanpitiya. 8. Leela Jayatissa of Hakahinna, Debatanpitiya. 9. Wedalage Jinadasa of Hakahinna, Debatanpitiya. 10. Wedalage Amarasinghe of Hakahinna, Debatanpitiya 11. Chandralatha of Hakahinna, Debatanpitiya. 12. Sumudu Kanthi Wijelatha of Hakahin View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep PC J			Download
2012-07-02	SC/CHC APPEAL/13/2010	Phoenix Ventures Limited No.409, 3rd Floor Galle Road Colombo 03 Plaintiff Vs Superior Palayakat (Private) Limited Unit No.8/2, No.05, Milagiriya Avenue, Colombo 04 Defendant And Now Between Superior Palayakat (Private) Limited Unit No.8/2, No.5, Milagiriya Avenue, Colombo 04. Defendant-Petitioner Vs Phoenix Ventures Limited No.403, 3rd Floor, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Plaintiff-Respondent View More	Hon. Suresh Chandra J			Download
2012-07-02	SC/APPEAL/6/2009	Horana Plantations Limited 8, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha Colombo 2 Petitioner Vs 1. Hon. Anura Kumara Dissanayake, Minister of Agriculture, Livestock, Land and Irrigation Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Land and Irrigation Govijana Mandiraya Rajamalwatta Road Battaramulla 2. P.D. Siriwardena Divisional Secretary & Acquiring Officer Divisional Secretariat Bulathsinhala Respondents 3. Hon. Jeewan Kumaranatunga Minister of Land and Land Development 1st Floor, Govijana Mandiraya No.80/5, Rajamalwatta Road Battaramulla 4. Menaka Priyanthi Abeyratne Divisional Secretary and Acquiring Officer Divisional Secretariat Bulathsinhala Added Respondents AND NOW Horana Plantations Limited 8, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha Colombo 2 Petitioner–Petitioner-Appellant Vs 1. Hon. Anura Kumara Dissanayake, Minister of Agriculture, Livestock, Land and Irrigation Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Land and Irrigation Govijana Mandiraya Rajamalwatta Road Battaramulla 1st Respondent–Respondent 1(a). Hon. Mai View More	Hon. Suresh Chandra J			Download
2012-06-25	SC/APPEAL/19/2011	Kalutara Bodhi Trust, Galle Road, Kalutara. Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Kalutara Multi Purpose Co-operative Society Ltd., No.20, Riverside Road, Kalutara. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, CJ			Download
2012-06-25	SC/FR/29/2012	1. Visal Bhashitha Kavirathne, 108/1, Sri Sunanda Mawatha, Walgama, Matara. 2. P.D. Chandana, Thimbala, Panaliya, Polgahawela. 3. Hamdulillan Mohomed Ramzan, 185/22A, Stace Road, Colombo 14. 4. Dimuthu Kanchana Amerasinghe, Kanduwata Road, Katukaliyawa, Mihintale. 5. B.K.D.K. Rodrigo, No.32/2, Seva Mawatha, Puttalam. 6. L.P. Saumya Madhubhashini Premadasa, Mabopitiya, Alawwa. 7. P.N. Sarada Wickramatunga, No.16/H, Elawela Road, Dharmapala Mawatha, Matara. 8. H.R. Savindi Chanika Peiris, No.16/A, Sri Dharmarama Mawatha, Walpala, Matara. 9. Nisansa Chathumali Senaratne, ‘Senarath’, Udupila, Mirissa. 10. H.G. Samindi Sathsarani, No.53, Somarama Mawatha, Navimana, Matara. 11. J.A. Koshila Gihani, 75/12K, Abeygunarathne Mawatha, Pamburana, Matara. 12. R.M. Imodi Chamalka, No.45B, Green Hill Crescent, Bowalawatte, Kandy. 13. A.M. Roshika Madushani Attanayake, No.177, Uduwewala, Katugastota. 14. V.W. Dhanushka Sachintha Vasanthathilaka, 203/8, Rajapihilla Terrace, Kandy. 15. Ginige Dilshan Kevin De Silva, 40/8, Hilp View More	Hon. Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, CJ			Download
2012-06-25	SC/APPEAL/136/2009	Colombo Municipal Council Employees’ Co-operative Thrift and Savings Society Limited, Town Hall, Colombo 07. Respondent-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Hemalatha Hettiarachchi, 88, “Sevana”, Rajamahavihara Road, Pitakotte. Applicant-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, CJ			Download
2012-06-25	SC/FR/117/2011	1. T.G. Samadi Suharshana Ferdinandis, No.W/2/1, Anderson Flats, Kirula Road, Colombo 05. 2. T.G.R. Prasanna Ferdinandis No.W/2/1, Anderson Flats, Kirula Road, Colombo 05. Petitioners Vs. 1. Mrs. S.S.K. Aviruppola, Principal, Visakha Vidyalaya, Vajira Road, Colombo 04. 2. Director National Schools, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 3. Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 4. Hon. The Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, CJ			Download
2012-06-15	SC/APPEAL/6/2012	SC Appeal No. 06/2012 Mohammadu Sally Fajurdeen No.123, Welamboda Udunuwara Plaintiff Vs 1. Samarakoon Mudiyanselage Samarakoon, Anwarama, Mawanella 2. Samarakoon Mudiyanselage Kularatna, Anwarama, Mawanella Defendants And 1. Samarakoon Mudiyanselage Samarakoon, Anwarama, Mawanella 2. Samarakoon Mudiyanselage Kularatna, Anwarama, Mawanella Defendants–Appellants Vs Mohammadu Sally Fajurdeen No.123, Welamboda Udunuwara Plaintiff–Respondent And Now Between 1. Samarakoon Mudiyanselage Samarakoon, Anwarama, Mawanella 2. Samarakoon Mudiyanselage Kularatna, Anwarama, Mawanella Defendants–Appellants–Petitioners-Appellants Vs Mohammadu Sally Fajurdeen No.123, Welamboda Udunuwara Plaintiff–Respondent–Respondent–Respondent View More	Hon. Suresh Chandra J			Download
2012-06-15	SC/SPL LA/21/2011	Mapa Mudiyanselage Deepthi Lakmali C/O, H.A. Manjula Shiromani 455, Lake Road Wennappuwa Applicant Vs Warnakulasuriya Mahamandadige Antony Janakasiri Fernando Silver Sands Park Ranaviru Mahesh Mawatha Pahala Katuneriya Katuneriya Respondent And Between Mapa Mudiyanselage Deepthi Lakmali C/O, H.A. Manjula Shiromani 455, Lake Road Wennappuwa Applicant–Appellant Vs Warnakulasuriya Mahamandadige Antony Janakasiri Fernando Silver Sands Park Ranaviru Mahesh Mawatha Pahala Katuneriya Katuneriya Respondent-Respondent And Now Between Warnakulasuriya Mahamandadige Antony Janakasiri Fernando Silver Sands Park Ranaviru Mahesh Mawatha Pahala Katuneriya Katuneriya Respondent–Respondent–Petitioner Vs Mapa Mudiyanselage Deepthi Lakmali C/O, H.A. Manjula Shiromani 455, Lake Road Wennappuwa Applicant–Appellant Respondent View More	Hon. Suresh Chandra J			Download
2012-06-15	SC/APPEAL/7/2012	1. Mulachari Gedera Pinchi Amma (Deceased) Warakapana, Udamulla 2a. Don Asoka Dayarathne Kahawandala, Udamulla 3. Chandawathie Devasurendra Dayarathne Kahawandala, Udamulla Plaintiffs Vs 1. A.G. Wijerathna, Arachchige Watte, Kahawandala, Udamulla 2. T.G. Panditharathne Arachchige Watte, Kahawandela, Udamulla 3. T.G. Wilson Arachchige Watte, Kahawandela, Udamulla Defendants And 2a. Don Asoka Dayarathne Kahawandala, Udamulla Plaintiff–Appellant Vs 1. A.G. Wijerathna, Arachchige Watte, Kahawandala, Udamulla 2. T.G. Panditharathne Arachchige Watte, Kahawandela, Udamulla 3. T.G. Wilson Arachchige Watte, Kahawandela, Udamulla Defendants-Respondents And Now Between 2a. Don Asoka Dayarathne Kahawandala, Udamulla Plaintiff–Appellant–Petitioner–Appellant Vs 1. A.G. Wijerathna, Arachchige Watte, Kahawandala, Udamulla 2. T.G. Panditharathne Arachchige Watte, Kahawandela, Udamulla 3. T.G. Wilson Arachchige Watte, Kahawandela, Udamulla Defendants–Respondents–Respondents–Respondents View More	Hon. Suresh Chandra J			Download
2012-06-07	SC/APPEAL/4/2011	Mohommed Tuwan Mohommed Meezam Chapel Lane, Church Street Colombo 02 Plaintiff Vs 1. Ranjith Sumanasekera 2. Rukshana Deepama Nayomi Sumanasekera Both of No.411/2, Atygala Mawatha, Rajagiriya Defendants AND Mohommed Tuwan Mohommed Meezam No. 29/12, Chapel Lane, Church Street Colombo 02 Plaintiff–Petitioner Vs 1. Ranjith Sumanasekera 2. Rukshana Deepama Nayomi Sumanasekera Both of No.411/2, Atygala Mawatha, Rajagiriya Defendants–Respondents K.P.G Sumanasekera No.411/2, Atygala Mawatha, Rajagiriya Added Defendant–Respondent AND BETWEEN 1. Ranjith Sumanasekera 2. Rukshana Deepama Nayomi Sumanasekera 3. K.P.G Sumanasekera No.411/2, Atygala Mawatha, Rajagiriya Defendants–Respondents–Petitioners Vs Mohommed Tuwan Mohommed Meezam No. 29/12, Chapel Lane, Church Street Colombo 02 Plaintiff–Petitioner–Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Ranjith Sumanasekera 2. Rukshana Deepama Nayomi Sumanasekera 3. K.P.G Sumanasekera No.411/2, Atygala Mawatha, Rajagiriya Defendants–Respondents–Petitioners-Appellants Vs Mohommed View More	Hon. Suresh Chandra J			Download
2012-05-25	SC/APPEAL/28/2008	1. Krishanthy Balasubramanium Appearing by her next friend the 2nd Plaintiff 2. Logeswary Balasubramaniam both of 15, Bailey Lane, Koddaimunai, Batticaloa Plaintiffs Vs. 1. Vellayar Krishnapillai and wife, 2. Arunasalam Pooranammah, both of Lake Road, No. 2, Sallipiti, Batticaloa. Defendants AND 1 Krishanthy Balasubramanium Appearing by her next friend the 2nd Plaintiff 2 Logeswary Balasubramaniam both of 151, Bailey Lane, Koddaimunai, Batticaloa Plaintiffs-Appellants Vs. 1 Vellayar Krishnapillai and wife, 2 Arunasalam Pooranammah, both of Lake Road, No. 2, Sallipiti, Batticaloa (deceased). Defendants-Respondents Krishnapillai Narenthiranthan of No. 26A Waidiya Road Dehiwala Substituted-2nd Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN 1 Krishanthy Balasubramanium Appearing by her Attorney the 2nd Plaintiff 2. Logeswary Balasubramaniam both of 151, Bailey Lane, Koddaimunai, Batticaloa Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners Vs. 1. Vellayar Krishnapillai and wife, 2. Arunasalam Pooranammah, both of Lake Road, No. 2, Sallipit View More	Hon. K. Sripavan J			Download
2012-03-29	SC/APPEAL/56/2010	Saputhantrige Nandawathie of No. 21, Dickman\\\'s Lane, Colombo 05 Original Petitioner (now deceased) Meemanage Harold Fernando No. 23, Dickman\\\'s Lane, Colombo 5 Substituted Petitioner Vs. 1. Freeda Fonseka “Sweet Content” Kanakarathnam Road, Nuwara Eliya. (Deceased) 1(a) Jayani Wimalarathna nee Fonseka 1(b) Manoja Waliwitigoda nee Fonseka Both: “Sweet Content” Kanakaratnam Road, Nuwara Eliya. 2) Meemanage Herbert Fernando No. 611, Galle Road, Horethuduwa Moratuwa Respondents And Between Meemanage Harold Fernando No. 23, Dickman\\\'s Lane, Colombo 5 Substituted-Petitioner-Petitioner Vs. 2. Freeda Fonseka “Sweet Content” Kanakarathnam Road, Nuwara Eliya. (Deceased) 1(a) Jayani Wimalarathna nee Fonseka 1(b) Manoja Waliwitigoda nee Fonseka 2) Meemanage Herbert Fernando No. 611, Galle Road, Horethuduwa Moratuwa Substituted–Respondent-Respondents And Now Between 1(a) Jayani Wimalarathna nee Fonseka 1(b) Manoja Waliwitigoda nee Fonseka Both: “Sweet Content” Kanakaratnam Road, Nuwara Eliya. Substituted–Respondent–Resp View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep J			Download
2012-03-29	SC/SPL LA/49/2010	Batugahage Don Udaya Shantha, No.122/A/4/B, Kothalawala, Kaduwela. Petitioner-Petitioner Vs. 1. Jeevan Kumaranatunga, The Minister of Lands and Land Development, Govijana Mandiraya, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 1A. Hon. Janaka Bandara Thennakoon, Hon. The Minister of Lands and Land Development, Govijana Mandiraya, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 2. Dinesh Gunawardena, Minister of Urban Development and Sacred Area Development, 3rd Floor, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 2A. Hon. The Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. 3. P. Ramanujam, The Secretary, The Ministry of Urban Development and Sacred Area Development, 3rd Floor, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 3A. Mr. Gotabaya Rajapaksha, The Secretary, The Ministry of Defence, No.5/15, Baladhaksha Mawatha, Colombo 03. 4. Manel Jayasena, The Divisional Secretary, The Divisional Secretariat, Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte, No.341/2, Kotte Road, Rajagiriya. 4A. Mr. Amal J.S.S. Edirisooriya, The Divisional Secretary, The Divisional Secretariat, Sri Jayawar View More	Hon. Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, CJ.			Download
2012-03-28	SC/APPEAL/105/2010	Bowekumburegedara Dharmasiri Fernando C/o. Sanjeewa Rice Mill Weerapura, Thambala, Polonnaruwa. Plaintiff Vs Chandrasena Pathirannehelage Piyaratne Somasiri 240, Centre Road, Palugasdamana Defendant And Chandrasena Pathirannehelage Piyaratne Somasiri 240, Centre Road, Palugasdamana Defendant-Appellant Vs. Bowekumburegedara Dharmasiri Fernando C/o. Sanjeewa Rice Mill Weerapura, Thambala, Polonnaruwa. Plaintiff-Respondent And Now Chandrasena Pathirannehelage Piyaratne Somasiri 240, Centre Road, Palugasdamana Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Bowekumburegedara Dharmasiri Fernando C/o. Sanjeewa Rice Mill Weerapura, Thambala, Polonnaruwa. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. P.A. Ratnayake PC J			Download
2012-03-28	SC/FR/661/2010	1. Wijerathne Mudiyanselage Mithila Sheyamani Kumarihamy, No. 35/1, Wagolla Road, Leywella, Kandy. 2. Himanshi Abeysiriwardane Senarath No. 35/1, Wagolla Road, Leywella, Kandy. Petitioners Vs. 1. The Principal, Mahamaya Balika Vidyalaya, Kandy. 2. Mr. A.M. Tilekarathne, Chairman, Selection Committee, Mahamaya Balika Vidyalaya, Kandy. 3. Mr. Upali Gunarathne, Chairman, Appeal\'s Board, Retd. Asst. Provincial Director, (Administration) Hill Side, Kamburadeniya Road, Godapola, Gelioya. 4. Mr. Keerthi Perera, National School Director, Provincial Council, Peradeniya, Kandy. 5. Secretary, Ministry of Education, \'Isurupaya\', Battaramulla. 6. Director National Schools Department, \'Isurupaya\', Battaramulla 7. Attorney General Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep PC J			Download
2012-03-28	SC/FR/32/2011	1. Sergeant N.W.A. Nihal 2. Bharatha Yomal Nanayakkara (Minor) Petitioners Vs. 1. M.G.O.P. Panditharathne, Principal, Dharmashoka College, Ambalangoda. 2. M.H.T. Wasantha (Secretary) 3. H.D.U. Chandima 4. Tharaka Maduwage 5. W. Ranaweera de Silva The 1st to the 5th Respondents of; Interview Board, Dharmashoka College, Ambalangoda 6. R.B. Methananda (President) 7. K.K. Kema Chandani 8. Dharmasiri Ginige 9. K. Indunil de Silva The 2nd and 6th to 9th Respondents of; Appeals Board, Dharmashoka College, Ambalangoda. 10. Director–National Schools, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 11. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep PC J			Download
2012-03-28	SC/FR/31/2011	1. Madaduwage Susil de Silva 11/1, Kaluwadumulla Pathumawatha, Kaluwadumulla, Ambalangoda 2. Madaduwage Dilina Yeshan de Silva (Minor) 11/1, Kaluwadumulla Pathumawatha, Kaluwadumulla, Ambalangoda Petitioners Vs. 1. M.G.O.P. Panditharathne, Principal, Ambalangoda Dharmashoka Vidyalaya Galle Road, Ambalangoda. 2. M.H.T. Wasantha (Secretary) 3. H.D.U. Chandima 4. Tharaka Maduwage 5. W. Ranaweera de Silva All members of the Interview Board (On admissions to Year 1, 2011), Ambalangoda Dharmashoka Vidyalaya, Galle Road, Ambalangoda 6. R.B. Methananda (President) 7. K.K. Kema Chandani 8. Dharmasiri Ginige 9. K. Indunil de Silva Members of the Appeal Board (On admissions to Year 1, 2011), Ambalangoda Dharmashoka Vidyalaya, Galle Road, Ambalangoda 10. Director–National Schools, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 11. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Priyasath Dep PC J			Download
2012-03-27	SC/APPEAL/107/2008	Ms Deepthi Fernando No.176, Galle Road, Colombo 6 Plaintiff Vs D. A. Mayadunne No.166/20 Pangiriwatte Road, Mirihana Nugegoda Defendant (Deceased) And Ms Deepthi Fernando No. No.176, Galle Road, Colombo 6 Plaintiff-Petitioner Vs Thilak Padmakumara Arambewela No.323 Galle Road, Colombo 6 Respondent And Between Thilak Padmakumara Arambewela No.323 Galle Road, Colombo 6 Respondent–Petitioner Vs Ms Deepthi Fernando No. No.176, Galle Road, Colombo 6 Plaintiff–Petitioner–Respondent And Now Between Ms Deepthi Fernando No. No.176, Galle Road, Colombo 6 Plaintiff–Petitioner–Respondent–Petitioner-Appellant Vs Thilak Padmakumara Arambewela No.323 Galle Road, Colombo 6 Respondent–Petitioner–Respondent View More	Hon. Suresh Chandra J			Download
2012-03-27	SC/FR/317/2010	Damayanthi Namalee Haupe Liyanage Madawalagama, 206/6, Moratuhena Road, Athurugiriya. Petitioner Vs. 1. H.P.S. Somasiri, Director General of Irrigation, Department of Irrigation, Colombo 07. 2. K.M.P.S. Bandara, Director, Engineering Service Board, Ministry of Public Administration & Home Affairs, Colombo 07. 3. D. Dissanayaka, Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration & Home Affairs, Colombo 07. 4. Dr. G.G.A. Godaliyadde, Director of Irrigation, Department of Irrigation, Colombo 07. 5. Hon. The Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12 View More	Hon. Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, CJ.			Download
2012-03-16	SC/APPEAL/3/2009	Galkissa Dewage Suneetha Ranasinghe, No.26, Mirissawatta Lane, Peliyagoda. Plaintiff 1. Pattiya Dewage Madilin Nona 2. R.D. Sriyani Jayanthi Kumari Both of No. 43, Mirissawatta Lane, Peliyagoda. 3. Pattiya Dewage Lily Nona No. 41, Mirissawatta Lane, Peliyagoda. 4. Pattiya Dewage Siriyawathi (dead) 4A. Pattiya Dewage Sajeewa Jayalath 5. Pattiya Dewage Upasena 6. D.D. Priyanthi Jayalath 7. Pattiya Dewage Adlin Nona (dead) 7A. Pattiya Dewage Upasena All of No. 45, Mirissawatta Lane, Peliyagoda 8. R.B. Anie Nona No. 32, Mirissawatta Lane, Peliyagoda. Defendants Vs. 1. Pattiya Dewage Madilin Nona 2. R.D. Sriyani Jayanthi Kumari Both of No. 43, Mirissawatta Lane, Peliyagoda. 3 Pattiya Dewage Lily Nona No. 41, Mirissawatta Lane, Peliyagoda. 4. Pattiya Dewage Siriyawathi (dead) 4A. Pattiya Dewage Sajeewa Jayalath 5. Pattiya Dewage Upasena 6. D.D. Priyanthi Jayalath 7. Pattiya Dewage Adlin Nona 7A. Pattiya Dewage Upasena All of No. 45, Mirissawatta Lane, Peliyagoda. 8. R.B. Anie Nona No. 32, Mirissawatta Lane, Peliyag View More	Hon. P.A. Ratnayake PC J			Download
2012-03-15	SC/APPEAL/18/2010	1. Gangegoda Appuhamillage Don Edmund Ananda Seneviratne of No.28, First Lane, Epitamulla Lane, Pitakotte. 2. Krishnajeena Seneviratne of No.28, First Lane, Epitamulla Lane, Pitakotte. Defendants-Appellants-Appellants Vs. 1. Rohan Tissa Anthony Weeratunga of No.622/9, Walauwatte, Pitakotte. 2. Tissa Indika Weeratunga of No.25/23A, Jayapura Mawatha, Baddegana Road, Pitakotte. Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respondents View More	Hon. Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, CJ			Download
2012-03-13	SC/APPEAL/46/2008	Namunukula Plantations Limited, 130, Glennie Street, Colombo 2 and presently of 310, High Level Road, Navinna, Maharagama. Petitioner-Appellant v 1. Minister of lands, Govijana Mandiraya, 80/5, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 2. Secretary, Ministry of lands, Govijana Mandiraya, 80/5, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 3. Divisional Secretary Pittabeddara Divisional Secretariat, Pitabeddara. 4. Southern Development Authority 14A, Akuressa Road, Nupe, Matara. 5. The Minister of Regional Infrastructure Development, 29, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 3. 6. Sri Lanka State Plantation Corporation, 55/75, Vauxhall Lane, Colombo 2. 7. The Attorney-General, Attorney-General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondents View More	HON. SALEEM MARSOOF J			Download
2012-03-05	SC/APPEAL/108/2011	J P I Sisira Susantha Administrator of the Estate of late, Mr. J.P.I Piyadasa, No.170, Inner Flower Road, Colombo 03. And now No. 291/5, 1/1, Edward Avenue, Colombo 06. Plaintiff Vs 1. Indian Overseas Bank Plc No.139, Main Street, Pettah Colombo 11. Defendant 2. Randunu Dissanayakalage Sarath Kumara Wijewickrama, No.295, Hokandara South, Hokandara. Added Defendant AND NOW BETWEEN J P I Sisira Susantha Administrator of the Estate of late, Mr. J.P.I Piyadasa, No.170, Inner Flower Road, Colombo 03. And now No. 291/5, 1/1, Edward Avenue, Colombo 06. Plaintiff–Petitioner–Appellant Vs 1. Indian Overseas Bank Plc No.139, Main Street, Pettah Colombo 11. Defendant-Respondent 2. Randunu Dissanayakalage Sarath Kumara Wijewickrama, No.295, Hokandara South, Hokandara. Added Defendant–Responden View More	Hon. Suresh Chandra J			Download
2012-03-05	SC/APPEAL/109/2009	Surendra Das, No. 6/57 Sri Dharmarama Mawatha, Rathmalana Presently at “Epic Designers (VN) Limited” Dag Khoi Street “Tan Tilep Ward” Bientloa City, Dong Nai Province, Vietnam Represented by his Attorney T.S.U. Das, No. 6/57 Sri Dharmarama Mawatha, Rathmalana. Plaintiff Vs 1. G. Jeevananthan David, (Liquidator of Perfect Fit International (Private) Limited, the 3rd Defendant), Of SJMS Associates, No.2 Castle Street, Colombo 4. 2. P.E.A. Jayawickrama, (Liquidator of Perfect Fit International (Private) Limited, the 3rd Defendant), Of SJMS Associates, No. 2 Castle Street, Colombo 4 3. Perfect Fit International (Private) Limited No 36/8 Seelananda Lane, Pinwatte, Panadura. Defendants AND 1. G. Jeevananthan David, (Liquidator of Perfect Fit International (Private) Limited, the 3rd Defendant), Of SJMS Associates, No.2 Castle Street, Colombo 4. 2. P.E.A. Jayawickrama, (Liquidator of Perfect Fit International (Private) Limited, the 3rd Defendant), Of SJMS Associates, No. 2 Castle Street, Colombo 4 Defendants–Petiti View More	Hon. Suresh Chandra J			Download
2012-02-28	SC/APPEAL/44/2011	E.P.A. Premasundara No. 20/65, Kumarigama Uhana Applicant Vs Seemasahitha Galoya Medapalatha Vivida Seva Samupakara Samithiya Uhana Respondent And Between E.P.A. Premasundara No. 20/65, Kumarigama Uhana Applicant–Appellant Vs Seemasahitha Galoya Medapalatha Vivida Seva Samupakara Samithiya Uhana Respondent-Respondent And Now Between E.P.A. Premasundara No. 20/65, Kumarigama Uhana Applicant–Appellant–Petitioner Vs Seemasahitha Galoya Medapalatha Vivida Seva Samupakara Samithiya Uhana Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Suresh Chandra J			Download
2012-02-23	SC/APPEAL/169/2010	Adhikaram Mudiyanselage Punchi Amma Adhikaram No. 641, Eriyawetiya Road, Kiribathgoda, Kelaniya. Plaintiff Vs. Sirima Shanthi Mendis \"Vanasevana\", Mahawela, Vijithapura. Presently No. 66/31, Old Road, Nawinna. Defendant Between Sirima Shanthi Mendis \"Vanasevana\", Mahawela, Vijithapura. Presently No. 66/31, Old Road, Nawinna. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Adhikaram Mudiyanselage Punchi Amma Adhikaram No. 641, Eriyawetiya Road, Kiribathgoda, Kelaniya. Plaintiff-Respondent And Now Between SC. Appeal No. 169/2010 Adhikaram Mudiyanselage Punchi Amma Adhikaram No. 641, Eriyawetiya Road, Kiribathgoda, Kelaniya. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Sirima Shanthi Mendis \"Vanasevana\", Mahawela, Vijithapura. Presently No. 66/31, Old Road, Nawinna. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent View More	Hon. P.A. Ratnayake, PC.J			Download
2012-02-17	SC/APPEAL/30/2008	Ceylon Estate Staffs Union, No.06, Aloe Mawatha, Colombo 03. “On behalf of Tissa Nanayakkara” Applicant Vs. 1. The Superintendant, Sunderland Estate, Eheliyagoda 2. Pussellawa Plantations Ltd, Tummodera Road, Puwakpitiya, Avissawella. 3. Pussellawa Plantations Ltd, c/o. Free Lanka management, Co. (PVT) Ltd, 401 1/1, Galle Road, Colombo 04. 4. Free Lanka management, Co. (PVT) Ltd, 401 1/1, Galle Road, Colombo 04. Respondents And Between Ceylon Estate Staffs Union, No.06, Aloe Mawatha, Colombo 03. “On behalf of Tissa Nanayakkara” Applicant–Appellant Vs 1. The Superintendant, Sunderland Estate, Eheliyagoda 2. Pussellawa Plantations Ltd, Tummodera Road, Puwakpitiya, Avissawella. 3. Pussellawa Plantations Ltd, c/o. Free Lanka management, Co. (PVT) Ltd, 401 1/1, Galle Road, Colombo 04. 4. Free Lanka management, Co. (PVT) Ltd, 401 1/1, Galle Road, Colombo 04. Respondents-Respondents And Now Between 1. Pussellawa Plantations Ltd, Tummodera Road, Puwakpitiya, Avissawella. 2. Pussellawa Plantations Ltd, c/o. Free Lank View More	Hon. Suresh Chandra J			Download
2012-02-15	SC/APPEAL/81/2010	Merchant Bank of Sri Lanka Limited Bank of Ceylon Merchant Tower, No 28, St. Michael\\\'s Road, Colombo 3. Plaintiff Vs 1. Francisge Dona Violet Perera, No. 103, St Joseph\\\'s Street, Grandpass, Colombo 14. 2. Francisge Dona Mildred Salgado No. 140/46 Aramaya Road, Dematagoda, Colombo 9. Defendants AND 1. Jatila Punyasiri Wijayawardena, No. 43, Olcott Mawatha, Colombo 11. 2. Liyanaarachchige Ranjith Asoka Gunathilake No. 45, Olcott Mawatha, Colombo 11. 3. Suppiah Sivasubramanium No. 47, Olcott Mawatha, Colombo 11. 4. M J Dharmadasa No. 49, Olcott Mawatha, Colombo 11. 5. Fuji Color Foto Keena Alias Foto Keena Ltd., No. 51 and 53, Olcott Mawatha, Colombo 11 Petitioners Vs Merchant Bank of Sri Lanka Limited Bank of Ceylon Merchant Tower, No 28, St. Michael\\\'s Road, Colombo 3. (formerly of No. 189, Galle Road, Colombo 3) Plaintiff-Respondent 1. Francisge Dona Violet Perera, No. 103, St Joseph\\\'s Street, Grandpass, Colombo 14. 2. Francisge Dona Mildred Salgado No. 140/46 Aramaya Road, Dematagoda, Colombo 9. Defendants-R View More	Hon. Suresh Chandra J			Download
2012-02-06	SC/APPEAL/5/2010	H.M. Oman Ekanayake & 4 others Vs. W. Ratranhamy View More	Hon. Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, CJ			Download
2012-02-04	SC/CHC APPEAL/26/2009	J.H. Jacotine, No. 20, Melder Place, Nugegoda. Vs. Air Lanka Limited, 10-12, Sir Baron Jayatilleke Mawatha, Colombo 01. And Administration and Training Building, Bandaranaike International Airport, Katunayake. Respondent And Between J.H. Jacotine, No. 20, Melder Place, Nugegoda. Applicant-Appellant Vs. Air Lanka Limited, 10-12, Sir Baron Jayatilleke Mawatha, Colombo 01. And Administration and Training Building, Bandaranaike International Airport, Katunayake. Respondent-Respondent And Now Between Sri Lankan Airlines Limited, Airline Centre, Bandaranaike International Airport, Katunayake. (Formerly known as Air Lanka Limited) Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. J.H. Jacotine, No. 20, Melder Place, Nugegoda. Applicant-Appellant-Responden View More	Hon. Shiranee Tilakawardane J			Download
2012-02-03	SC/APPEAL/54/2010	Kotagala Plantations Limited Elakanda, Horana (Also at 53 1/1/, Sir Baron Jayatilleke Mawatha, Colombo 01) RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs. M.R. Ranasinghe No.14, Uyana Road, Moratuwa. APPLICANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Shiranee Tilakawardane J			Download
2012-02-03	SC/APPEAL/55/2010	M.R. Ranasinghe No:14, Uyana Road, Moratuwa Applicant-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Kotagala Plantations Limited Elakanda, Horana Respondent-Respondent-Respondent View More	Hon. Shiranee Tilakawardane J			Download
2012-02-03	SC/APPEAL/4/2009	Kahandagamage Dharmasiri Bogahahena Godawela, Nihiluwa Vs. The Republic of Sri Lanka View More	Ms Shiranee Tilakawardane J			Download
2012-02-03	SC/APPEAL/155/2010	Dombagahawattage Ranjith Wanigaratne Vs. Wijesekara Arachchige Gunawathie View More	Hon. Shiranee Tilakawardane, J			Download
2012-02-03	SC/CHC APPEAL/2/2011	Sri Lanka Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd., Co-operative Square, No. 127, Grandpass Road, Colombo 14. Vs. The State Trading Corporation of India, Jawahar Vypar Bhawan, 1- Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – 110 001, India and of Chennai House, 4th Floor, 7 Esplanade, Chennai 600108, India View More	Hon. Shiranee Tilakawardane J			Download
2012-01-31	SC/FR/73/2007, SC/FR/371/2009, SC/FR/413/2009	01. Prof. Hapugahange Ranjith Wimalanath Dharmaratne, No. 35, Sri Thapodarama Road, Kandy. 02. Dr. Maharalalage Gamini Seneviratne, No. 22, Vajirarama Mawatha, Primrose Gardens, Kandy. PETITIONERS SC FR Application No. 73/2007 Institute of Fundamental Studies, 70-1/1, Hantana Road, Kandy. And 12 Others RESPONDENTS Ms. S. M. S. D. Ramayanayeke, No. 210/6, Kandy Road, Gelioya. PETITIONER SC FR Application No. 371/2009 Institute of Fundamental Studies, 70-1/1, Hantana Road, Kandy. And 19 Others RESPONDENTS Prof. K. Tennakone, No. 24, Tapodarama Road, Kandy. PETITIONER SC FR Application No. 413/2009 Institute of Fundamental Studies, 70-1/1, Hantana Road, Kandy. And 12 Others RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof PC J		In the matter of an Application made under and in terms of Article 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2012-01-25	SC/APPEAL/102/2010	Noel Devaeve Saravanamuthu of Kalmunai Presently residing at No. 9, Centennial Avenue, Kane Cove N S W 2066, Australia. By his Attorney, William Arthur Wijayarajah Canagasabai, No. 53, Rest House Road, Kalmunai. Plaintiff D.C. Kalmunai Case No. 2184/L. Vs. 1. Thambimuthu Packiyam 2. Ratnam Valarmathy Both of Yard Road, Kalmunai Defendants. AND 1. Thambimuthu Packiyam 2. Ratnam Valarmathy Both of Yard Road, Kalmunai Defendants-Appellants. High Court Case No: EP/HCCA/KAL/11/2008 Vs. Noel Devaeve Saravanamuthu of Kalmunai Presently residing at No. 9, Centennial Avenue, Kane Cove N S W 2066, Australia. By his Attorney, William Arthur Wijayarajah Canagasabai, No. 53, Rest House Road, Kalmunai. Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW In the matter of a Application of Leave to Appeal in terms of Section 5(C)1) of the 1 High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act o. 54 of 2006 read together with Article 127 of the Constitution. Noel Devaeve Saravanamuthu of Kalmunai Presently residing at No. 9, Centennial A View More	Hon. K. Sripavan J			Download
2012-01-18	SC/APPEAL/123/2009	Kuragamage Harischandra Perera, The Municipal Engineers’ Department (Planning), Colombo Municipal Council Colombo 07. Applicant 1A. Palligoda Withanage Keerthi Wimal Withana, District Inspector, The Municipal Engineers’ Department (Planning), Colombo Municipal Council Colombo 07. Substituted Applicant. Vs. Muniyandy Paneer Selvam, No. 12, Janaki Lane, Bambalapitiya. Respondent AND Muniyandy Paneer Selvam, No. 12, Janaki Lane, Bambalapitiya. Respondent-Petitioner S.C. Appeal No. 123/09 S.C. Spl. L.A. Appln. No. 139/09 MC Mt. Lavinia Cse No. 1974/S/5 1 Case No. HCRA 88/2006 CA(PHC) Appln. No. 170/2007 Vs. 1. Kuragamage Harischandra Perera, The Municipal Engineers’ Department (Planning), Colombo Municipal Council Colombo 07. Applicant-Petitioner-1st Respondent 2. Hon. Attorney-General Attorney-General\'s Department, Colombo 12. 2nd Respondent AND NOW Muniyandy Paneer Selvam, No. 12, Janaki Lane, Bambalapitiya. Respondent-Petitioner-Petitioner Vs. 1. Kuragamage Harischandra Perera, The Municipal Engineers’ D View More	Hon. K. Sripavan J			Download
2012-01-16	SC/RE/4/2011	Rajapakshalage Prema Jayantha Vs. Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Rajanganaya. View More	Hon. Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake CJ			Download
2011-07-29	SC/APPEAL/97/2009	The Republic of Sri Lanka Vs. Kuruppu Arachchilage Wijetunge alias Wije & Others View More				Download
2011-07-21	SC/SPL LA/55/2011	Tissa Attanayake, General Secretary, United National Party Vs. 1. Commissioner General of Election, Election Secretariat, & 27 others View More				Download
2011-07-19	SC/APPEAL/51/2010	M. Wimala Perera M. Premadasa Perera, Both of No. 139, De Waas Lane, Grandpass Road, Colombo 14 Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioners vs. R.A. Kalyani Sriyalatha, No. 47, De Waas Lane, Grandpass Road, Colombo 14. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent View More				Download
2011-07-19	SC/FR/341/2009	Mr. N.N. De Silva, Superintendent of Police Vs. Mr. Jayantha Wickremaratne, Inspector General of Police & 14 Others View More				Download
2011-07-12	SC/FR/35/2011	Dasanayakage Gayani Geethika, Samarasinghe Mudalige Nandana Sugathsiri, Samarasinghe Mudalige Mithila Themiya Adithya Samarasinghe Vs D.M.D. Dissanayake, W.H.Premalal Kumarasiri , P.S.Nonis, Director of Education and 3 others View More				Download
2011-07-08	SC/HC CALA/99/2008	Jamburegoda Gamage Lakshman Jinadasa, Vs 1. Pilitthu Wasam Gallage Pathma Hemamali & 4 others View More				Download
2011-07-06	SC/APPEAL/87/09, SC/HC CALA/84/09	Storer Duraisamy Yogendra & Balasubramaniam Thavabalan Vs. Velupillai Tharmaratnam View More				Download
2011-06-28	SC/APPEAL/134A/2009	Hatton National Bank Limited, No.481, T.B.Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. And now having a branch office and a place of Business at No.149-151, Main Street, Colombo 11. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF- PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs M.S.Hebtulabhoy & Co. Limited, No.257, Grandpass Road, Colombo 14. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT Habib Bank AG Zurich, Weinbergstrasse, 8006, Zurich, Switzerland. ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT View More	Hon. Suresh Chandra J			Download
2011-06-28	SC/APPEAL/50/2008	L.H.G.Elias, No.27, Volverton Drive, Victoria, Australia. (By his Attorney B.V.A.Dekker of Of No.56, Asiri Mawatha, Kalubowila, Dehiwela) Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs Anton Gajasinghe, No.34-A1, Edirigoda Road, Nugegoda. 2nd Defendant-Petitioner- Respondent Mujahid A.Cader, No.15B, Sunandarama Road, Kalubowila, Dehiwela. 1st Defendant-Respondent Respondent View More	Hon. Suresh Chandra J			Download
2011-06-28	SC/APPEAL/82/2009	Dheerasingha Arachchige Saroja Nisansala Vs. John Laurence Rose Aberfoyle View More	Hon. Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake CJ			Download
2011-06-10	SC/FR/342/2009	H. Dilanka Wijesekera, Sanjeewa Jayasinghe & 14 others Vs Gamini Kulawansa Lokuge Minister of Sports and Public Recreation & 20 others View More	HON. TILAKAWARDANE J		In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Article 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2011-06-08	SC/APPEAL/99A/2009	Hatton National Bank Limited having its registered office at No.481, T.B.Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10. And having its branch office at No.16, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 1. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs 1. Rumeco Industries Limited No.99,Cotta Road, Borella. 2. Shirani Jasintha Thirunvakarasu, No.15, Melbourne Avenue, Colombo 4 and No.99, Cotta Road, Borella. 3. Kangasabapathy Thirunavukarasu, No.15, Melbourne Avenue, Colombo 4. And No,99, Cotta Road, Borella. Defendants-Respondents Hatton National Bank Limited having its registered office at No.481, T.B.Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10. And having its branch office at No.16, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 1. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs 1. Rumeco Industries Limited No.99,Cotta Road, Borella. 2. Shirani Jasintha Thirunvakarasu, No.15, Melbourne Avenue, Colombo 4 and No.99, cotta road, Borella. 3. Kangasabapathy Thirunavukarasu, No.15, Melbourne Avenue, Colombo 4. And No,99, Cotta Road, Borella. Defendants-Respondents- Respondents View More	Hon. Suresh Chandra J			Download
2011-06-02	SC/CHC APPEAL/34/2008	City Properties (Pvt) Ltd.., No. 111, Negombo Road, Peliyagoda. - Defendant Petitioner - Vs. Jayasiri Edirisinghe, E and S Land Sales and Property Developments, No. 627, Maradana Road, Colombo 10. - Plaintiff Respondent - View More	Hon. Sripavan J			Download
2011-05-16	SC/APPEAL/36/2010	Maharaja Investment Ltd. (Previously) Union Trust and Investment Vs. Cross World (Pvt.) Ltd., Surendra Ediriweera & another View More	Hon. S.I. Imam J		In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal under Article 128 of the Constitution read with Section 5C of the Provincial High Court (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 as Amended by Act No. 54 of 2006.	Download
2011-05-12	SC/APPEAL/154/2010	The State Complainant Vs. Devunderage Nihal View More	Hon. R.K.S. Suresh Chandra J			Download
2011-05-12	SC/APPEAL/89A/2009	Marmba Liyanage Rohana alias Loku Vs. The Hon Attorney General View More	Hon. Amaratunga J		In the matter of an appeal with Special leave to appeal granted by the Supreme Court.	Download
2011-05-10	SC/FR/276/2009	Rajaratnampillai Seyon Vs. Airport and Aviation Service (Sri Lanka) Limited., Prasanna Wickramasooriya, Chairman, Airport and Aviation Services (Sri Lanka) Limited & 8 others View More	Hon. R.K.S. Suresh Chandra J			Download
2011-05-09	SC/APPEAL/8A/2009	G.C.Karunaratne Perera. Hidwatte, Panapitiya, Waskaduwa. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs 1.P.U.Sanath Fernando 2. P.U.Navaratne Fernando Both of No.113, Galle Road, Panadura. Defendants-Appellants-Respondents View More	Hon. R.K.S. Suresh Chandra J			Download
2011-05-06	SC/CHC APPEAL/4/2001	J.D.FERNANDO of Nedimala Vs. Wasath Chandrasiri Gamlath View More	Hon. R.K.S. Suresh Chandra J			Download
2011-05-05	SC/APPEAL/12A/2009	Upali Indrathilake Amadoru. Vs. Officer-in-Charge, Special Criminal Investigation Unit, Police Station, Wennappuwa & Hon Attorney General View More	Hon. Ms. S. TILAKAWARDANE J		In the matter of an Application for Special Leave to Appeal under Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka from the judgment of the Revision Application bearing No. P.H.C. (A.P.N.) 35/08 of the Court of Appeal.	Download
2011-03-31	SC/FR/457/2008	Poddiwela Hewage Thelma Kumari Hemachandra, No. 507/1, Depot Road, Elpitiya. Petitioner Vs. 1 Elpitiya Pradeshiya Sabha, Elpitiya. 2 Ranjith Jayasinghe, The Chairman, Elpitiya Pradeshiya Sabha, Elpitiya. 3 D. Nilantha Jayaruk Panditha, Acting Secretary, Elpitiya Pradeshiya Sabha, Elpitiya. 4 Provincial Commissioner of Local Government, Southern Province, 6th Floor, District Secretariat, Galle. 5 Attorney General, Department of Attorney General, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Amaratunga J		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Article 126 of the Constitution.	Download
2011-03-21	SC/CHC APPEAL/21/2009, SC/CHC APPEAL/22/2009, SC/CHC APPEAL/23/2009	D.H.S. Jayawardene No 833, Sirimavo Bandaranaike Mawatha Colombo 14 And also of 82, Main Street Ja Ela 2nd Respondent-Petitioner Vs 1. R.K. Obeyesekere No 833, Sirimavo Bandaranaike Mawatha Colombo 14 And also of 284, Nawala Road Nawala 2. Zaki Alif No 833, Sirimavo Bandaranaike Mawatha Colombo 14 And also of No 6, 27th Lane, Inner Flower Road Colombo3 3. Dr. V.P. Vittachchi No 833, Sirimavo Bandaranaike Mawatha Colombo 14 And also of No 30/3 Colonel T.G. Jayawardene Mawatha Colombo 3 (Now Deceased) Petitioner-Respondents 1. Milford Exports (Ceylon) Ltd. No 833, Sirimavo Bandaranaike Mawatha Colombo 14 2. Mrs. Sonia Weinman 117, Alfred Place Colombo 3. 3. Secretaries and Registrar Limited 1st floor No 32A, Sir Mohamed Macan Markar Mawatha Colombo3 Respondent-Respondents View More	Hon. J.A.N. de Silva CJ			Download
2011-03-18	SC/FR/297/2008 & SC/FR/578/2008	1. Sumanasiri G. Liyanage 12/21, Circular Road, Hantane, Kandy. 2. Hettiarachchige Subash Ravi Jayawardana No. 155/4, Dolalanda Gardens, Thalawathugoda. Petitioners Vs. 1. H.E. Mahinda Rajapakse President of Sri Lanka, Temple Trees, Colombo 3. 2. W.J.M. Lokubandara, Speaker of the Parliament of Sri Lanka Parliament Complex, Sri Jayawardenapura, Kotte. 2A. Hon. Chamal Rajapakse Speaker of the Parliament of Sri Lanka Parliament Complex, Sri Jayawardenapura, Kotte. 3. Lalith Weeratunga Secretary to the President of Sri Lanka Presidential Secretariat, Colombo 01. 4. The Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. 5. Ratnasiri Wickremanayake Prime Minister of Sri Lanka Prime Minister\'s Office, No. 58, Sir Earnest de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 07. 5A. D.M. Jayaratme Prime Minister of Sri Lanka Prime Minister\'s Office, No. 58, Sir Earnest de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 07. 6. Ranil Wickremasinghe Leader of the Opposition 30, Sir Marcus Fernando Mawatha, Colombo 07 Respondents AND OTHERS View More	Hon. J.A.N. De Silva CJ		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2011-03-17	SC/HC CALA/111/2010	1. L.A. Sudath Rohana, No. 21, Pedler Street, Galle Fort, Galle. 2. W.L. Livera, No. 21, Pedler Street, Galle Fort, Galle. Respondents-Petitioners- Petitioners Vs. Mohamed Cassim Mohamed Zeena, No. 5, 1st Lane, Galle Fort, Galle. Plaintiff-Judgment Creditor- Respondent-Respondent L.A. Sudharshana, No. 21, Pedler Street, Galle Fort, Galle. Defendant-Judgment Debtor- Respondent-Respondent View More	Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake J			Download
2011-03-17	SC/APPEAL/108/2008	Browns & Company PLC, No. 481, T. B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. PETITIONER-PETITIONER-APPELLANT VS. 1. Minister of Labour, Ministry of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Department of Labour, Narahenpita. 2. The Commissioner General of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Department of Labour, Narahenpita. 3. D. A. Wijewardhane, No. 267/02, Polhengoda Road, Kirulapone, Colombo 05. 4. S. N. Wickramasinghe, No. 285/15, Sri Devananda Mawatha, Thumbowila, Piliyandala. 5. P. A. Q. Fernando, No. 483/1, Galle Road, Wadduwa. 6. S. T. N. Perera, No. 37/A, Nalandarama Road, Nugegoda. 7. Browns Engineering (Pvt) Ltd., No. 23, Alfred Place, Colombo 03. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof PC J			Download
2011-03-15	SC/FR/464/2007	Abdul Razak Mohamed Hussain 416/1, New Street, Weligama. Petitioner Vs. 1. M.M.N.D. Bandara, Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 2. S. Thillainadarajah Additional Secretary, Education Service Branch, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 3. S.L. Gunawardena Additional Secretary, Education Service Branch, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 4. L.U.W. De Soysa Senior Assistant Secretary, Education Service Branch, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 5. Padma Siriwardena Director General of Establishment, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 6. K.A. Thilakaratne Director General of Pensions Department of Pensions Maligawatte- Secretariat, Colombo 10. 7. H.D.L. Gunawardena Secretary, Public Service Commission, 46, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. 8. M.A. Dharmadasa Director of Establishments Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 9. Hon. Peter Mohan Maithree Peiris Attorney General Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents. View More	Hon. P.A. Ratnayake J		In the matter of an application under Article 12(1) and 126 and other Provisioins of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2011-03-11	SC/APPEAL/30/2009	D.L.K. Peiris Vs. Celltell Lanka Limited View More	Hon. S. Tilakawardane J		In the matter of an Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court in Terms of Article 128(2) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka.	Download
2011-03-10	SC/FR/589/2009	Harshani S. Siriwardana, “Shanthi”, Kudagammana, Divulapitiya. Petitioner Vs. 1. Malsiri J. Seneviratne, Secretary, Ministry of Health, Indigenous Medicine, Social Welfare and Women’s Affairs, Probation and Child Care and Council Affairs, Western Province, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 2. The Provincial Public Service Commission, Western Province, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 3. V. Rajapakse, Secretary, The Provincial Public Service Commission, Western Province, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 4. Dr. G. Kariyawasam, Provincial Director, Western Province, Department of Social Welfare Services, No. 5/2, Madiwela Road, Embuldeniya, Nugegoda. 5. Hon. The Attorney-General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Hon. Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake J			Download
2011-03-10	SC/FR/598/2008	Dr. W.L.D.S.G. Perera, No. 59, Kattota, Nittambuwa. Petitioner Vs. 1. Justice P.R.P. Perera, Chairman, 2. Prof. Dayasiri Fernando, Member, 3. W.P.S. Jayawardene, Member, 4. Palitha M. Kumarasinghe, Member, 5. Prof. M.S. Mookia, Member, 6. Prof. M. Rohanadheera, Member, 7. Gunapala Wickramaratne, Member, 8. S.A. Wijeratne, Member, 9. Dr. Bernad Soyza, Member, all of Public Service Commission, No. 356/B, Galle Road (Carlwil Place), Colombo 03. 10. Nimal Bandara, Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 11. K.Mohamed Thambi, Additional Secretary (Educational Service Establishments), Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 12. Hon. The Attorney-General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents View More	Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake J			Download
2011-03-10	SC/APPEAL/31/2010	Akuran Thilakage Alice Mallika (Deceased) Of KiKithalawa Thepel Unaleeya PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT Meragal Kulathilakage Wimal Samaraweera of Kithawala Thepel Unaleeya SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT Vs. 6. Meragal Kulathilakage Nimal Senaratne of Kithawala Thepel Unaleeya DEFFENDENT – APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. Meragal Pedidurayalage Tikira Alias Ananda Piyaratne (Deceased) 2. S.S. Premaratne of Kithawala Thepel Unaleeya 3. Meragal Kulathilakage Thilakaratne (Deceased) of Kithawala Thepel Unaleeya 3A. Meragal Kulathilakage Sarath Chandraratne of Kithawala Thepel Unaleeya 4. Meragal Kulathilakage Dayaratne of Kithawala Thepel Unaleeya 5. Meragal Kulathilakage Sarath Chandraratne of Kithawala Thepel Unaleeya 6. Meragal Kulathilakage Nimal Senaratne of Kithawala Thepel Unaleeya 7. Meragal Kulathilakage Premathilake of Kithawala Thepel Unaleeya 8. Meragal Kulathilakage Keerthiratne of Kithawala Thepel Unaleeya 9. Meragal Pedidurayalage Sirisena (Deceased) of Kithawala Thepel Unaleeya 9A. Meragal Pedidurayalage Karunaratne of Kithawala Thepel Unaleeya 10. Meragal Pedidurayalage Karunaratne of of Kithawala Thepel Unaleeya DEFFENDANTS – RESPONDENTS – RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. R.K.S. Suresh Chandra J		In the matter of an Appeal to the Supreme Court of The Democratic Socialist Republic Of Sri Lanka	Download
2011-02-24	SC/FR/572/2008	Sri Lanka Principals\' Service Grade 1 Officers\' Association & 98 others Vs. Justice P.R.P. Perera, Chirman Public Service Commission, & 10 others View More	Hon. P.A. Ratnayake, J		In the matter of an application under Article 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2011-02-18	SCSC/CHC APPEAL/11/2001	Indian Bank, Vs. Acuity Stock Brokers (Pvt) Limited Formerly Forbes ABN AMRO SECURITIES (PVT) Ltd. View More	Hon. R.K.S. Suresh Chandra J			Download
2011-02-08	SC/EXP/3/2010	Perumpulli Hewage Piyasena Vs. Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi, Rajavarothayan Sampathan & 3 others View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof, PC J		In the matter of an application under and in terms of Article 99(13)(a) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.	Download
2011-01-31	SC/FR/391/2009	Walawe Durage Dulani Vs. 1. Nimal Bandara, Secretary, Ministry of Education, 2. H.A.K.R. Tissera, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Education, 3. Susil Premjayanth, Minister of Education & 38 others View More	Hon. Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, J			Download
2011-01-10	SC/RE/1/2010 PART I	Gardihewa Sarath C. Fonseka No. 6, 37th Lane, Queens Road, Colombo 03 PETITIONER Vs. 1. Mr. Dhammika Kithulegoda Secretary General of Parliament of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. 2. Mr. Dhammika Dassanayake Deputy Secretary General of Parliament of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. 3. Mr. Dayananda Dissanayake Commissioner of Elections, Elections Secretariat, Rajagiriya. 4. Mr. J. Sylvester The Returning Officer – Colombo District, District Secretariat, Colombo. 5. Major General V.R. de Silva The Commissioner General of Prisons, Prison Headquarters, Colombo 8. 6. Lt. Gen. Jagath Jayasuriya Commander of the Sri Lanka Army, Army Headquarters, Colombo 2 7. Lakshman Nipunarachchi No.7, Rajaye Niwasa, Bokundara, Piliyandala 8. Hon. The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. J.A.N. De Silva CJ		In the matter of reference under Article 125 of the Constitution of the Republic.	Download
2011-01-10	SC/RE/1/2010 PART II	Gardihewa Sarath C. Fonseka No. 6, 37th Lane, Queens Road, Colombo 03 PETITIONER Vs. 1. Mr. Dhammika Kithulegoda Secretary General of Parliament of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. 2. Mr. Dhammika Dassanayake Deputy Secretary General of Parliament of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. 3. Mr. Dayananda Dissanayake Commissioner of Elections, Elections Secretariat, Rajagiriya. 4. Mr. J. Sylvester The Returning Officer – Colombo District, District Secretariat, Colombo. 5. Major General V.R. de Silva The Commissioner General of Prisons, Prison Headquarters, Colombo 8. 6. Lt. Gen. Jagath Jayasuriya Commander of the Sri Lanka Army, Army Headquarters, Colombo 2 7. Lakshman Nipunarachchi No.7, Rajaye Niwasa, Bokundara, Piliyandala 8. Hon. The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS View More	Hon. Saleem Marsoof J		In the matter of reference under Article 125 of the Constitution of the Republic.	Download
2010-06-24	SC/APPEAL/2/2009	Rajapaksha Mudiyanselage Somawathie Vs H N B Wilmon & 5 others View More				Download
2010-06-10	SC/FR/459/2008	Environmental Foundation Ltd., & others Vs Mahaveli Authority of Sri Lanka & 13 others View More				Download
2010-06-10	SC/APPEAL/101A/2009	S. Rajendran Chettiar & Others Vs S. Narayanan Chettiar View More				Download
2010-06-08	SC/FR/361/2009	Pradeep Sanjeeva Samarasinghe Vs The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon & 10 others View More				Download
2010-05-26	SC/APPEAL/101/2005	Trico Maritime (PVT) Ltd., Vs Ceylinco Insurance Co View More				Download
2010-05-06	SC/FR/13/2009	Dona Dinaya Nimdini Wijayaweera Vs B M Weerasuriya, Principal Vishakha Vidyalaya & 10 others View More				Download
2010-05-06	SC/APPEAL/79/2008	Hon AG Vs Sandanam Pitchi Mary Theresa Hon AG Vs Sandanam Pitchi Mary Theresa View More				Download
2010-05-06	SC/APPEAL/64/2008	Sasikala Rasadari Mahawewa alias Sasikala Rasadari Baddegama Mahawewa nee Liyanage & another Vs Vithana Appuhamilage Oliver View More				Download
2010-05-06	SC/FR/458/2007	C A Premashantha Vs Neville Piyadigama, Commissioner Investigate Allegations of Bribary & Corruption & 11 others View More				Download
2010-05-03	SC/FR/305/2008	Professor Serosha Mandika Wijeyaratne Vs. Prof. Wiswa Warnapala and 4 others View More				Download
2010-04-30	SC/APPEAL/81/2009	W Francis Fernando & another Vs W A Fernando & 3 others View More				Download
2010-04-08	SC/HCLA/4/2009	Airport and Aviation Services Vs Buildmart Lanka (Pvt.) Ltd View More				Download
2010-04-03	SC/APPEAL/32/2009	H D S Jayawardena Vs D G Subadra Menike (applying by her Att. M Piyadasa) View More				Download
2010-04-01	SC/FR/105/2008	W K B Seneviratne & 5 others Vs Chairman, PSC & 23 others View More				Download
2010-03-31	SC/APPEAL/19/2009	Sumathipala Weligamage OIC Ginigathhena & 3 others L B Finance PLC Ltd., & 2 others View More				Download
2010-03-29	SC/CHC APPEAL/3/2000	Hon. The Attorney-General Vs Lanka Tractors Limited and another View More				Download
2010-03-24	SC/APPEAL/78/2006	Ranjanee Pathirana 6th Res Petitioner Vs Secretary, Ministry of Environmental & Natural resources & 5 others View More				Download
2010-03-16	SC/CHC APPEAL/13/2001	Peoples Bank PLC Vs Lokuge International Garments (PVT) Ltd. View More				Download
2010-03-15	SC/CHC APPEAL/48/1999	Stassen Exports Ltd Vs Brooke Bond (Cey) (PVT) Ltd., & 2 others View More				Download
2010-03-05	SC/APPEAL/44/2006	Bastian Koralage Denzil Anthony Chrishantha Rodrigo Weerasinghe Gunawardena VS A. Ralph Senake Deraniyagala & Others View More				Download
2010-03-03	SC/APPEAL/6/2008	Timberlake International (PVT) Ltd., Vs CG of Forests and 3 others View More				Download
2010-03-03	SC/APPEAL/33/2009	D.G. Subadra Menike VS H.D.S. Jayawardena View More				Download
2010-03-02	SC/APPEAL/9/2002	Ven. Bengamuve Dhammaloka Thero Vs Dr. Cyril Anton Balasuriya View More				Download
2010-02-08	SC/SPL LA/229/2009	Manamperi Ralalage Jayatissa Vs Hon AG Manamperi Ralalage Jayatissa Vs Hon AG View More				Download
2010-02-03	SC/APPEAL/49/2003	Horagalage sopinona Substituted Plaintiff App Petitioner Vs Kumara Ratnakeerthi Pitipanaarachchi & 2 others View More	DR. SHIRANI A. BANDARANAYAKE, J.			Download
2010-02-02	SC/APPEAL/12/2009	Walakulu Pedige Padmawathie Substituted Plaintiff App Petitioner Vs Muhandadura Malcom & 4 others View More				Download
2009-06-25	SC/CHC APPEAL/21/2006	Peoples Bank, Colombo 02 Vs Yashodha Holdings (PVT) Ltd. View More				Download
2009-06-24	SC/CHC APPEAL/22/2006	People's Bank, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. View More				Download
2009-06-17	SC/APPEAL/12/2006	Mohamed Thawfeek Mukthar, Mohamed Sahad Mukthar VS Mohamed Fhamy Mukthar and others View More				Download
2009-06-03	SC/SPL LA/23/2009	View More				Download
2009-06-03	SC/FR/158/2007	Vasudewa Nanayakkara Vs K N Chocksy, MP, PC & 37 others View More				Download
2009-06-03	SC/FR/117/2007	R S Nandalal & another Vs Public Enterprise Reform Commission & 9 others View More				Download
2009-05-31	SC/FR/178/2008	Ven Ellawala Medananda Thero & 6 others Vs Sunil Kannangara & 64 others View More				Download
2009-05-31	SC Appeal 85/08 & 101/08 SC Spl LA 197/08 CA (Writ) Appeal 1493/04	U D A & another Vs Minister of Lands & 5 others View More				Download
2009-05-31	SC/FR/24/2008	K A Dayawathie Vs D S Edirisinghe & 4 others View More				Download
2009-05-28	SC/APPEAL/65/2003	Upali Dharmasiri Welaratne Vs. Wesley Jayaraj Moses View More				Download
2009-05-27	SC/APPEAL/43/2007	Capt N M K A H Nawaratne Vs Major General Sarath Fonseka & 6 others View More				Download
2009-05-13	SC/APPEAL/62/2003	International Cement Traders(PVT) Ltd., Vs Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Hon. Prime Minister & 32 others View More				Download
2009-05-13	SC/FR/258/2007	Uduwa Athukoralage Chandrasena Vs Sub-Inspector Buddhika & others View More				Download
2009-05-12	SC/APPEAL/71/2007	S. Sivayanama, S. Sivasivaya VS People's Bank & Others View More				Download
2009-05-05	SC/APPEAL/81/2004	Central Bank of Sri Lanka & 3 others Vs Lanka Tea & Rubber Plantations (PVT) Ltd. View More				Download
2009-05-03	SC Appeal Spl(Expulsion) 1/09	M S S A Ali Vs Sri Lanka Muslim Congress & 4 others View More				Download
2009-05-02	SC/FR/97/2008	Jayaprakash Sittampalam Tissanayagam Vs. Prasanna de Alwis, Officer in Charge, Terrorist Investigation Division & 4 others View More				Download
2009-04-30	SC/APPEAL/7/2004	Francis Samarawickrama Vs D E H Jayasinghe & another View More				Download
2009-04-02	SC/FR/505/2005	Sumanasena Liyanarachchi & 25 others Vs P B Jayasundara & 13 others View More				Download
2009-03-31	SC/APPEAL/2/2005	Sri Co-operative Industries Federation Limited Vs Ajith Devapriya Kotalawala View More				Download
2009-03-31	SC/FR/224/2006	M D Nandapala Vs Sergeant Sunil (R 11834) & 5 others View More				Download
2009-03-19	SC/FR/145/2007	Ratnasingam Kanapathipillai Vs Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation & 4 others View More				Download
2009-03-19	SC/FR/56/2008	M. Deepthi Kumara Gunaratne & others Vs Dayananda Dissanayake & others View More				Download
2009-03-18	SC/APPEAL/49/2008	Toyota Lanka (PVT) Ltd., & another Vs S A C S W Jayathilaka & 2 others View More				Download
2009-03-18	SC/FR/67/2008	Sirimasiri Hapuarachchi & Others Vs Dayananda Dissanayake & Others View More				Download
2009-03-11	SC/APPEAL/74/2007	K D Tilakaratne Vs I P Mandawala K D Tilakaratne Vs I P Mandawala View More				Download
2009-03-03	SC/FR/252/2007	M. Azath S. Salley Vs Colombo Municipal Council View More				Download
2009-02-15	SC/CHC APPEAL/43/2007	Seylan Bank PLC Vs Samneliya Teas (PVT) Ltd., & 3 others View More				Download
2009-02-15	SC/APPEAL/59/2008	Dr. K Puvanendran & others Vs T M Premasiri & 2 others View More				Download
2009-02-04	SC/APPEAL/71/2008	K A F V Bandula Nanayakkara Vs Distilleries Company of Sri Lanka View More				Download
2009-01-29	SC/APPEAL/52/2003	R A Samaranayake Vs R B L E Wijesooriya & 5 others View More				Download
2009-01-27	SC Appeal L A 243/07 Appeal 92/07 HCA (LT) 21/03 LT No. R/2662/97	T A Abeypala & another Vs B W Piyadasa & another View More				Download

Quick links

support

gallery

Recent Posts

Court Holiday Notice – Poson Poya

Contact Us

Follow Us