summary : That the enjoining order was irregularly or wrongly issued. 1. That an enjoining order has all the force of an interim injunction and disobedience of an enjoining order constitutes an offence of contempt of court. 2. That the Court of Appeal has all the powers under Article 105(3) of the Constitution of punishing for contempt whether committed in facie curae or ex facie curiae. 3. That the jurisdiction of an inferior court to punish for contempt is confined to punishments for contempt, as are perpetrated in facie curae and does not extend to those committed out of court unless express statutory power is given for that purpose. 4. When an injunction is obtained against a juristic person the parties who must obey it are those in control of the affairs of the juristic person. There is no requirement in sc R eg en t In tern a tio n a l H otels Ltd. v. C yril G a rd in er a n d O th ers (S am arak oon, C .J.j 2 7 9 law that they must also be direct. If they fail they are guilty of contempt and they are the persons to be charged for contempt. 5. Every act done in contravention of an enjoining order as long as it is operative constitutes a breach of it and therefore a contempt of court. 6. As long as an enjoining order is in operation the party who has obtained it is entitled to make successive attempts to have it obeyed and the obstruction of each of such attempts constitutes a contempt of court. 7. An enjoining order is issued for swift and immediate action and like an injunction must be implicitly obeyed and obeyed to the letter. If two views are possible and the court has taken one view it is not open to a party to say that the other view should have been accepted and therefore refuse to obey the enjoining order. Cases referred

-

 Contempt - Disobedience - Enjoining Order made by the Court of Appeal - Orders of the Court of Appeal under Article 105(3) of the Constitution - Civil Procedure Code, Chapters XLVIII and LXV.

 

Enjoining order - Disobedience of an enjoining order - Enjoining order against a juristic person - Parties who must obey.

 

The appellant Regent International Hotels Ltd., Hong Kong instituted an action against the Galle Face Hotel Company Ltd., and Cyril Gardiner its Chairman and Managing Director and others praying for the specific performance of an agreement marked '"A" and filed with the plaint and for a permanent and an interim injunction pending the final determination of the action restraining the defendants from violating any of the rights of the plaintiff under the said agreement. The learned District Judge entered an interlocutory order and an enjoining order restraining the defendants from committing any of the acts violating the plaintiff's rights under the said agreement. The order was served on the defendants but the defendants disobeyed the said order on a number of occasions when the plaintiff attempted to enforce the provisions of the said order.

 

Thereafter the "plaintiff" instituted proceedings before the Court of Appeal for contempt of Court under the provisions of Chapter LXV of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application but granted leave to appeal.

 

It was argued before the Supreme Court :

 
1. The law does not make the breach of an enjoining order a contempt of court.
 
2. The Court of Appeal has no power to take cognizance of a disobedience to an enjoining order under Article 105(3) of the Constitution.

3. That the enjoining order is bad in law as it does not direct every person concerned to refrain from doing certain acts.


CLICK AND READ THE REST

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

constructive trust - synopsys of a presentation

-
Image
  TRUST - A presentation -  October 29, 2016 786 GALLELAW BLOGGER   [ many authorities cited in this document have been hyperlinked by the blogger to save the precious time of the reader]     "Constructive trust serves as the guardian of the oppressed when the rigidity of written law hinders the pursuit of justice. It embodies the flexibility and moral conscience of the legal system, ensuring that equity prevails where legal technicalities may fall short. By recognizing the rightful claims of those unjustly deprived, constructive trust provides a path to fairness and restores balance, offering hope and remedy to those wronged by the limitations of formal law." - GALLELAWBLOGGER     October 29, 2016   TRUST – synopsis of a presentation made to the District Judges on 24.8.2002 by A W A Salam at the auditorium of the Office of Judicial Service Commission presided over by Justices Udalagama Director of SLJI  ...
Read more

EQUITY SAVES A MAN AND HIS RESIDENCIAL HOUSE- CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST SUPREME COURT RECENT JUDGMENT ARJUNA OBEYSEKERA J

-
Image
  The plaintiff sued the 1st and 2nd Defendants for a declaration of title to the subject matter of the action and ejectment of a landed property. In the amended answer, the 2nd defendant admitted the execution of several deeds affecting the subject matter including one in favour of Odayan Kureishan, but claimed that Kureishan, the 1st defendant, and subsequently the plaintiff, came to hold the property in trust for him [ the 2nd Defendand]​​  The main issue was whether the beneficial interest in the property had been transferred to Odayan Kureishan or if the property was being held in trust for the 2nd  defendant by Kureishan, the 1st defendant, and subsequently the plaintiff. Essentially, the court had to determine if these transactions were actual sales or just loans with the second defendant still owning the property.  The District Court decided that the beneficial interest in the property had not been transferred to Odayan Kureishan. The court held that the prop...
Read more

some selected

-
Image
  Terms of Service · Privacy · Content Policy All Blogs MANAGE GALLELAW BLOGGER 1 minute ago PEIRIS AND ANOTHER v. PERERA AND ANOTHER Sri Lanka Law Reports 2002 - Volume 2 , Page No - 128 *PEIRIS AND ANOTHER v. PERERA AND ANOTHER* *(The blogger's understanding of the judgment is summarized as follows)* *CLICK ON ME* The defendants filed a petition seeking permission to appeal against the orders issued by the District Judge on January 19 and January 24, 2001. They also requested a stay of proceedings in DC Panadura case No. 2794/spl. Initially, the court granted a stay order on January 31, 2001, but later refused to extend it on April 6, 2001, as the dispute involved a right of way. The situation arose from the following facts: The District Judge, through his o...  read more GALLELAW BLOGGER 5 days ago Having exercised jurisdiction the Magistrate is not permitted to revisit the question of breach of peace. The Magistrate is clothed with the jurisdiction to ent...
Read more