Damayanthi Abeywardene and Another v. Hemalatha Abeywardene and Others – sllr 1993 volume 1 page 272

In the case between Damayanthi Abeywardene and another (Petitioners) and Hemalatha Abeywardene and others (Respondents), the court addressed whether the petition under sections 210 and 211 of the Companies Act, alleging oppression and mismanagement, was adequately supported by direct evidence as required under the Civil Procedure Code, particularly regarding the affidavit attributed to T. Nadeson. The court held that the petition was not properly substantiated, as the supporting affidavit failed to set out direct evidence and instead restated petition averments and made assertions based on belief. The principle reaffirmed is that affidavits supporting summary procedure applications in company law disputes must strictly comply with evidentiary requirements for direct evidence under statutes