District Judge dismisses application for Interim Injunction subject to cost and awards Rs 500,000

0
99

Indula Ukkansa Sumithraarachchi instituted action, in the District Court of Colombo, against his wife Manjari Prasansa Sumithraarachchi, claiming that he is a partner in Manjari Trade Centre and obtained an ex-parte enjoining order restraining his wife, Manjari Prasansa Sumithraarachchi, from obstructing him functioning as a Partner and restraining his wife from adding a new Partner to the partnership business and restraining her from selling the assets of the partnership and preventing the taking of any steps to wind-up the partnership business.

Manjari Prasansa Sumithraarachchi filed objections to the said ex-parte enjoining order, obtained by the said Indula Ukkansa Sumithraarachchi and brought to the notice of Court that: the business known as Manjari Trade Centre was started as a sole proprietorship by the Defendant Manjari Prasansa Sumithraarachchi’s father, Jamburegoda Gamachchige Sumanapala on 01.09.1987;

Manjari Prasansa Sumithraarachchi’s father then added his wife Akuregoda Gamage Dharmalatha, as a Partner to the business known as Manjari Trade Center on 22.05.1998; the business known as ‘Manjari’ is specifically named after the Defendant since the Defendant’s name is Manjari and as it was started by Manjari Prasansa Sumithraarachchi’s father and from inception was intended to be passed down to Manjari Prasansa Sumithraarachchi. In fact, in a similar manner, Manjari Prasansa Sumithraarachchi’s father started a business by the name of ‘Lady’ which is specifically named after Manjari Prasansa Sumithraarachchi’s sister, Jayani Shanika Sumanapala, and from inception was intended by her father to be passed down to Manjari Prasansa Sumithraarachchi’s sister; .the business known as ‘Manjari’ operates in three locations: Galle, Nugegoda and Moratuwa which is admitted by the plaintiff Indula Ukkansa Sumithraarachchi;

as such, Indula Ukkansa Sumithraarachchi was added as an ‘nominee/agent’ of Manjari Prasansa Sumithraarachchi solely on the basis of his marriage to Manjari Prasansa Sumithraarachchi and the Defendant Manjari            Prasansa Sumithraarachchi has now instituted divorce action bearing No.DDV/515/2022 against Indula Ukkansa Sumithraarachchi on the grounds of malicious desertion and adultery and obtained certain enjoining orders restricting Indula Ukkansa Sumithraarachchi from removing the three children from Sri Lanka and preventing Indula Ukkansa Sumithraarachchi from entering Manjari Prasansa Sumithraarachchi’s house;

f. Indula Ukkansa Sumithraarachchi has also admitted that the business operations at the branches of ‘Manjari’ are carried on with the consent and concurrence of the owners of the lands and buildings; and

g. the Plaintiff Indula Ukkansa Sumithraarachchi has not invested any capital into the business known as ‘Manjari’.

After filing the Statement of Objections, Court directed both parties to file their Written Submissions and fixed the case for order in regard to the application for Interim Injunction.

Having perused the Plaint, Objections and Written Submissions of both parties, the learned Colombo District Judge Poornima Parangamage, delivered the Order dismissing the application for Interim Injunction prayed for in the prayer to the Plaint subject to cost and further held that Rs 500,000 deposited by the Plaintiff Indula Ukkansa Sumithraarachchi, in this case, as security at the time of obtaining the ex-parte enjoining order, to be entitled to the defendant manjari Prasansa Sumithraarachchi.

In the Order, Court also held that the Plaintiff has admitted that the Manjari Trade Centre was commenced by the Defendant Manjari Prasansa Sumithraarachchi’s father Jamburegoda Gamachchige Sumanapala and by virtue of marriage the said Indula Ukkansa Sumithraarachchi was admitted as a Partner to the said business and furthermore that the Plaintiff Indula Ukkansa Sumithraarachchi has admitted that he has not invested any sum whatsoever to the Partnership business and therefore ex-facie there is no partnership business in terms of the law and the Plaintiff Indula Ukkansa Sumithraarachchi became a partner purely or solely due to the fact by marrying the Defendant Manjari Prasansa Sumithraarachchi.

Court also held that the Plaintiff Indula Ukkansa Sumithraarachchi failed to establish prima facie that he has a lawful right to obtain an order to carry on business as a partner until the Manjari Trade Centre partnership is dissolved and furthermore, it has not been established by the Plaintiff Indula Ukkansa Sumithraarachchi that he had or having a relationship with the Defendant Manjari Prasansa Sumithraarachchi to carry on business with the intention of making the profit in terms of the English Law.

Court also held that if the conditions are laid and the Interim Injunction issued in favour of the Plaintiff Indula Ukkansa Sumithraarachchi, in regard to the property owned by the Defendant Manjari Prasansa Sumithraarachchi suffers more irreparable damages than the Plaintiff Indula Ukkansa Sumithraarachchi.

President’s Counsel Kuvera de Zoysa with Attorneys-at-Law Jerusha Crossette Thambiah, Niranjan Arulpragasam and Vinuri Abeyratne, instructed by Attorney-at-Law G. G. Arulpragasam appeared for the Defendant.

President’s Counsel Faiszer Musthapha with Attorneys-at-Law Zaida Baary, Tharaka Nanayakkara and Randika Mudannayake, instructed by Attorney-at-Law Panchali Harshakumari Ekanayake appeared for the Plaintiff.