Soertsz, ACJ
Mutual Loan Agency, Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Dharmasena – Respondent
Cheetu-Cheetu existing at the time of enactment of
Ordinance-Failure to obtain exemption-Ordinance No. 61 of 1935 (Cap. 128), s. 46
(4).
Section 5 (2) of the Cheetus Ordinance bars an action
for the recovery of money due on a cheetu which was being conducted when the
Ordinance came into operation but which was not exempted under section 46 (4)
of the Ordinance.
APPEAL from a
judgment of the Commissioner of Requests of Kandy.
J. E. M. Obeyesekere (with him M. M.
Kumarakulasingham), for the plaintiff, appellant.
E. B. Wikremanayake, for the second
defendant, respondent.
June 9, 1939. SOERTSZ A.C.J.-
The Cheetus Ordinance is by no means easy to interpret and
apply. It has the teasing quality of a cross-word puzzle. It arises for
examination in this case in the following circumstances. The plaintiffs who are
a duly incorporated company, limited in liability, carried on a business of
auctioning cheetu among its subscribers on the condition inter alia that
each subscriber could buy the cheetu
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.