Secretary of State Vs. Firm Imperial Metal Works - Court Judgment
|Appellant||Secretary of State|
|Respondent||Firm Imperial Metal Works|
- cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state 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..........the interpretation of section 77 of the railways act. the notice was addressed to the bengal nagpur railway company the headquarters of which are at nagpur, the cause of action arose on the 6th day of june and the notice was posted on the 5th december, the last day of the six months at aligarh and did not reach nagpur till the 8th in the case of one notice and the 9th in the case of the other. the judge of the court below is of opinion that it is sufficient if the notice was posted within limitation whether it could reach the railway company within the six months or not. the learned judge has overlooked the words 'preferred in writing... to the railway administration.' the law requires that the notice should not merely be preferred, but preferred to the railway administration.....
1. This revision from a decree of a Small Cause Court involves the interpretation of Section 77 of the Railways Act. The notice was addressed to the Bengal Nagpur Railway Company the headquarters of which are at Nagpur, The cause of action arose on the 6th day of June and the notice was posted on the 5th December, the last day of the six months at Aligarh and did not reach Nagpur till the 8th in the case of one notice and the 9th in the case of the other. The Judge of the Court below is of opinion that it is sufficient if the notice was posted within limitation whether it could reach the Railway Company within the six months or not. The learned Judge has overlooked the words 'preferred in writing... to the railway administration.' The law requires that the notice should not merely be preferred, but preferred to the railway administration within six months. What this means in the case of a notice sent by post is made clear by Sections 141 and 142 of the Indian Railways Act. If the notice was so posted that in the ordinary course of post it should have been delivered to the Railway Company within six months, this would have been a sufficient compliance with the law. A reference to a timetable shows that in this case the notice could not possibly have been delivered to the Agent within the time allowed by law. The suit should therefore have been dismissed, and I allow this revision and dismiss the suit with costs. I make no order as to costs in this Court as the respondent has not appeared.