Pardas Singh and anr. Vs. Dwarka Singh and anr. - Court Judgment
|Judge||John Stanley, C.J. and ;Griffin, J.|
|Appellant||Pardas Singh and anr.|
|Respondent||Dwarka Singh and anr.|
.....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..........the order absolute for foreclosure is made. in other words, that the mortgagor can redeem the mortgaged property before the decree is made absolute. this was decided in the case of poresh nath mojumdar v. ramjadu mojumdar 16 c. 246; audhia v. baldeo pershad singh 21 c. 818 at p. 824; ramesh v. ram krishna 27 c. 705; narayana reddi v. papaya 22 m. 133; nabati v. mitter ken 20 a. 446 and salig ram v. muradan 25 a. 231. the learned vakil for the appellant, however, relies upon the case of ram lal v. tulsha kunwar 19 a. 180, which is certainly in favour of the view presented by him. that case, however, was not followed by one of the learned judges who took part in the decision and it has never, so far as we are aware, been followed in any court. we dismiss the appeal.
1. The point raised in this appeal is concluded by a great weight of authority. The right of redemption, it has been held, is not lost until the order absolute for foreclosure is made. In other words, that the mortgagor can redeem the mortgaged property before the decree is made absolute. This was decided in the case of Poresh Nath Mojumdar v. Ramjadu Mojumdar 16 C. 246; Audhia v. Baldeo Pershad Singh 21 C. 818 at p. 824; Ramesh v. Ram Krishna 27 C. 705; Narayana Reddi v. Papaya 22 M. 133; Nabati v. Mitter Ken 20 A. 446 and Salig Ram v. Muradan 25 A. 231. The learned Vakil for the appellant, however, relies upon the case of Ram Lal v. Tulsha Kunwar 19 A. 180, which is certainly in favour of the view presented by him. That case, however, was not followed by one of the learned Judges who took part in the decision and it has never, so far as we are aware, been followed in any Court. We dismiss the appeal.