Kandana Arachchige Shehari Vs. The Officer-in-Charge, Police Narcotics Bureau & The Attorney General
Hon. P. Kumararatnam, J.
Exceptional Circumstances
The Poisons Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance as amended by the Act No.41 of 2022
2026-03-12
CA/WRT211/25
H.I. Prasanna Kumara KithalagamaVs. Commissioner General of Inland Revenue and others
Hon. M.C.B.S. Morais J.
Writ, Notice, Tax, MC Proceeding
Section 43(1) and Section 52(2) of the Value Added Tax Act No. 14 of 2002
2026-03-09
CA Bail 0032/25
Amila Menaka Paranavithana Vs. The Attorney General
Hon. P. Kumararatnam, J.
Exceptional Circumstances
The Poisons Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance as amended by the Act No.41 of 2022.
2026-03-06
CA/RII/08/2023
Wijepala Abayasinghe Mudiyanselage Sudesh Ruwan, Vs 01.Mannikkuge Mallika Silva. and other
Hon. Dr. Sumudu Premachandra J.
Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal over High Court Civil Appeal Orders
Article 138 of the Constitution
2026-03-05
CA (Tax)/12/2024
THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF INLAND REVENUE, Vs PEOPLE’S BANK, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2.
Hon. ANNALINGAM PREMASHANKER, J.
2026-03-03
CA/WRT/199/2023
R. M. C. R. D. Rajapakshe Vs The Regional Manager and Others
Hon. Dr. D. F. H. Gunawardhana, J.
The Petitioner, an Attorney-at-Law practicing in Rathnapura, had employed two clerks as freelance workers; however, they had made a complaint to the ETF Office that they employees based on monthly salary and requested the ETF officers to intervene and compel the employer to contribute her part. Without inquiry, on ex parte evidence, the said officers had directed the Petitioner to pay certain amounts that they had decided. Court issued writ.
The Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
2026-03-03
CA/WRT/259/2024
Ali Abdulla Al Suwaidi Vs Hatton National Bank PLC and Others
Hon. Dr. D. F. H. Gunawardhana, J.
The Petitioner is an investor who had invested in the 5th Respondent company incorporated in Sri Lanka; the said money was invested on the promise that 100% of the shares would be transferred to the Petitioner. The project was set up in a land belonging to the 6th and 7 th Respondents, and the 5th Respondent raised a loan from the 1st Respondent bank, and the said land was mortgaged to secure the said loan. The 5th Respondent failed to service the loan, and there was a dispute between the Petitioner and the 1st, 6th and 7th Respondents regarding the issuance of shares. Having come to know that the 1st Respondent was taking steps to sell the mortgaged property by auction, the Petitioner informed the 1st Respondent that he is an interested party in terms of Section 2(1)(c) of Act No. 4 of 1990 to notice him prior to the passage of the resolution, which the 1 st Respondent did not comply with. Held – the Petitioner is not a party interested in the subject matter or in the company being not a shareholder or direc
The Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
