Judges' personal vindication is not the goal of contempt jurisdiction; it is to protect justice and public faith in the law. **** Contempt of Court – Jurisdiction of Commercial High Court – Interim orders under the Companies Act – Whether Commercial High Court has power to punish for contempt ex facie curiae – Scope of Article 105(3) of the Constitution – Sections 18 and 55 of the Judicature Act – Distinction between Superior and Inferior Courts of Record – Effect of the Contempt of Court Act, No. 8 of 2024.

-

 Headnote drawn by "GALLELAWBLOGGER"


M.B.A. Systems (Pvt) Ltd. v. Virginia Perera

The Petitioner instituted proceedings in the Commercial High Court of Colombo under sections 224 and 225 of the Companies Act, No. 7 of 2007, alleging oppression and mismanagement of the 1st Respondent Company. Pending determination, the Court issued an interim order restraining the Respondents from preventing the Petitioner from acting as a director of the Company. The Petitioner thereafter complained that the Respondents had wilfully disobeyed the interim order, and sought punishment for contempt.

The 1st Respondent objected in limine, contending that the Commercial High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain contempt committed ex facie curiae, since (a) it was not a superior court of record, and (b) the Companies Act contained no express provision granting such jurisdiction. The High Court overruled the objection and decided to proceed. On appeal, the Supreme Court granted leave on the question whether a High Court exercising civil jurisdiction under Act No. 10 of 1996 has power to hear and determine contempt arising from violation of its interim orders.

Held (Surasena J., Samayawardhena J. and Obeyesekere J. concurring):

The contempt jurisdiction of courts of first instance, including Provincial High Courts established under Article 154P of the Constitution, is derived from section 18 of the Judicature Act, which empowers a High Court to try “any offence of contempt committed against or in disrespect of its authority,” a formulation wide enough to cover both in facie curiae and ex facie curiae contempts.

The historical distinction between superior courts of record and inferior courts of record does not limit the contempt powers of the High Courts, as subsequent legislation has conferred a broad and plenary jurisdiction consistent with the need to uphold judicial authority.

Although the Companies Act contains no provision akin to section 663 of the Civil Procedure Code, the absence of such a clause does not derogate from the inherent and statutory contempt powers of the High Court, which apply equally to interim orders issued under the Companies Act.

The enactment of the Contempt of Court Act, No. 8 of 2024, consolidates and clarifies the law by expressly vesting all courts of first instance with jurisdiction over contempts committed both in facie and ex facie curiae. This confirms, but does not newly create, the pre-existing jurisdiction of High Courts.

Judges' personal vindication is not the goal of contempt jurisdiction; it is to protect justice and public faith in the law.

Appeal dismissed. Order of the Commercial High Court was affirmed. The Commercial High Court possesses jurisdiction to punish for contempt arising from violation of its interim orders.

READ JUDGMENT ONLINE—JUST CLICK

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