K.M.A. Anulawathie Menike vs. A.H.M.J. Abeyratne – SC APPEAL NO. 29/2009-2018

Brief
The case between K.M.A. Anulawathie Menike and A.H.M.J. Abeyratne addressed the issue of whether a party who has entered into a settlement before a Debt Conciliation Board under the Debt Conciliation Ordinance—where secured debts, such as mortgage bonds or conditional transfers, are involved—is compelled to enforce such settlement solely by filing an application under section 43, or whether ordinary legal remedies such as vindicatory or hypothecary actions remain open. It was held that the statutory language of section 43(1), using the word “may,” is permissive and does not preclude the institution of ordinary actions to enforce rights derived from a settlement. The established principle is that a party is not restricted to the remedy under section 43 and retains the right to pursue