Marikar V. Suppramaniam Chettair

1943 Present: Howard C.J., Soertsz, Keuneman,

de Kretser and Wijeyewardene 33,

MARIKAR Appellant, and SUPRAMANIAM CHETTIAR, Respondent.

147-D. C. Puttalam, 4,755.

Money Lending Ordinance (Cap. 67), Sec. 2 (I) (a) (b) (c), Sec. 10 (2) and Sec. 14-Action to reopen money lending transaction and to set aside promissory note-Counterclaim by defendant-Defendant in default under the Business Names Registration Ordinance-Right of defendant to counterclaim-Powers of Court-Where note is unenforceable or fictitious-Right to recover compound interest in Ceylon-Roman-Dutch law-Prescription-Civil Law Ordinance, Cap. 66, Sec. 5.

Where the plaintiff sued the defendant to set aside a promissory note made by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant, the reopening of certain transactions and the taking of an account between himself and the defendant,-

Held (by the whole Court) that the defendant, even if he had made default in furnishing particulars under the Business Names Registration Ordinance, may enforce by way of counterclaim his claim against the plaintiff in virtue of section 9(1) (c) of the Business Names Registration Ordinance.

Held, furt

Click Here to Read the rest of this document