|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Saturday, 22 May 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Politics | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
| UNP leaders ordered to pay costs to Rupavahini, ITN Colombo District Court while allowing the plaintiff UNP Chairman Malik Samarawickrema and former Trade and Commerce Minister Ravi Karunanayake to withdraw case filed against Rupavahini and ITN ordered them to pay the taxed cost to the defendants when the case was taken up yesterday before the District Court. Romesh de Silva appearing for the plaintiff moved to withdraw both cases without cost. Counsel appearing for the defendants submitted to the courts that withdrawal of the cases should be allowed subject to cost because the application to withdraw was a vindication of defendant's position that court has no jurisdiction and that plaintiffs had suppressed actual facts and documents. On March 26, 2004 UNP Chairman Malik Samarawickrema and former Minister of Trade and Commerce Ravi Karunanayake obtained an enjoining order from the District Court of Colombo against Rupavahini and ITN alleging violation of Media Guidelines issued by the Commissioner of Elections applicable to the General Election. On May 10, 2004 both Rupavahini and ITN filed objections, mainly preliminary jurisdictions in law. The principal objection was that the District Court has no jurisdiction because matters set out in the plaint referred to questions of interpreting the Constitution, which only the Supreme Court had sole and exclusive jurisdiction under the Article 125 of the Constitution. Both defendants also pleaded that the plaintiff had suppressed and misrepresented actual facts and documents and annexed several letters to these objections to show that both institutions had repeatedly invited the UNP and its leaders during the General Elections for programmes on both TV stations and they had refused to oblige. Yesterday in the District Court Romesh de Silva, PC moved to withdraw both cases without costs. Nigel Hatch, Counsel appearing for the defendants submitted to court that the withdrawal should be permitted subject to cost because the application to withdraw was a vindication of the defendant's position that the court has no jurisdiction and that plaintiffs had suppressed actual facts and documents. The learned District Judge dismissed both actions subject to payment of taxed costs to the defendants. Legal experts are of the view that both cases were withdrawn because they lacked any legal foundation. Nigel Hatch, Attorney-at-Law appeared for ITN, Rohan Peiris, Attorney-at-Law appeared for Rupavahini. Romesh de Silva, PC instructed by G. G. Arulpragasam, Attorney-at-Law appeared for the plaintiff. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
