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

1991 Supreme(Mad) 403

SRINIVASAN
M. Mahadevan Pillai – Appellant
Versus
Vedavalli Ammal – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:V. Raghavachari, M. S. Krishnan, S. Parthasarathy, Advocates.

Judgment :-

SRINIVASAN J.

The defendant is the appellant. The suit is on a promissory note dated September 19, 1972, executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 5, 000. According to the plaintiff, the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 1, 000 and made an endorsement on March 15, 1975. It is stated in the plaint that while making the endorsement, the defendant added the words "for Devi Talkies (P) Ltd." above his signature and the words "managing director" below the same. It is stated that the plaintiff did not notice the mistake immediately and as the endorsement was made by the defendant himself, he was personally bound. The suit was filed on March 15, 1978. The defendant stated as follows in the written statement : The defendant was the managing director of Devi Talkies (P) Ltd., which owned a cinema theatre called Devi Talkies. The previous managing director filed a suit against the company and the board of directors for an injunction restraining them from interfering with his management. The suit was dismissed and an appeal met with the same fate. A receiver was in management during the pendency of the suit and the appeal. There was a second appeal in the High























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