Skip to content


Juala Prasad Vs. Khuman Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1880)ILR2All617
AppellantJuala Prasad
RespondentKhuman Singh
Excerpt:
bond - interest. - 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.....straight, j.1. the question as to the amount of interest to be allowed to the plaintiff, subsequent to the expiration of the four years for which the bond was given, has been properly treated by the lower appellate court as one of damages. upon consideration we think that, having regard to the length of time, that has elapsed since the bond ran out, to the date on which this suit was instituted, the sum decreed by the subordinate judge is equitable and his decision must stand. but for the plaintiff's laches we should have thought the amount agreed by the defendant to be paid under the bond was a reasonable basis on which to estimate the subsequent damages (see also baldeo panday v. gokal rai i.l.r. i all. 603. the appeal is dismissed, but each party must pay his own costs.
Judgment:

Straight, J.

1. The question as to the amount of interest to be allowed to the plaintiff, subsequent to the expiration of the four years for which the bond was given, has been properly treated by the lower Appellate Court as one of damages. Upon consideration we think that, having regard to the length of time, that has elapsed since the bond ran out, to the date on which this suit was instituted, the sum decreed by the Subordinate Judge is equitable and his decision must stand. But for the plaintiff's laches we should have thought the amount agreed by the defendant to be paid under the bond was a reasonable basis on which to estimate the subsequent damages (see also Baldeo Panday v. Gokal Rai I.L.R. I All. 603. The appeal is dismissed, but each party must pay his own costs.


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