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

Soertsz, ACJ
Mutual Loan Agency, Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Dharmasena – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: J. E. M. Obeyesekere, M. M. Kumarakulasingham
For the Respondents: E. B. Wikremanayake

1939 Present: Soertsz A. C. J.

MUTUAL LOAN AGENCY, LTD. v. DHARMASENA.

213-C. R. Kandy, 24,156.

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

















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