Skip to content


Harihar Dat Vs. Sheo Prasad and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1885)ILR7All41
AppellantHarihar Dat
RespondentSheo Prasad and ors.
Excerpt:
pre-emption - acts or omissions by pre-emptor's authorized agent binding on pre-emptor. - 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.....mahmood, j.1. it is a general rule of pre-emption that any act or omission on the part of a duly authorized agent or manager of the pre-emptor has the same effect upon pre-emption as if such actor omission had been made by the pre-emptor himself. the refusal of kantika to purchase the property now in suit therefore debars the plaintiff from maintaining the present suit. the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Mahmood, J.

1. It is a general rule of pre-emption that any act or omission on the part of a duly authorized agent or manager of the pre-emptor has the same effect upon pre-emption as if such actor omission had been made by the pre-emptor himself. The refusal of Kantika to purchase the property now in suit therefore debars the plaintiff from maintaining the present suit. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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