Skip to content


Cassum Jooma Vs. Thucker Liladhur Kissowjee - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1878)ILR2Bom570
AppellantCassum Jooma
RespondentThucker Liladhur Kissowjee
Excerpt:
splitting cause of action - tradesman's account--act ix of 1850, section 34--small cause court jurisdiction. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared by supreme court under.....michael westropp, c.j.1. we think that this is the case of a tradesman's running account, and, therefore, falls within the authority of grimbly v. aykroyd (1 ex. 479).2. cassum jooma, the creditor, appears, indeed, to have kept separate accounts, in the hope of being thereby enabled to split his demand, and to sue on each of them in the court of small causes, and thus to frustrate the law which prohibits the splitting of a cause of action. we must decline to co-operate with him in attaining that object.3. reverse the judgment of the small cause court, and let a non-suit be entered.4. the plaintiffs must pay the costs of the suit and of this reference.
Judgment:

Michael Westropp, C.J.

1. We think that this is the case of a tradesman's running account, and, therefore, falls within the authority of Grimbly v. Aykroyd (1 Ex. 479).

2. Cassum Jooma, the creditor, appears, indeed, to have kept separate accounts, in the hope of being thereby enabled to split his demand, and to sue on each of them in the Court of Small Causes, and thus to frustrate the law which prohibits the splitting of a cause of action. We must decline to co-operate with him in attaining that object.

3. Reverse the judgment of the Small Cause Court, and let a non-suit be entered.

4. The plaintiffs must pay the costs of the suit and of this reference.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //