S.PADMANABHAN
Ratnakaran – Appellant
Versus
P T Thomas – Respondent
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.