Wijeratne v. Jesudasan and Another – sllr 1989 volume 2 page 338

In WIJERATNE v. JESUDASAN AND ANOTHER, the court examined whether the 2nd respondent, a Director, was guilty of contempt for allegedly removing company files in violation of an interim order under the Companies Ordinance. The allegation relied on circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies presenting inconsistencies concerning the time and manner of removal. The holding established that the evidence did not prove the respondent improperly used his position or acted on company premises after the order, leading to his discharge from the proceedings. The decision reaffirmed the principle that contempt must be established by clear, cogent evidence, referencing standards under the Companies Ordinance and established case law, thereby underscoring the necessity for strict proof in contempt m