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

1924 Supreme(Mad) 536

DEVADOSS
President Of The District Board – Appellant
Versus
G. Santhappa Naik – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Devadoss, J.

1. In these appeals the District Board of South Kanara is the appellant. The main contention for the appellant is that the contract entered into with the appellant by the plaintiffs did not become impossible of performance. The plaintiffs purchased the right to collect toll at two toll gates, Hoshangadi and Kollur during the official year 1918-10. In September of that year the Government pass-ed au ordinance that food grains etc., should cot be transported from the British territory to Mysore; and the Mysore Government also passed a similar ordinance as regards the transport of food grains, etc., from Mysore to South Kanara. In consequence to these two ordinances, the traffic in food grains, etc., was entirely stopped between South Kanara and Mysore. The plaintiffs naturally suffered a loss on account of the stoppage of the traffic in food grains, etc. They have brought two separate suits for the recovery of the amount collected from them. Both the Courts have given decree in their favour and the District Board has preferred these two second appeals.

2. The contention on behalf of the appellant that the contracts did not become wholly incapable of performance, I



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