Chennai Court November 1953 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
K.G. Krishnappa Chetti Vs. Pachiappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad855
ORDERMack, J.1. This petition raises a point of negotiable instrument law, which does not appear to be covered by any definite authority in case law. Theundisputed facts before me are these. The petitioner is the plaintiff, who on 24-2-1948 took an assignment for consideration from one Parasuramathasari, third defendant, of a pronote for Rs. 220 executed in the latter's favour by defendants 1 and 2, who were ex parte throughout. The learned Small Cause Judge declined to pass any decree against the third defendant on the ground that the plaintiff waited for an unreasonably long time before making a valid presentment and demand for payment and did not send the notice of dishonour in a reasonable time.2. It is common ground that the plaintiff demanded payment from defendants 1 and 2 in December 1943 by notice Ex. A. 3 dated 23-12-1948 receipt of which was acknowledged by the second defendant on a postal acknowledgment, Ex. A. 5. There was no response from defendants 1 and 2. Plaintiff the...
In Re: Beharilal Baldeoprasad Firm of Merchants by Partner Tagoor Pras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1953
Reported in: AIR1955Mad271
ORDERRamaswami, J. 1. This is a revision petition which is sought to be filed against the decree and Judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin in S. C. S. No. 504 of 1953. 2. The facts are: On 27-10-1949 the plaintiff, 'a merchant at Tuticorin, placed a telegraphic order with the defendants' firm at Kanpur for one wagon of 'dry peas dhall superior without broken or dankie'. The first defendant accepted the order and contracted to supply the goods specified. On 7-11-1949 the plaintiff remitted a sum of Rs. 1000 through the Central Bank of India to the defendants as advance of the sale price of the contracted goods. On the goods arriving at Tuticorin the plaintiff inspected the goods and found them to be Inferior, broken and dankie mixed with husk. Thereupon the plaintiff called in Sri Subbier, P. W. 2, the defendants' Tuticorin representative, and he inspected the goods and satisfied himself that the complaint of the plaintiff was well founded. The plaintiff refu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›