File picture- Workers protesting outside the LMSL premises.

A motion was filed by the petitioner in the Lanka Marine Services Ltd (LMSL) case in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, detailing the inaction of certain respondents in complying with the LMSL judgment handed down on July 21 and asking that the court make further orders and/or give directions in terms of the jurisdiction vested in the Supreme Court.

In the motion, court documents show that petitioner Vasudeva Nanayakkara has stated that the LMSL judgment made order declaring that the transfer of the Bloemendhal land to LMSL (19th Respondent) had been carried out in a 'wrongful, unlawful and fraudulent manner' and that the grant purporting to transfer the land is 'fraudulent and ab-initio invalid, null and void and of no force or avail in law.' Further, the petitioner stated that the judgment made order 'cancelling, annulling and making void the Instrument of Grant purporting to transfer the Bloemendhal Land to LMSL.'

The judgment also directed the 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st respondents (John Keells Holdings, LMSL, Chairman of JKH Susantha Ratnayake and former JKH Chairman V. Lintotawela) to vacate the aforesaid premises within one month from the said date and restore possession to the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA), the 16th Respondent.

Mr. Nanayakkara states that without notice to the petitioner, the 19th respondent (JKH) had filed motion dated August 18 moving the Court to grant two months time to vacate the premises. 'Your Lordships' Court had granted time only until 10.09.2008 and directed that this matter be mentioned on 8.9.2008 with notice to the SLPA and the Petitioner.' The motion also states that whereas the respondents, respecting the judgment of the Court, ought to have filed such a motion, if it had been practically necessary, shortly after the July 21 judgment and not just two days prior to the said date by which the premises were to be vacated. 'The petitioner verily believes that the conduct and actions of the said respondents had not been bona-fide.'

The petitioner states that the mala-fides of the said respondents is borne out by the fact in the aforesaid motion dated 18.8.2008, it has been disclosed, that a request had been made to the SLPA for a lease of the aforesaid premises, which is an affront to the judgment of the court and could tantamount to contempt therefore, inasmuch as the 19th respondent, whilst continuing to be in possession and occupation of the said premises, notwithstanding the aforesaid reliefs granted, could not have endeavoured to negotiate for a lease without having vacated the said premises in terms of the judgment.

The motion further states that the petitioner verily believes that the 18th and/or 19th respondents, through their agents and/or officers, had caused anxiety to the workers of the said premises with the threat of being 'locked out' on the vacation of the said premises on 20.8.2008 and that the said respondents had not acted bona-fide to take meaningful steps to vacate the premises respecting the judgment.

The petitioner further states that in pursuance of the judgment that 'all parties to these proceedings will take necessary action on the basis of the findings stated in the judgment', the petitioner is unaware of any action taken by the 28th respondent (Inspector General of Police), the 29th respondent (Deputy Inspector General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department), 30th Respondent (Chairman, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption), 25th Respondent (Director General, Securities and Exchange Commission of Sri Lanka) and the 31st Respondent (Attorney General).