Skip to content


Balli Rai and ors. Vs. Mahabir Rai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1899)ILR21All178
AppellantBalli Rai and ors.
RespondentMahabir Rai
Excerpt:
.....board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised.....burkitt, j.1. i think a court fee of rs. 2 is sufficient. that is the fee leviable on an appeal against an order of a district court remanding a case under section 562 of the code of civil procedure. i know of no reason why a higher fee should be leviable on a memorandum of appeal against an order of a similar nature passed by a judge of this court. the wording of the letters patent does not affect the question.
Judgment:

Burkitt, J.

1. I think a court fee of Rs. 2 is sufficient. That is the fee leviable on an appeal against an order of a District Court remanding a case under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I know of no reason why a higher fee should be leviable on a memorandum of appeal against an order of a similar nature passed by a Judge of this Court. The wording of the Letters Patent does not affect the question.


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