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

1934 Supreme(Mad) 408

Athimannil Muhammad – Appellant
Versus
The Malabar District Board – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. We have heard arguments, on this appeal, only on the question raised by issue No. 2, namely, whether the suit is barred under Section 225(3) of the Madras Local Boards Act, as it has admittedly been instituted more than six months after the accrual of the alleged cause of action. As we agree with the lower Court in its conclusion on this point, it is unnecessary to deal with the other issues arising in this case.

2. The plaintiff filed this suit, claiming damages from the District Board of South Malabar, on the ground that by order, dated 31st of March, 1925, the President improperly cancelled a contract with the plaintiff whereby the plaintiff had been given the lease, for one year, of the tolls in certain places in the Malabar District. The material facts are, that, pursuant to an invitation of tenders, the plaintiff made a tender on the 23rd of March, 1925, which was accepted by the Vice-President, during the Presidents absence, on the 24th of March. The President seems to have left directions that the papers relating to the lease of tolls should be placed before him and he was, therefore, apparently of opinion that the acceptance by the Vice-President was not authoris


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