SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(Ker) 550

S.PADMANABHAN
Ratnakaran – Appellant
Versus
P T Thomas – Respondent


JUDGMENT

S. Padmanabhan, J.

1. Second appeal is by the defendant. He was the Manager employed by the respondent in his proprietary concern. He had no salary. Terms of employment were covered by Ext. A1 agreement. He could draw amounts for travelling and incidental expenses, for which he had to render accounts. In addition, he was entitled to get share of profits also. The suit was filed for realisation of Rs. 3,805.00 as amount drawn but not accounted. While denying liability, the appellant made a counter claim of Rs. 8,000.00, for which he paid court fee. The suit was decreed. But the counter claim was left open without decision on the ground that it exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff. Appeal was also dismissed. Both the courts below took the stand that his remedy, so far as the counter claim is concerned, is only by way of a fresh suit, which may now be barred by limitation. The contention that the counter claim exceeding the pecuniary jurisdiction had to be returned for presentation before the competent court was met by the appellate Judge by saying that even if it was returned, it could have been filed only as a counter claim in a pending suit.

2. I think that both







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top